Just another WordPress site

Tag: Spring 2013

  • Seven (Easy) Steps to Creating a Transition Policy for Juvenile Drug Court Team Members

    By Wendy L. Schiller, Project Coordinator, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) professionals are innovative, dedicated professionals who often get promoted, are appointed to work in other areas of the court, or find new career paths. For this reason there is a substantial amount of turnover among JDC team members. In some cases, there may just be burn-out, as working on a JDC team is extremely demanding. Because this issue permeates most jurisdictions that have a JDC program, it is important to implement a process to “transition” new team members onto the existing drug court team. Keep the transition plans simple. Focus on 1) what new team members need to know, and 2) the best way for new team members to learn about their role on the JDC.

    Below are some tips or strategies that will assist teams in creating a well-thought out transition policy for new JDC team members, which will also benefit the youth and families they serve:

    1. Create “Learning Packets.”

    A JDC program should have several “Learning Packets” on hand to give to new and incoming team members. These packets can serve as training materials because it is extremely important for team members who have not worked with adolescents or in the juvenile drug court field to engage in some “pre-work” before joining the team and working with the youth and families. This packet should include a current list of contact information for stakeholders and team members, an updated community partnership map, a current participant guide, and a current policy and procedure manual. In addition, there are several publications which will help new team members better understand the philosophy behind juvenile drug courts, as well as adolescent development and ways to further comprehend this population. Below is a list of resources that would be helpful to add to the Learning Packet:

    • The Juvenile Drug Court Strategies in Practice
    • Managing and Sustaining Your Juvenile Drug Court
    • Ensuring Fidelity to the 16 Strategies in Practice
    • Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court
    • Exploring the Evidence: The Value of Juvenile Drug Courts
    • 7 Things Juvenile Courts Should Know About Learning Disabilities
    • Ten Things Every Juvenile Court Judge Should Know About Trauma and Delinquency

    All of these publications are housed and can be downloaded from the Juvenile Drug Court Information Center, located on NCJFCJ’s website.

    2. Shadow existing team members.

    Teams should make a concerted effort to give incoming members an opportunity to work with the outgoing member to get a good “feel” for the position and what their role will be on the team. Consider drafting a checklist (these should be role-dependent) of duties or information that should be conveyed during the day so nothing is forgotten or accidentally skipped. See example checklist for a new JDC coordinator below:

    JDC Coordinator Checklist

    • Review incentives and sanction tracking procedure
    • Review file sharing procedure
    • Review pre-court staffing structure

    3. Give new team members a way to gain ownership in the JDC.

    Transitioning to working on a JDC can be difficult for new team members. The JDC philosophy often feels foreign and is generally very different from the more traditional “adversarial” court process. Creating a way for new team members to have input on JDC policies is a great way to get them up to speed on the fundamental concepts underlying the program and provides a way for them to have input and gain ownership in the program. For example, many JDCs revisit and update their Community Map on a yearly basis. Assigning new team members to be part of the working group for the Community Map project allows them to have input and buy-in to the program.

    Frequently new team members may challenge the status quo of the JDC. This can be an opportunity for the JDC team to revisit the reasons why the drug court exists, address policy issues, and analyze the need for changes in structure and practice.

    4. When new members join the JDC team, facilitate a team-building activity.

    Teams should be encouraged to work on a simple activity or exercise when new members join the team. The activity described below (This I Believe Activity) may prove to be very helpful as a team building exercise, as well as a great opportunