Just another WordPress site

Blog

  • Transitions – Spring 2011

    Please join us in welcoming the following new NASJE members:

    • Hon. Timothy J. Baland, Facilitator, Literature for Lifelong Learning, Battle Lake, MN
    • Ms. Janice Calvi-Ruimerman Esq., Deputy Director, Continuing Education, Connecticut Center for Judicial Education, Hartford, CT
    • Hon. Debra Heise, Co-Director for Judicial Education, Idaho Supreme Court, Boise, ID
    • Ms. Julie C.S. McDonald, Program Attorney, Indiana Judicial Center, Indianapolis, IN
    • Hon. Michael McLaughlin, Co-Director of Judicial Education, Idaho Supreme Court, Boise, ID

  • Deborah Williamson retires… leaves a unique legacy to Kentucky’s courts and to NASJE

    Deborah Williamson, executive officer for the AOC Department of Court Services, retired Feb. 28, 2011. Deb served the Administrative Office of the Courts for two decades in a variety of capacities and most recently oversaw the Divisions of Court Interpreting Services, Judicial Branch Education, and Records and Statistics.

    Deb earned a reputation in Kentucky and nationally for her commitment to judicial and civic education.

    Her 23-year career with the courts began in 1988 as an intake officer for the Department of Juvenile Services. As general manager of Juvenile Services, she secured funding for the department’s first case management system. She merged the Jefferson and Fayette county contract programs into the statewide Court Designated Worker Program and instituted several nationally recognized civic and law-related education programs, including Project Citizen, Teen Court, and We the People.

    Deb was a grant specialist for the Office of Budget and Policy prior to being named general manager for the Office for Judicial Branch Education. She revitalized judicial education by providing cutting-edge research and education for judges, circuit court clerks and other court personnel. She earned a doctorate in sociology from the University of Kentucky in 2000 and has been an executive officer for the AOC since 2008.

    The diversity of Deb’s work within the court system has given her a great deal of institutional knowledge. Her work has benefited hundreds of judges, circuit court clerks, court employees, and Kentucky citizens over the years. Deb has an unwavering commitment to excellence and a tireless work ethic. Her legacy to the Kentucky courts has been unique.

    Her contributions to the profession include several years on the NASJE News editorial board, bringing us interesting and informative articles on a variety of subjects. NASJE News will miss her participation in contributing to the quarterly issues. We wish her the best as she leaves judicial branch education and begins a new phase of her life.

  • Join the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges for two core programs scheduled in 2011 in Reno

    1 – EVIDENCE IN JUVENILE & FAMILY COURTS — September 19-23, 2011 in Reno, NV
    How do the rules of evidence apply in dispositional hearings? Which rules apply to expert witness testimony that may not be scientific? How can the judge know if child hearsay should be admitted into evidence? How can the judge distinguish between character evidence as substantive proof and proof of character of a witness? How do you evaluate various concerns for privileges and confidentiality? Get the answers to these questions (and many more) at this intensive and informative training. You will learn the latest developments in law and psychology and be equipped with the legal knowledge and skills to make informed evidentiary rulings in juvenile and family court.

    Evidence is designed for judges with juvenile and/or family court jurisdiction, commissioners, masters, hearing officers, referees, and other judicial officers of the court.

    2 – CORE COLLEGE: Role of the Juvenile Court Judge — September 19-23, 2011 in Reno, NV
    Core College offers an excellent opportunity to network and learn with judges from around the country. Upon completion of this program, a judge will be better prepared to make informed decisions in the best interest of the child, family, and community. The program will focus on the unique leadership role of the judge and how that role can be used to enhance the effectiveness of the court. The curriculum is comprised of legal, medical, social, and psychological topics. This educational experience is one that you will find both enjoyable and rewarding.

    This course is designed for judges, commissioners, masters, hearing officers, referees, and other judicial officers with delinquency court jurisdiction. Other juvenile court practitioners may attend with special permission.

    For more information and to register visit www.ncjfcj.org.

    Contact Wendy L. Schiller at 775-784-1748 or at wschiller@ncjfcj.org with any additional questions.

  • Stopping the Revolving Door of the Justice Systems: Ten Principles for Sentencing of People With FASD

    by Anthony P. Wartnik, Judge (Retired)

    There are people in your courts who deserve special attention. Some have committed crimes they didn’t understand and some have been convicted of crimes for which they are not fully culpable and both are doomed to getting caught in the juvenile and or adult criminal justice revolving door unless we recommend and or do things differently. They may have Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and need special attention and special approaches to sentencing in order to avoid being continually caught in the revolving door. This paper identifies and discusses ten principles for the sentencing of people with FASD. These ten principles of sentencing for people with FASD were developed through the joint effort of Dr. Ann Streissguth, recently retired as the Director of the Fetal Alcohol Drug Unit (FADU) of the University of Washington School of Medicine, Ms. Kay Kelly, Project Manager of the FASD Legal Issues Resource Center at FADU, Professor Eric Schnapper, University of Washington School of Law liaison to the FADU, and myself.

    The ten principles for sentencing people with FASD were part of the Power Point presentation delivered by this author at the 2nd International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Conference on March 10, 2007. The discussion that follows each principle is based on my experiences in dealing with juveniles and adults with FASD or suspected of having FASD during my nearly twenty-five year career as a judge of the King County Superior Court in Seattle Washington, and particularly from 1994 until my retirement in 2005. My reference point throughout the discussion that follows is the sentencing laws of the State of Washington for felonies, frequently referred to as the Sentencing Reform Act or SRA. I will, however, cite a limited amount of case law from other jurisdictions to support a basic legal principle that FASD can constitute mitigation in sentencing. It should be noted that the SRA is a system for determining the presumed sentencing range for each offender based on the seriousness of the crime for which he or she is being sentenced and that person’s prior felony criminal history. The sentencing judge is required to impose a sentence that is within the standard range unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to impose an exceptional sentence outside the range, either below or above it. The judge has much more discretion in sentencing for misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor criminal offenses since the SRA does not apply to this class of crimes.

    The fact that a person has FASD may bear on sentencing in one or more of three ways. (1) The presence of FASD may reduce culpability for the criminal conduct. (2) The presence of FASD may require different measures to reduce the chances of recidivism. (3) The presence of FASD usually means significant difficulties functioning in adult society, problems which a particular sentence may either aggravate or alleviate.

    The first principle for sentencing of people with FASD is to consider whether the disability entails reduced culpability and thus warrants a less severe sentence. Assuming that there is statutory authority for the exercise of discretion or for sentencing outside a standard sentencing range, look at and consider matters that constitute mitigation. In Washington, our statute permits an exceptional (lower) sentence where the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct, or to conform conduct to the requirements of the law, was significantly impaired. Either or both of these factors may be present when an offender has FASD. There is case law authority supporting the concept that FASD can constitute a basis for a finding of mitigation for sentencing purposes. See, Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3rd 825 (9th Cir. 2002). See, also, State v. Brett, 126 Wn2d 868 (2001). Both of these cases dealt with ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating or seeking a diagnosis of FASD for sentencing mitigation. See, also, the case of Castro v. Oklahoma, 71 F3rd 1502 (1995), which held that a criminal defendant was entitled to appointment of an expert to develop evidence regarding FASD provided that there was a substantial showing that his mental state was in dispute and was relevant to the outcome of the case, to either the guilt determination or to the sentence to be imposed.

    It must be kept in mind that individuals with FASD frequently do not fully grasp the standards of conduct reflected in the criminal law. For example, an individual with FASD would usually understand that it was wrong to steal from a store, but might not understand that it was wrong to temporarily take an acquaintance’s car without permission. Second, individuals with FASD at times engage in impulsive behavior, unable to resist the urge to do something they may grasp as wrong. Shoplifting items for personal use or for the use of a “friend” is among the offenses they commit most often. The lack of apparent predisposition to commit a crime, the participation by being induced by others, is also a mitigating circumstance in Washington. Individuals with FASD, often anxious to please others and unsophisticated about whether they are being used, can too easily be persuaded to engage in conduct, which they may or may not fully realize is criminal, by individuals with substantial criminal records and or substantial criminal sophistication.

    The second principle for sentencing is to avoid lengthy (or any) incarceration in favor of longer periods of supervision. Although community safety is of primary or significant concern in any sentencing, do not let it inappropriately control your better judgment. When you are uncomfortable due to concerns about whether leaving a defendant with FASD in the community presents a risk to the community, it is far too easy to use community safety considerations as a justification for incarceration rather than facing the issue head-on in relation to long-term consideration of what the risk to the community will be upon release of the defendant from incarceration. Lengthy incarceration usually does not contribute in any way to preventing further offenses by individuals with FASD; often times it may do the opposite. Remember that this offender normally doesn’t learn from prior experiences and is not able to apply them to new situations. The result may be that you are able to protect the community during the period of incarceration but the offender will be as or more dangerous upon release from custody due to an inability to learn from the incarceration experience and an inability to link the incarceration with the crime that gave rise to it.

    The prospect of a lengthy sentence (or of a longer sentence for a more serious crime) is unlikely to affect an individual with FASD. These individuals have only a limited grasp of cause and effect and have trouble planning for even a single day; they would usually be incapable of weighing the risk of a long prison term against the hoped for gain from a particular offense. Having served a long sentence may have no effect on future conduct. Individuals with FASD at times do not fully understand why they are (or were) in prison. Conversely, prolonged incarceration may severely harm the ability of an already disabled individual with FASD to function when he or she returns to society. Think of the emotional effect of putting a ten-year-old in an adult prison. Additionally, those disabled by FASD are often vulnerable to victimization, both physically and emotionally, by fellow inmates. An introduction of the defendant with FASD into an inmate population may result in continued destructive influences even after release from custody. The social arrangements that earlier assisted an individual with FASD to function in society (housing, jobs, etc.) are likely to disappear when they are incarcerated for an extended period.

    The third principle of sentencing is to use milder but targeted sanctions. Sanctions can work if they are sufficiently limited so as to be non-destructive, are used prospectively and are targeted at affecting very specific conduct. Generalized deterrence is unlikely to be effective because it is directed at a large and complex set of rules (“obey the law or you will go to prison”) which an individual with FASD does not fully understand; in any event, the connection is simply too abstract for an individual with FASD to grasp and understand. People with FASD tend to see things in concrete terms and respond better to concrete presentations. What may work is linking a particular sanction (say, ten hours of community service) to a very specific type of conduct the court wants to prevent (e.g.), getting drunk or shoplifting. These individuals can master the importance and meaning of a particular rule (or a few) tied to known sanctions. The best analogy might be to a rule that a six-year-old would be sent to his room any time he took his sibling’s toys. For such a system to work, the individual with FASD must be repeatedly reminded of the rule (and rule-sanction connection). Repetition is the key to effective learning for those with this disability. And, the sanction should focus on something that is of major significance (e.g.), a sanction for using drugs, but not a sanction for being late to an appointment.

    The fourth principle of sentencing is to impose, recommend or arrange for a longer term of supervision. Individuals with FASD have a life-long need for guidance from a non-disabled individual and for a variety of social services. These are not defendants who merely need to (or can) straighten their lives out, or who (as in the case of juvenile offenders) are going to mature with time. Supervision by a Department of Corrections (or other) probation official who understands FASD is of ongoing importance for as long as it can be arranged, both to avoid recidivism and to improve functioning. The court should attempt to impress the importance of this on both the prosecution (which may focus primarily on the amount of prison or jail time) and the defense (which usually seeks to have the defendant on the street and off supervision as soon as possible). The extended supervision sentence is one that, generally, neither side will ask for. It may be necessary to seek legislation that mandates longer periods of supervision for people with FASD just as legislatures have done in other problem areas such as with sex offenders, violent and persistent offenders, etc. Judges should be creative in finding ways to prolong Department of Corrections or other supervision, through the consent of the parties, by postponing final sentencing, or other means.

    The fifth principle of sentencing is to use the judge’s position of authority (stature) with the defendant. Individuals with FASD often have great respect for authority figures and are anxious to please. The particular authority and stature of a judge and the trappings of a courtroom (or chambers) can be important tools in shaping their behavior. Where practicable, a defendant with FASD should be asked (over and above any Department of Corrections supervision) to return on a regular basis to report to the judge on how he or she is doing. Positive behavior should be greeted with much praise and support (as we have already learned to do with defendants in the drug treatment court and mental health court settings). Recognition of success (certificates, tokens memorializing periods of sobriety, courtroom applause) may be helpful. This approach has certainly become part of the culture in drug treatment and mental health courts. Failures should be the occasion to review the sentencing plan, call together the interested agencies, implement other services, and discuss with the defendant and the sponsor or advocate the defendant’s plan for improvement.

    It may be possible to persuade the defendant, after formal supervision has ended, to continue to come to the courtroom or chambers on a regular basis to report to the judge. While that might have to be voluntary, and most defendants would have no interest, individuals with FASD might be pleased to continue their connection with the judge. I was a local district court judge from 1971 to 1980 where I handled misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases. The post-sentence case load was more than the local probation department could supervise effectively. I met anywhere from monthly to every 90 days with many of the people that I had ordered onto probation. This was one of the most enjoyable and satisfying parts of my judicial work. I also believe, based on the responses received from the probationers that they appreciated the personal effort taken by me as “my” judge.

    The sixth principle of sentencing is to obtain a sponsor or advocate for the defendant. Individuals with FASD need guidance and assistance from a non-disabled individual. Department of Corrections officials or probation officers will only be available for so long and can devote only a limited amount of time to any one probationer.

    Whenever possible, someone else should be found who will agree to help the defendant on an ongoing basis. This might be a family member (such as a responsible parent or sibling), a family friend, a relative, or someone in a local organization (e.g.), a church group, retired citizens group, etc.. Defense counsel or probation officials could be asked to look for someone who would function in this capacity. When found, this individual should be asked to come into court with the defendant to discuss his or her participation. Ideally, such a person would be found before sentencing, and at the hearing, would assure the court and the defendant of his or her willingness to play a supportive role.

    The seventh principle of sentencing is to create a structure in the defendant’s life. These individuals often lack the basic skills needed to organize a day. At best, needed tasks (shopping for, and preparing meals, getting to work, laundry, personal hygiene, etc.) may go undone; at worst the individual will drift into destructive conduct for want of any sense of how to better utilize his or her time. Structure could include linkage with vocational rehabilitation services, a sheltered workshop (particularly one that provides job coaches and will help the client find a job that he or she is capable of being successful at and who is also skilled in training the client in maximizing the application of his or her strengths to the requirements of the job). This may include the use of alternative approaches for performing the required work, use of alternative types of tools, equipment, etc. which is a very common practice in training persons with developmental disabilities.

    External structure (like an “external brain”) can help greatly. This might include (a) living in a group home or facility with an established regiment (when to get up, eat, etc.), (b) a very structured (even part time) job (indeed one of the values of even part time employment is that it gives someone with FASD something regularized that he or she needs to do every day, (c) a daily schedule created in collaboration with the defendant and overseen by a parent, advocate, sponsor, or other party, (d) involvement in frequently scheduled treatment programs such as classes in anger management , sexual deviancy treatment, drug testing, drug treatment, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, family counseling, group therapy and recreational groups.

    The eighth principle of sentencing is to write out, simplify and repeat rules/conditions of supervision. Individuals with FASD will not readily assimilate rules or admonitions from the court or probation. The steps they are to take need to be put in writing and framed in simple, non-legalistic terminology. The Judgment and Sentence or the Conditions of Supervision Appendix should set out all of the conditions in short and concise statements using simple and understandable (to the defendant) language. Repetition is the key to the manner in which these individuals learn. Once is not enough. Probation officials and, in certain instances the court, need to go over the rules (what to do, what not to do) again and again and again, and in very simple and concise statements. Even requiring the defendant to comply with repetitive tasks is a helpful activity in the learning process (e.g.), require the defendant to call the employer to say, “I am leaving home for work now” and to call the parent or other support person every day to say, “I have finished work and am leaving for home.”

    The ninth principle of sentencing is to make sure the probation officer understands FASD. Once sentencing is over, the probation officer ultimately assigned to the defendant will have far more contact with the defendant than will the court. For that reason, the court needs to make sure that the probation officer knows that the defendant has FASD and understands the disability, as well as the communication, expectations, and performance issues and how to address them. The sentencing order should include (in its body or appendix) a statement that the defendant has FASD and an explanation of the disability. Once a probation officer is assigned to the defendant, where possible, that officer should be directed to accompany the defendant to court to discuss his or her case with the judge.

    If the defendant is going to be incarcerated, the court should take appropriate steps to assure that prison or jail officials know that the inmate is disabled and that they receive information about the disability.

    One of the things you might want to have the probation officer do, or that the court might want to do at the time of sentencing is to give the defendant a card with instructions to keep it on his or her person at all times and to show it immediately to any law enforcement officer who contacts the defendant that says, “I have FASD. I want to talk to an attorney. I want my mother or father/guardian/advocate called immediately and want one of them present before I will talk.”

    The tenth and final principle for sentencing of people with FASD is not to overreact to probation violations – particularly status offenses. Those disabled by FASD will often engage in behaviors for which a non-disabled probationer would be punished. Individuals with FASD have difficulty remembering and keeping appointments; whether it is the required meeting with the probation officer or AA attendance, their failure to do so is usually not an act of defiance, but a symptom of the disability. The court could suggest to the probation officer that the problem of missed appointments be dealt with prospectively by setting up a system of prompts and by drawing on the support of the sponsor or advocate.

    These individuals may have annoying personal mannerisms that in a non-disabled individual would be a sign of recalcitrance or defiant disrespect. Their characteristic impulsivity can yield inappropriate expressions of anger which in the non-disabled would call for sanctions. However, understanding the nature of the cognitive deficits, probation officials can look past this, evaluating a probationer’s conduct in the context of his or her disability. The focus should be on bringing about compliance with rules of substantial inherent importance (e.g.), not using drugs, rather than rules that the Department of Corrections or probation department would ordinarily enforce in order to encourage the non-disabled probationer to assume responsibility for fulfilling his or her supervision responsibilities.

    In conclusion, if individuals with FASD are to be successful on probation or parole, and if they are to take their place in the community as productive and contributing members of society, then all of us who play a role in the system need to provide them with the special attention and special approaches to sentencing and supervision that maximizes their opportunity for success. If we do not address the special needs of those with FASD, and if we do not strive to develop and utilize the special approaches that are unique to their needs, we doom them to a recidivistic life style and continual re-entry into the revolving doors of the justice system, whether it be juvenile court system or the adult criminal justice system.

    Anthony P. Wartnik, Judge (Retired)
    APW Consultants
    8811 SE 55th Pl.
    Mercer Island, WA 98040
    Phone: 206-232-2970
    Cell Phone: 206-290-0451
    Email: TheAdjudicator@comcast.net

    ******

    Judge Anthony (Tony) Wartnik (Retired) has a long and distinguished career in law and has been recognized by his peers for his outstanding contribution to his field. His 34 year career as a trial judge started in 1971 as a District Court (Limited Jurisdiction) Judge, and he retired in 2005 as the Senior Judge of the King County Superior Court (General Jurisdiction) of the State of Washington where he served from 1980 to 2005. During his Superior Court career, Judge Wartnik served as Presiding Judge for the Juvenile Court, Chief Judge for the Family Law Court, and chair of the Family Law Department and the Family and Juvenile Law committees. Tony also was the Dean Emeritus of the Washington Judicial College, Chair of the Judicial College Board of Trustees, and Chair of the Washington Supreme Court Education Committee. Judge Wartnik chaired a multi-disciplinary task force to establish protocols for the determination of competency for youth with organic brain damage and chaired Governor Mike Lowry’s Advisory Panel on FAS/FAE.

    Judge Wartnik is currently the Legal Director for FASD Experts and a consultant to the University of Washington Medical School’s Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit (FADU). In his role with FASD Experts, Judge Wartnik provides general legal review of the Team’s functioning and protocol development and also serves as a liaison between the Team and the client’s legal counsel as well as being available as a consultant to legal counsel, providing legal expertise regarding specific issues of relevance. He has been a presenter at numerous local, state, interstate, national and international conferences and workshops on issues related to FASD and the juvenile and adult justice systems. He is a graduate of the SAMSHA sponsored FASD workshop “Training the Trainers.”

  • Open to all regions: Western Region Webinar

    building with columns

    OPEN TO ALL REGIONS: WESTERN REGION WEBINAR
    Monday, May 23, 2011
    10-11:30 a.m. (Pacific Time)

    Evidence-Based Sentencing Curriculum
    Honorable Roger K. Warren, President Emeritus, National Center for State Courts

    The National Center for State Courts has developed a new evidence‐based sentencing curriculum. The
    model curriculum is designed to help judges use evidence‐based sentencing strategies to decrease the
    number of repeat offenders and increase safety in their communities. Some examples of evidence‐based
    sentencing strategies include:

    • using validated offender‐risk and needs‐assessment tools;
    • focusing corrections resources on medium‐ and high‐risk offenders rather than low‐risk offenders who aren’t likely to reoffend;
    • targeting services that have been proven to best predict future criminality to offender characteristics; and
    • using swift, certain, and graduated sanctions for probation violations.

    This interactive session is a webinar version of the well-received March 2-3, 2011, Western Region Conference workshop of the same title.

    Questions? Contact Michael Roosevelt, NASJE Western Region Director

  • Opinions from the field: An overview of Kentucky’s Case and Docket Management System Survey

    Dr. Deborah Williamson, Adam K. Matz, Jim Columbia, Janet Bixler & NormaJean Conn

    Introduction
    The Kentucky Court of Justice (KCOJ) processes over a million cases per year. Though caseloads continue to rise throughout the state the KCOJ has reluctantly relinquished over 100 full-time positions as a result of economic woes incurred over the past two years (Hiatt, 2009; 2010). Now more than ever the courts must operate more efficiently to maximize resources, provide justice, resolve civil disputes, assist victims of crime, and protect the employees who depend on the KCOJ. One method that has consistently aided organizations in efficiency is the proper investment in technological solutions that reduce tedious tasks through automation, thereby freeing up valuable worker time and effort for more complex tasks. However, there appears to be some anecdotal accounts of the KCOJ’s primary case management system, KYCourts II, as being outdated, possessing an unintuitive interface that contributes to errors in data entry, lacking of documentation and training on how the system is organized and/or how to use it, and lacking standardization across circuits and districts (Matz, Adams, & Williamson, 2010; Matz, Adams, Williamson, Cloyd, & Schiflett, 2009). Further complicating matters is the reality that KYCourts II is but one of several case management systems in use by the Kentucky Court of Justice. These systems, though invaluable to the courts, have often been criticized for being uncoordinated and requiring monotonous duplication.

    An assessment conducted by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) reiterated many of these points and also made note of the need for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Technology Department to more actively engage feedback from the field when developing case management solutions for the courts (Clark & Embley, 2009). Following the recommendations of the NCSC and the new CIO Charles Byers, the AOC has since convened a working group of business analysts to actively seek out feedback from the field. They have been tasked with determining the needs of practitioners who work in the field everyday (e.g., judges, clerks, pretrial officers, court designated workers, etc.). In addition to numerous interviews, focus groups and telephone conversations, a web-based survey was developed to solicit additional input from all KCOJ employees. Best regarded as a pilot project, preliminary results of the survey are discussed herein with implications for system needs and recommendations for further research.

    Survey Instrument And Dissemination
    To gather more input from the field a web-based survey instrument was developed using available literature on technology solutions and the working expertise of the business analysts, research experts, and the director’s office. The team relied heavily on technology assessments and literature available from the Tennessee, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Maryland court systems (see Crawford, Koenig, Polansky, Smith, & Lyons, 1999; MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C., 2009; National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration, 2001). Time constraints prohibited a more thorough survey methodology (see Babbie, 2007; Fitzgerald & Cox, 1992; Leeuw, Hox, & Dillman, 2008). The business analysts convened for the first time to discuss the survey on October 22, 2010. After carefully reviewing available literature an initial draft instrument was developed on November 7th and shared with members of the business analyst working-group as well as Dr. Williamson and Kathy Schiflett for their research expertise. Numerous suggestions and revisions were incorporated into a near-final version before being remitted to the director’s office on November 15th. Dr. Williamson and the working group worked with the director’s office in making several additional revisions to make the survey suitable for all KCOJ personnel. The survey was constructed and facilitated using a web-based application known as SelectSurvey. A pre-notice e-mail was sent to all KCOJ staff on December 2nd, which detailed the purpose of the survey and why it was important for respondents to complete the questionnaire. It also provided the date as to when associates should expect to receive the survey. The survey was officially rolled-out on December 8th by e-mail. An accompanying e-mail message reiterated the survey’s importance and provided a link to the web-based questionnaire. The survey was set up as anonymous (did not require a logon/registration) but was limited to one response per computer/ IP address. A follow-up e-mail was sent out to all KCOJ staff on December 14th before the survey was closed on December 15th.

    Of the 4,111 e-mail inboxes reported to have received the survey notice, there were a total of 1,066 total respondents (though SelectSurvey indicated 1,120 had opened the survey, 54 did not actually complete any items of the survey). As of December 6th it was indicated there were 3,584 KCOJ employees and 403 elected officials (e.g., elected justices, judges, and circuit court clerks). This gives us a total of 3,987 KCOJ employees. It was indicated that the survey e-mail reached a total of 4,111 recipients. It is unclear the source of the discrepancy (e.g., one source could be e-mail accounts that have remained active after employees have resigned or left the KCOJ). Though mostly an approximation, we can say that of the 4,111 e-mail inboxes, which received a link to the survey, there was a response rate of 25.9%.

    Findings

    Respondent Characteristics
    Respondents vary across all levels of the KCOJ with most consisting of AOC employees (34.3%). However, there is a good variety of respondents from circuit court (14.7%), family court (8.8%), district court (16.5%), and the office of the circuit court clerk (19.0%). This suggests, to some extent, adequate representation across the various specialties of the KCOJ. The majority of respondents were female (54.6%) and white (64.2%). These results do coincide with the general demographics of the KCOJ. Not looking at the roughly 400 elected officials (of which demographic data were not readily available), of the approximately 3,575 KCOJ employees 2,780 (77.8%) were female and 795 (22.2%) were male as reported by the AOC’s Human Resources Department. In addition 3,318 (92.8%) were reported as being white and 257 non-white (7.2%). These comparisons lend support to the generalization of these findings to the KCOJ abroad.

    Of the 737 responses to the experience item, on average respondents had worked at the KCOJ for about 10 years. The standard deviation was 7.4 meaning on average respondents’ experience varied from the mean about 7 and a half years. The range was 0 to 41 years. Finally, the average (i.e., mean) age of the 690 respondents who answered the birth-year item was 44.1 with a standard deviation of 11.9. In other words, on average respondents were 44 years of age and, on average, respondents’ age varied from the mean about 12 years. Age ranged from a low of 18 to a high of 80 years old.

    Technology in the Courts
    Though we may be in the ‘digital age’ results indicate the courts are still in transition. Over 75% of respondents indicate still using paper documents or a combination of paper and electronic documents. Only 2% of respondents indicated they have liberated themselves from paper files completely.

    Though most respondents indicated they rely on KYCourts II (31.2%) as their primary case management system, there are well over a dozen individual data systems in use within the courts. Each system corresponds to a unique purpose and is maintained independently from the others.

    When asked of their confidence in data provided by their system, or the KCOJ overall, most respondents were confident or very confident (61.2% and 58.4% respectively) the data were accurate and reliable. This is encouraging and, in some ways, surprising given the many anecdotal comments from the field about the systems and the various errors that lurk within them. Only about 6% of respondents indicated a lack of confidence in the courts data. However, it’s possible those employees who are most disgruntled with the systems data may have declined participation in the survey. In addition, it’s likely that respondents answered these items in relation to their belief in their own data quality and not necessarily the system holistically.

    Instead of improving data quality, what appears to be the motivating force behind many KCOJ employees’ desire for a new case management system is the prospect of better coordination and integration between courts and departments. Over 60% of all respondents indicated the integration of electronic data from all four levels of the court system into one case management system was important (25.6%) or very important (40.7%). There’s a clear desire for more intra-agency information sharing and collaboration.

    The KCOJ has a somewhat mixed reputation for being on the cutting-edge of technology. Though roughly 35% of employees feel the KCOJ is technologically savvy, about 31% of employees were neutral and 14% felt the KCOJ has failed to keep up with modern technological advancements. Over 60% of respondents indicated they could do their job better if they had the right technological tools. Likewise, the KCOJ would benefit from improved efficiency.

    When asked about developing case management solutions employees indicated a strong desire to borrow or learn from tools used successfully by other state courts (62.0%). When asked about the use of vendors to supply case management solutions the field was generally indifferent showing no preference or disdain towards their procurement (30.8% agreed, 32.7% were neutral, and 16.9% disagreed with the use of vendors).

    Desirable Features
    There’s a strong interest in web-based applications and services through the case management system (58.3%). Such service allows for greater accessibility and flexibility. When asked about specific services to aid in data entry and case management the majority of respondents were in favor of all suggested solutions. Items concerned features including warning prompts (68.8%), default codes (58.4%), calendar integration (61.3%), instant messaging (57.1%), access to multimedia (e.g., audio, video) files (58.2%), pop-up reminders or ‘ticklers’ (62.3%), warrant generation (52.4%), keyword/individual searches of the system (61.9%), and access of court information from a variety of mobile devices including Kindles and smart phones (47.2%).

    Recommendations

    Practical Implications
    There is a keen desire for more integration of KCOJ systems across jurisdictions and court levels. Further, there is a clear indication the full potential of current personnel has not yet been realized due to case management system inadequacies.

    Support for a case management solution that integrates the various courts; provides improved accessibility and flexibility; and better meets the needs of judges, clerks, and the many other court professionals has steadily risen over the past couple of years. The case management system exists at the heart of the court system. Without a fully functional system the courts will struggle to manage rising caseloads, subjecting itself to potential delays in justice and a reduction in public safety abroad. In some respects the need for a more integrated case management system is a reflection of the growing pains of a unified judicial system that continues to manifest itself through various forms and associations (see Metzmeier, Whiteman, & Nemes, 2006).

    The question is not if the KCOJ needs a modern technology solution but rather what this system should do, how to develop it, and what costs are likely to be incurred. Unfortunately, such questions are beyond the scope of this article.

    Implications for Further Research
    This article contains a brief overview of quantitative data compiled from the KCOJ Case and Docket Management System Survey. That said further research is sorely needed. Each court, department, and position level possesses unique needs that require a distinct survey tailored for each. In addition, the courts and its data do not exist in a vacuum but rather in coordination with numerous external agencies. Changes in case management technology require the input of outside constituents and partners including the Department of Public Advocacy, Department of Corrections, and law enforcement.

    The courts are strongly urged to use a variety of research strategies. Prior to survey development business analyst should first develop an intimate body of knowledge of a given court or department through designated focus groups and interviews with relevant personnel. In addition, a more thorough literature search and review is needed. Combined, these materials provide the necessary backdrop for more thorough survey conceptualization and operationalization. This, however, is only the beginning of survey development. Each survey, tailored to a given court/department, must then be pre-tested with professionals in that court/department to ensure its applicability and clarity. Once an instrument is fully developed it should be disseminated by mail as a paper document (results of this survey showed many court professionals still prefer paper documents). The process should start with a pre-notice letter, dissemination of the survey a week later, a follow-up survey two weeks later, a second follow-up with an additional copy of the survey two more weeks later, and a final reminder letter in another two weeks (see Leeuw et al., 2008). Whereas the current survey was generic to accommodate the wide variety of respondents, future surveys should be more focused. Sampling frames need to be developed and, when necessary, random stratified sampling procedures utilized if surveying entire populations would otherwise prove too extraneous or costly (see Babbie, 2007). Such technological assessments are time-consuming, but necessary. Court leaders should expect to spend 1-2 years gathering additional input and mapping out current court processes.

    Note: The previous article was derived from a research brief for the KCOJ/AOC. The complete research brief contains all survey items and quantitative data tables. Please contact Jim Columbia at jimcolumbia@kycourts.net for a copy of the brief or for further correspondence.

    References

    Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Clark, T. M., & Embley, P. (2009). Kentucky courts technology assessment report. Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts.

    Crawford, C., Koenig, S., Polansky, L., Smith, P., & Lyons, D. (1999). Information technology systems integration and migration analysis. Eureka, CA: Justice Served.

    Fitzgerald, J. D., & Cox, S. M. (1992). Research methods in criminal justice: An introduction. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Hiatt, L. A. (2009, September 15). Administrative Office of the Courts announces operational cuts, abolishes 47 positions to prepare for judicial branch budget deficit. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Kentucky Court of Justice: http://courts.ky.gov/pressreleases/095152009LAH1.htm

    Hiatt, L. A. (2010, April 30). Chief Justice Minton announces Judicial Branch Reduction Plan for FY11. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from Kentucky Court of Justice: http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/kycourts/PR04302010LAHA.htm

    Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Matz, A. K., Adams, J. H., & Williamson, D. (2010). Judicial perceptions of efficiency and culture: A research brief and needs assessment. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    Matz, A. K., Adams, J. H., Williamson, D., Cloyd, J., & Schiflett, K. (2009). Examining culture in the courtroom: A study of culture within the Kentucky Court of Justice. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    Metzmeier, K. X., Whiteman, M., & Nemes, J. (2006). United at last: The judicial article and the struggle to reform Kentucky’s courts. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C. (2009). Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts case management system replacement: Integrated statewide case management system project charter. Seattle, WA.

    National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration (2001). Court technology survey report. Sacramento, CA: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

    Biographies

    Dr. Deborah Williamson is a veteran manager with the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts, Dr. Deborah Williamson currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Department of Court Services. Spanning over two decades, Williamson’s career with the state court system has involved diverse assignments such as management of the statewide juvenile intake program, grants office, and the nationally renowned judicial branch education program. A Doctor of Philosophy graduate from the University of Kentucky, Dr. Williamson is currently developing courses in the subfield of criminology for undergraduates majoring in sociology. Her publications have appeared in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Social Work in Education, and Juvenile and Family Court Journal.

    Adam K. Matz, M.S. is a Research Associate with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and former Statistician for the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts. His research has focused on topics of gang violence, cultural congruence in local circuit courts, social efficacy in local communities, as well as job satisfaction and organizational climate within juvenile justice institutions. Additionally, he now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Matz earned his bachelor’s degree in police studies and master’s degree in correctional and juvenile justice studies from Eastern Kentucky University. His publications have appeared in journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior and Criminal Justice Review.

    James R. Columbia retired from the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts in 2009 after a 22-year career that included positions as a Court Designated Worker, Regional Supervisor and Information Systems Supervisor for the Juvenile Services division, in which capacity he coordinated development of a statewide, electronic case management and data system. He subsequently was appointed Manager of the Records and Research & Statistics divisions of the AOC. He now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Columbia holds an associate degree in science from Maysville Community College and a bachelor’s degree in business, with a major in accounting, from the University of Kentucky.

    Janet Bixler has joined the Administrative Office of the Courts as a Business Analyst for researching the needs for a unified case management system. She has served as a business analyst, technical writer, and project manager in the technology industry. Ms Bixler has expertise in researching current information technology processes, developing new processes, and documenting and training those processes to applicable users. Ms. Bixler earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism with a minor in political science from the University of Kentucky. She has completed information technology classes at the Kentucky Community & Technical College System.

    Jean Conn serves as a Business Analyst for the Administrative Office of the Courts. She will work with a newly appointed project team to research and document the business needs for a new case management system. Mrs. Conn was a Project Manager and Business Analyst for Humana, Automatic Data Processing, Kindred Healthcare and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. She has extensive experience working as a liaison between Information Technology and the business users. Mrs. Conn has implemented a variety of systems such as HRIS, benefits enrollment, medical insurance, and clinical systems. She graduated from Sullivan Junior College majoring in computer programming. She also attended Sullivan University and Bellarmine University.

  • Judicial Use of Social Media

    by Daniel J. Crothers, Justice, North Dakota Supreme Court

    A Georgia judge recently resigned after that State’s Judicial Qualifications Commission investigated the judge’s Facebook messaging with a defendant appearing in a pending matter before him.

    Late last year, a New York judge was reassigned after allegations surfaced that he was updating his Facebook status from the bench and that he once took a picture of his crowded courtroom, posting it on his active, public, Facebook page.

    In late 2009, Florida authorities issued a judicial ethics advisory opinion concluding judges cannot “friend” lawyers on social network websites like Facebook or MySpace. But South Carolina’s judicial ethics advisory committee concluded a judge could “friend” law enforcement officers and court employees if they were not discussing anything related to the judge’s position.

    The North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission concluded in 2009 that a judge should not utilize a listserv to obtain advice on a legal topic that was applicable to a proceeding before that judge.

    These stories and others like them are appearing in newspapers and legal periodicals nationwide, leading us to ask: Can judges and court personnel have Facebook or MySpace pages? Can judges and court personnel make blog postings or participate in listservs?

    The general answer to each of these questions is “yes,” but….

    A judge’s actions are constrained by the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, derivations of which are in place in most United States jurisdictions. The Code requires, in some instances pertinent to use of social media, that the judge exercise reasonable direction and control over attorneys and staff who report to the judge.

    The Code generally allows judges to engage in extra-judicial activities that do not demean the judicial office, that do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality and that do not interfere with the performance of judicial duties. Therefore, judges and court staff, like most other people, can use the internet for lawful purposes, including maintaining and using social networking tools and sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace as long as those uses stay clear of courts, court business and matters that frequently appear in the courts.

    But the Florida Committee noted, “While judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office.”

    For example, judges have an obligation under the Code not to lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others, nor to convey or to permit others to convey the impression they are in a special position to influence the judge. On this basis a majority of the Florida Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that a judge would act unethically by “friending” a lawyer on a Facebook page. Florida’s conclusion was based on the Facebook feature that mutual “friends” appear on each other’s page, even with the highest privacy settings invoked. At a minimum, these mutual “friends” are visible to other “friends” of the respective subscriber. Absent use of the highest privacy settings, the judge-lawyer “friend” status is viewable by all internet users.

    So too are judges and staff prohibited from participating in improper ex parte communications in a pending or impending matter. This was one of the reasons for the disciplinary investigation of the Georgia judge.

    Ex parte communications should always be a concern when a judge or a member of the judge’s staff make posts or read posts about a court case or a likely court case while using Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, a blog, a listserv or any other social network. That concern is justified because use of these social networks means we are communicating (even as passive readers) with an unknown segment of the public, including those who may appear as parties or advocates before us.

    The status of law in this area is quickly developing. Until the law in your state is clarified or until you request a judicial ethics advisory opinion (if you are able), all judges and court staff using social media websites would do well to remember the advice given in the 1980s television show Hill Street Blues by dispatch Sergeant Phil Esterhaus:“Hey, let’s be careful out there…”

    Justice Crothers regularly conducts training for judges and lawyers on ethics and technology, and on judicial disqualification. He can be reached at dcrothers@ndcourts.gov

  • Juvenile Court Users’ Research and Technical Assistance Project

    A Project of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts & The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
    by Cheri Ely, M.A., LSW, Program Manager, NCJFCJ

    The Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts is dedicated to improving the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, families, and self-represented litigants in the California courts. One of the projects created to help improve the quality of justice provided is the Juvenile Court Users’ Research and Technical Assistance Project. The starting point for this project was the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008, completed by the Judicial Council, which identifies the experiences of court users and professionals in California.

    From these statewide findings, and working with courts in California, this project aimed to identify barriers to the court users’ comprehension of court processes, propose solutions and assist these courts with implementation of developed improvement plans. For the purposes of this project, Court User is defined as the youth involved in the juvenile justice system, his/her parent or guardian, or a victim of a juvenile offender. This 18 month project occurred between June 2009 and December 2010.

    The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) was contracted as the consultant to work with the selected juvenile courts to identify areas that may need improvement. Four courts initially accepted invitations to participate in this project: Fresno, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Cruz, although Sacramento withdrew from the project during the early stages. NCJFCJ worked with court staff, stakeholders, and court users in the juvenile justice system to identify and assess barriers that may effect participation in the court. A strategic plan was then developed to address those barriers. The California AOC legal and research staff was available to provide legal technical assistance during implementation and to evaluate the pilot improvement projects with systematic research and reporting.

    Some of the common barriers experienced by Court Users in the participating project sites included:

    • Difficulty in understanding outcomes of court hearings or the court case process
    • Lack of a central contact person to receive and answer questions from Court Users
    • Frustratingly long wait times at the courthouses for hearings, which caused loss of time from work or school
    • Barriers for victims of juvenile offenders included:
    • Inconsistent notifications of hearings
    • Confusion regarding the restitution process
    • Safety concerns when encountering the juvenile offender and his/her family at the courthouse.

    Project sites developed varied strategic action plans and goals to assist Court Users. Strategies included improving understanding of the juvenile court case process through videos, literature specific to juvenile courts, modifying language used in hearings, or providing a central point of contact for questions and answers at the courthouse. Strategies to improve victim participation included providing information on victim rights, improving safety for victims in the courthouse and increasing awareness of victim advocacy services. Below are some specific intervention strategies that were implemented:

    • Experiment with longer hearings to permit more meaningful exchanges
    • Schedule specific hearing times for cases to facilitate attendance by parents/guardians and victims
    • Create a juvenile court illustration that explains the role of each person in the court room
    • Assign a Family/Court Counselor/Consultant to assist with the case
    • Develop a Case Processing Flow Chart for display that clearly and simply explains the juvenile court process
    • Development of plain language scripts for use in court
    • Develop a video or other type of media that explains the court process, possibly narrated by a parent, youth and/or victim (to see a video currently in use, go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/)
    • Take a fresh look at your court – sit in waiting areas, tour facility, just observe
    • Escort victims and families in and out of courtroom separately
    • Separate waiting areas for juvenile offenders and victims
    • Receive feedback from court users on their comprehension of court language (regular surveys & evaluations)

    The Judicial Council intends to utilize lessons learned from this project and encourage courts statewide to evaluate their own processes in regards to Court User engagement and understanding and make improvements to produce positive outcomes for youth, families and victims involved in the juvenile justice system. For more information about this project, please contact:

    Center for Families, Children & the Courts
    Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
    455 Golden Gate Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
    CFCC@jud.ca.gov

  • Facilitating Large Group Discussions and Activities: Make Numbers Count

    by Kelly Tait

    An important function of judicial branch educators is to draw out the resources in the classroom—to build in interaction so everyone can learn from the different perspectives, experiences, and ideas of the participants. Facilitation skills are vital for encouraging the high level of participation that leads to deeper learning in adult education. Unfortunately, when the class size is large, many instructors hesitate to use activities that could be quite productive even—or sometimes especially—in large groups. They tend to over-rely on lecture and to count on a Q & A session or large class discussion for interaction, when in reality only a small percentage of people actually get to participate in those when the class is large.

    It can be challenging to involve everyone in a large group (often considered 50 or more people), but if you put planning and effort into it, you can draw on all of the tools you have available as an instructor–large and small group discussions, debates, case studies, learning games, role plays, problem-solving, etc., in addition to lecture. This article will discuss general approaches to creating productive interaction in large classes as well as specific tips on how to do it.

    Judge Jess Clanton facilitates a large class discussion at The National Judicial College
    Judge Jess Clanton facilitates a large class discussion at The National Judicial College

    GENERAL APPROACHES
    It is less overwhelming deciding how to get a large number of people to interact meaningfully and within time limits in your session if you think of participation on every level, from individuals to pairs, small groups, and the entire class. For instance, providing time for individuals to reflect on an issue or idea and then having them share it with a partner (“think-pair-share”) builds in a couple of types of learning and gets everyone in the room actively engaged, even if the class members number in the hundreds. It also only needs to take a couple of minutes.

    Going one step further–to small groups of three or four people–is quite manageable in large classes in virtually any setting, and it doesn’t need to take a lot of time if the reason for and task of the group are well-conceived and the instructions are well-communicated. This number of learners in a small group allows varied perspectives while limiting the time necessary for group processing and also keeping the logistics fairly simple (members don’t need to move, are still able to hear each other, etc.). Too many instructors of large classes allow participants to lose the added perspectives as well the in-depth level of processing and practice that small groups can allow.

    Don’t just use small groups for discussions—almost any activity that connects to the learning objectives can be worthwhile if participants are clear on what they’re supposed to do … and why. This might mean you explain the instructions for the activity as well as having them in writing, you model the behavior, then you have them work in small groups while you and some assistants circulate to answer questions. It also means including a strong debrief of the activity. (See below for more specific tips on this and other recommendations.)

    Larger small groups, those with more than 4 or 5 people, generally require more time and planning to make sure everyone is involved, but there are things you can do to minimize the time issue. Some rooms can be set up to streamline the process of grouping – for instance, having table rounds with 5-8 people and having handouts/instructions already on the table. Use the number of people in a large class as an advantage—think of the resources in the room!—by having report-backs from the groups on one or two of their best ideas.

    Some instructors avoid group activities with report backs because they know they won’t have time to hear from every group. This should NOT stop you—groups with a task that might be made public (such as in a report-back) often work harder toward the goal, and there are options that will allow acknowledgement of everyone’s contributions without taking an inordinate amount of time. For instance, have a limited number of groups do a brief report-back to the class but have all groups turn in a list that is then compiled and distributed. Of course, this takes follow-up, but it’s worth the time both to the instructor, who gets a lot of good ideas for future sessions, and to the participants, who get their ideas acknowledged and have a concrete take-away from the session.

    That being said, there are many activities where no report-backs are necessary—you can incorporate a few observations you made as you circulated through the class during the activity on what took place in the groups and how it connects to the overall purpose of the session as a way to wrap up the activity.

    Here are some specific tips on handling the complexities of interaction in large groups so that it’s a more productive experience for everyone:

    TIP #1 – GIVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS – IN WRITING
    This step is important for all classes but is VITAL for large groups in particular. Even a relatively straightforward class discussion can be enhanced by having a clearly stated and clearly visible discussion question. Having the discussion question on a visual makes it more likely that people will stay on track and will reflect on the topic even when they’re not actively participating.

    The clarity of the instructions can make or break an activity. Before you use them with a large group, I strongly recommend trying out your activity instructions and your activity on a volunteer or two similar to the anticipated participants. This allows you to adjust the instructions (and the activity, if necessary) so that you don’t have hundreds of eyes staring at you in confusion with the clock ticking.

    If participants will work in small groups, give the instructions for the activity BEFORE you have them break into groups. The physical noise and mental engagement of grouping can override anything that’s being said. Also have the instructions in writing! There’s no bigger waste of time than people spending time trying to figure out what they’re supposed to be doing, and in a large group it can mean that people are off-task (and often quite irritated) for a chunk of time. The written instructions might be on a PowerPoint slide–if they can fit on one slide in 36 point font–or they might be on handouts.

    Handouts can be in the binder (note the divider and page number before class), they could be distributed on the tables ahead of time (some possibilities: face down, on a different color of paper for ease of reference, in an envelope in the middle of the table), or they could have been counted into piles based on the highest number of people that will be at any one table/group and then be quickly distributed by assistants at the beginning of the activity.

    When a large group is broken into small groups, there’s a high probability that some of the small groups will finish the primary task well before other groups. To make sure that those groups stay focused on the topic and use the time productively, I often have instructions that include additional tasks that build on the initial one. For instance, I might have instructions for the group to “Spend 5-7 minutes brainstorming at least 10 ideas for solving (problem). If you have time left, discuss the pros and cons of each idea. Then prioritize the ideas from most practical (#1) to least practical (#10).”

    Consider including these types of information in your instructions:

    • Topic
    • Purpose of exercise (except in the few instances when you don’t want this announced up front)
    • Task(s) to be accomplished
    • Amount of time to be used
    • If using small groups: how to form groups including size of groups
    • Reinforce the goal of everyone contributing
    • Any product, such as report-back; if there is a report-back, tell them to choose a spokesperson
    • What to do if they finish the primary task early

    For example, if you’re having groups analyze a case study, you could have the information listed above at the top of the handout, followed by the case study. In addition, especially if you’re going to discuss the case study as a whole class, it’s often helpful to have a bullet list of the salient points of the case to use in explaining the case and to refer to during the discussion.

    If you plan an activity that some learners might be resistant to because it’s outside of their comfort zones (for instance, role-playing and learning games), be sure to include in the instructions/explanation a clear purpose and rationale for the activity—make the connection to concrete learning objectives obvious.

    Consider having some basic groundrules for discussions: share the air, disagree without being disagreeable, no war stories, etc. It’s easier to follow the rules if you know what they are. If groundrules are established early, it’s also easier to respectfully redirect inappropriate behavior by calling back to the groundrules.

    Also give oral time cues during activities to keep the process efficient: “We’re about halfway through.” “Two minutes left – don’t forget to choose a spokesperson.”

    TIP #2 – HAVE ASSISTANTS
    Effectively facilitating large group discussions and activities that are interactive depends in part on making sure you have a couple of people who can assist you. These can be other faculty members, event organizers, colleagues, or even participants if necessary. The larger the class, the more assistants you need. At the very least have someone stationed at the back of the room who can help keep participants on track and can draw your attention to issues that need to be addressed.

    Let your assistants know what your expectations are, for instance: taking microphones around the room for comments/questions, lowering the front lights for video clips, helping people get into appropriate-sized groups, circulating during activities to answer questions, etc. In particular, make sure they’re familiar with any activities you plan to use (instructions, purpose, time limits). When people are working in small groups in a large class, you won’t be able to check in with every group. Assistants can help make sure everyone is clear on what they’re supposed to do and can let you know how groups are progressing.

    TIP #3 – PROPERLY DESIGN AND USE AUDIO-VISUALS
    Check the sound and lighting in the room—make sure you and an assistant know how to run the controls. Check line of sight for all visuals. Be especially aware of placement of screens, lighting directly over the screen (turn it off if possible), and placement of flip charts. Be cautious about darkening the entire room for any length of time—try to adjust the lighting so that visuals are easily visible but so are you and the participants.
    Lettering on any visual aids needs to be large enough to be read in the most distant part of the room. Use a sans serif font (e.g., Ariel or Helvetica) and don’t use smaller than 36 point font for projected visuals such as PowerPoint. Use lettering at least 2” high when writing on white boards or flip charts. Test it in advance – see how it looks from the back of the room.

    Request a lavaliere microphone (and test it ahead of time — are you noticing a theme here?). If one isn’t available, ask for a cordless handheld microphone. Have at least two other cordless microphones (or more, depending on the size of the group) along with assistants to move them around the room so participants’ comments can be heard by everyone. Keep in mind that there still might be times when you need to repeat a question or comment for the whole group.

    If you have an audience response system available to you (with each participant getting a response pad, responses tracked and tabulated on the computer, and results graphed), determine if it would be useful for your topic. These systems can get everyone in a large class involved quickly and are great for quizzes, surveys, and anything where anonymity is a factor (for instance, ethics issues). However, I STRONGLY recommend having someone who is very familiar with the system run it during your session. You do not want to be the one who has to run it, troubleshoot it if necessary, and facilitate discussion of the results. Carefully construct the questions and do a test run of the equipment as well as of the wording ahead of time. Clear questions are much more difficult to write than we usually anticipate—try them out on someone.

    With any equipment, if there are too many technical difficulties you will lose the class. Always have a back-up plan in case technology fails. What will you do if the video clip won’t play, the LCD projector dies, the Responder system won’t work? Think your options through before a problem arises so it’s more likely you can adapt quickly if (when) one does.

    TIP #4 – SET UP THE ROOM FOR OPTIMAL PARTICIPATION
    If you want to run small group discussions and activities during the session (which, as mentioned, is an excellent way to involve everyone) and you have some choice of room set up, decide what will best fit your needs and help achieve the learning objectives. Round tables are good for groups of 4-8 people, and the room is automatically separated into groups. Keep in mind that it’s better if round tables are filled to just three quarters capacity so some people don’t have their backs to the front of the room. Also remember that larger small groups (approximately 6-14 people) require more time, and there’s more possibility that some people won’t participate. In these groups consider designating a discussion leader for each table. Ideally brief these folks ahead of time on expectations, activity guidelines and goals, etc. Also make sure you’ve made accommodations for anyone with special needs.

    If you’re in a room with fixed tables and/or chairs, it’s still relatively easy to have people work in groups of 2-4. Pairing up is the easiest, quickest way to get everyone involved, but it’s also easy to have one or two people interact with people at the table in front of or behind them. Be very clear about how to form groups: “Form groups of three or four—no more than four—by joining with people right next to you or in front of or behind you.” Again, you can also include this as part of the written instructions.

    KEY—be sure you and assistants circulate through the room after telling people to break into groups to make sure everyone is part of a group and that there aren’t any extra-large groups—these can often be separated into two smaller groups so that everyone can hear and everyone gets a chance to talk. Remember that it’s easy for individuals to be left out when you have people pair up, so actively look for and pair up those individuals.

    If you’re not sure how many people will be attending and you don’t want participants sparsely scattered around the room or clustered at the back, have enough seats for the highest number anticipated but put “Reserved” signs on the tables at the back of the room. Another option is having an open area at the back of the room with stacks of chairs that can be distributed if necessary. Make sure someone (not you) is in charge of monitoring seating needs, for instance, removing “Reserved” signs or distributing more chairs.

    If you will be calling on table groups to share ideas with the class, consider having a centerpiece with the number (or letter) of the group highly visible to make it easier to refer to a particular table: Group 1, Group A, etc.

    Tip #5 – PLAN HOW TO RECONVENE ON TIME
    If you’re conducting a session that has a break in it, ask organizers how participants will be informed that it’s time to return to class. If someone isn’t already delegated–or even if someone is–ask your assistants to help herd participants back into the room as breaks end so time isn’t wasted. I bring a (pleasant sounding) bell to assist in getting people back from breaks, and also to regain their attention when a small group discussion/activity is wrapping up.

    Other techniques for getting people back from a break include: –Have some kind of reward for being back on time, such as cartoons showing at the exact time they’re supposed to be in their seats; –Synchronize watches, and don’t just say how long the break is, also say the exact time the break will end. (“It’s a 15 minute break, so be back by 10:15.”) –Underline the time to be back with your voice and write it large on the board or a chart.

    Tip # 6 – WRAP-UP/ DEBRIEF ACTIVITIES AND DISCUSSIONS
    As mentioned, you should give time cues when nearing the point where an activity or discussion needs to be wrapped up. If there are report-backs planned, this could mean the “two minute warning” for when the small group portion ends and the report-backs begin as well as an idea of how long the report-back portion will last. You can signal the impending end of any activity, discussion, or Q & A segment by announcing “There’s time for just one more….”

    Have a plan in mind for what to do if you feel there are more ideas/questions than can be handled during the session. For instance: –Let the learners know that you are collecting and will compile and distribute lists from groups; –Offer to answer questions following the presentation; –Have a chart near the entrance to the room where ideas and questions can be written to be addressed in later sessions; etc.

    DON’T FORGET to clarify how the activity or discussion that’s wrapping up ties into the overall purpose of the session–help the participants process, generalize, and apply the information/lessons. It’s especially important to do this for any activities that are likely to be outside of some of the participants’ comfort zones. In general, debriefs should include a brief summary of what happened during the activity or discussion, why it might have happened that way, and what it means—how it connects to the session objectives and the bigger picture.

    TIP #7 – HONE YOUR FACILITATION SKILLS
    While all of the foregoing tips tap into elements of your facilitation skills, it never hurts to remember one of the most basic attributes of a good facilitator: have some latitude in your attitude. We all need to remind ourselves that being adaptable is fundamental to working well with large groups of people.

    When you plan activities and discussions, analyze how you think they will turn out – and consider what you will do if the actual results differ from your expectations. For instance, if you give a quiz and participants do much better than you anticipated on it, you need to be able to draw conclusions and move them forward from that point, not just from the point you expected.

    Use not only your words but also your nonverbal behaviors to facilitate interaction. Remember that a bigger room often requires bigger gestures if you want the impact to reach all the way to the back of the room. When you open it up for responses, physically open it up—invite responses by opening your arms wide, slightly raising your eyebrows, slowly sweeping the room with eye contact, and pausing long enough.

    To make sure your pauses are long enough, count to yourself—wait 7-10 seconds to allow participants time enough to process the request, formulate a question or comment, and get your attention. If no one responds, reword it and wait again. If you’re pretty sure there are questions or comments but that people are hesitant to speak up (and you’ve invited the questions and paused for responses), start it off yourself: “A question people often ask is_________.”

    It also can be very effective to ask the class to think about a question or issue for a minute or two and jot down their ideas about it before you ask for their responses. This gives people with a more reflective learning style the chance to formulate their ideas, and having the chance to write something down first provides a “safety net” for less confident participants. This technique makes it more likely that you’ll get a wider range of responses from a wider range of people.

    Be sure to call on participants in different areas of the room and from all different groups (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.). If you keep getting the same few people raising their hands, physically move to a new part of the room or at least turn toward a different section of the class, and verbally invite more responses: “I haven’t heard from anyone on this side of the room for a while….”

    Don’t feel you have to be funny but do remember that appropriate humor can create positive connections. Much of the best humor arises from the group—be ready to laugh, but also be on guard that it actually is appropriate humor. You are the frontline for making sure the learning environment is a positive, safe place for everyone. This obviously connects to the earlier discussion of groundrules, and the bottom line of all groundrules is respect.

    If there is a comment that is clearly over the line (“humorous” or not), of course it’s your responsibility to say so—respectfully but firmly. The more difficult situation is when someone makes a comment that is close to the line … do you say something or not? Deciding what level of response you should have to these “teachable moments” is a true test of your facilitating skills. What I have found personally is that it’s when I didn’t respond at all (because I was taken by surprise, I wasn’t sure if it was over the line, etc.) that I regretted my actions—and the lack thereof.

    When dealing with these kinds of issues, keep in mind that people who are behaving inappropriately often don’t realize or intend it—they want to be involved but don’t realize that they’re dominating the conversation, they want to lighten the mood with humor but they don’t realize some people are offended, etc. Give them the benefit of the doubt while respectfully redirecting them. If they push back, stand firm and reinforce the value of seeing from others’ perspectives.

    Respect the many voices in the room and create situations where everyone can learn from each other—that’s what facilitating is all about. It’s an area where we all can be lifelong learners.

    Do you have additional tips for facilitating large group discussions and activities? We invite you to share them! Share your comments below this article.

    SOME ONLINE RESOURCES

    1. “Facilitation Skills: Developing Facilitative Leadership” – Discusses suggestions for facilitation, communication skills, group process techniques, and diversity-related tips. http://www.ilj.org/publications/docs/Facilitation_Skills_Developing_Facilitative_Leadership.pdf
    2. “Group Facilitation Skills: A Toolbox for Effective Meetings” – Specific activities for audience participation. Most of the activities involve using pairs and small groups within a large group. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~iwla/iwla/resources/Academy/Group_Facilitation_Strategies.pdf
    3. The IAF Methods Database – Hundreds of activities from the International Association of Facilitators http://www.iaf-methods.org/methods

    Kelly Tait is communication consultant with nine years of experience in judicial branch education and fifteen years of experience teaching college-level communication classes. Her areas of expertise include facilitation skills, planning and delivering effective presentations, courtroom communication skills, communicating with non-legally trained court participants, diversity issues and perceptions of procedural fairness, etc.

  • Business Analysts Play Key Roles in Planning for Kentucky’s New Court Data System

    by Jean Conn, Janet Bixler, Adam K. Matz, M.S., and James R. Columbia

    This is the first in a series of articles focusing on the application of business analysis principles to Kentucky’s court data system improvement project.

    The Kentucky Court of Justice (KCOJ) has begun the planning phase for an enterprise-level project that will update the entire court management systems environment, including technology, business processes, and management processes. The goal is to create a user-friendly case and docket management system that coordinates the flow of information between levels of court and administrative departments, and will allow users direct access to the statistical and other data they need to make informed business decisions.

    As it starts the planning phase, the KCOJ is using a model that has been successful in other states, where experienced business analysts play a key role in defining the requirement for case and docket management software. A Business Analyst Workgroup has been formed by Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Director Laurie Dudgeon, working under the direction of Dr. Deborah Williamson, Executive Officer for the Department of Court Services, and Charles Byers, Chief Information Officer. This workgroup will collaborate with the KCOJ Technology Governance Committee, the Executive Branch’s Commonwealth Office of Technology, and other entities as appropriate.

    The four members of the workgroup are Janet Bixler and Norma Jean Conn, who have extensive business analyst experience in the private sector, and James Columbia and Adam Matz, who have a great deal of experience in the public sector and with the AOC. Already the workgroup has been gathering information through interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Most recently, a survey was sent to the entire KCOJ staff to get input on what the most important technological needs are in the court community.

    Business Analysis Essential in Developing New Court Data Systems
    With fewer people and bigger caseloads, today’s court systems rely more and more on efficient business processes and sophisticated technology for up-to-the-minute information necessary to make better and quicker decisions. Increasingly, court systems around the country are developing improved technology and business processes in order to meet their end-users’ needs. In the case of the KCOJ, end-users would include judges, clerks, their support staff, and judicial educators. This is where the role of a skilled business analyst comes into play.

    Business Analysts can be found in both the private and public sectors, and in both for-profit and non-profit settings. Over time, the role and definition of a Business Analyst has evolved. In the past, this was someone who was part of the business operation and worked with Information Technology (IT) to improve the quality of products and services. Today’s Business Analyst is someone who, apart from gathering business requirements, also assists in integration and testing, supports staff training, and coordinates implementation of new technology and business processes. Business Analysts are also involved in developing project plans and providing project management skills. They provide the following business analysis:

    • Strategic Planning – performing an analysis of an organization’s strategic business needs
    • Process Definition and Design – defining the business processes needed and working with IT to design new technology and business processes
    • IT/Technical Business Analysis – providing User Acceptance Testing to ensure new technology meets the need business rules and requirements of the organization

    Strategic Planning
    Business Analysts gather the user (stakeholder) needs to help define how best to design new technology and business processes in order to make the organization successful. They also document business requirements, such as what kind of security is needed and how user-friendly the new technology is. Often the Business Analyst creates a formal project plan and timeline.

    Process Definition and Design
    Once needs are gathered, Analysts must work with IT staff to determine requirements for the new technology. Analysts gather and report the specifications of what the new technology system is capable of providing. And with new technologies come new business processes that must be mapped, documented, and eventually trained upon implementation.

    Prior to the go-live date, Analysts spend time communicating the project needs to the technical staff. Business Analysts act as the facilitators to help communicate what the users need and to understand what kinds of implications will come from a new system that will affect and/or impede its use. They work with end-users to develop alternative business practices dictated by the new technology. Business Analysts also identify any risks or user resistance that will need to be addressed during the implementation process.

    IT/Technical Business Analysis
    Business Analysts conduct User Acceptance Testing on the new technology in which all system bugs are discovered and corrected before the new system is implemented. Once implementation has occurred, Analysts must work to ensure that end-users are trained on the new systems and processes.

    Skill Set of a Business Analyst
    Essential functions of a Business Analyst should include, but are not limited to the following:

    • Ability to interact professionally with a diverse group of executives, managers and subject matter experts.
    • Excellent written and oral communication proficiency, in order to effectively communicate within the organization.
    • Business and technical knowledge of the organization, because they serve as the bridge between end-users and developers.
    • Proactive questioning and listening ability, in order to fully understand and communicate the process.
    • Strong analytical and product management skills, including a thorough understanding of how to interpret customer business needs and translate them into application and operational requirements.
    • Collaborative skills, working with users to define the workflows and processes.
    • Subject matter expertise, in order to provide accurate analysis of the needs and risks.

    Business Analysts Now Gathering Information for New Court Data System
    The priority for the AOC Business Analyst Workgroup is to use the information gathered to create a preliminary report by the end of 2010, so that the KCOJ can request funding needed in the 2012-2018 Capital Plan. The preliminary report must be completed by December 31 in order to provide adequate time to prepare the funding request by April 15, 2011, to the Capital Advisory Board.

    It is critical that this request is included in the Capital Plan. The current KCOJ case management systems are fast becoming obsolete and subject to failure. Today’s court system needs to support electronic document filing (warrants and citations), video arraignment and conferencing, and a fully automated payable process, which the current case management system has not been designed to do. The KCOJ is gathering momentum to make technology the cornerstone of a better Kentucky court system.

    Jean Conn serves as a Business Analyst for the Administrative Office of the Courts. She will work with a newly appointed project team to research and document the business needs for a new case management system. Mrs. Conn was a Project Manager and Business Analyst for Humana, Automatic Data Processing, Kindred Healthcare and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. She has extensive experience working as a liaison between Information Technology and the business users. Mrs. Conn has implemented a variety of systems such as HRIS, benefits enrollment, medical insurance, and clinical systems. She graduated from Sullivan Junior College majoring in computer programming. She also attended Sullivan University and Bellarmine University.

    Janet Bixler has joined the Administrative Office of the Courts as a Business Analyst for researching the needs for a unified case management system. She has served as a business analyst, technical writer, and project manager in the technology industry. Ms Bixler has expertise in researching current information technology processes, developing new processes, and documenting and training those processes to applicable users. Ms. Bixler earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism with a minor in political science from the University of Kentucky. She has completed information technology classes at the Kentucky Community & Technical College System.

    Adam K. Matz, M.S. is a Research Associate with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and former Statistician for the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts. His research has focused on topics of gang violence, cultural congruence in local circuit courts, social efficacy in local communities, as well as job satisfaction and organizational climate within juvenile justice institutions. Additionally, he now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Matz earned his bachelor’s degree in police studies and master’s degree in correctional and juvenile justice studies from Eastern Kentucky University. His publications have appeared in journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior and Criminal Justice Review.

    James R. Columbia retired from the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts in 2009 after a 22-year career that included positions as a Court Designated Worker, Regional Supervisor and Information Systems Supervisor for the Juvenile Services division, in which capacity he coordinated development of a statewide, electronic case management and data system. He subsequently was appointed Manager of the Records and Research & Statistics divisions of the AOC. He now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Columbia holds an associate degree in science from Maysville Community College and a bachelor’s degree in business, with a major in accounting, from the University of Kentucky.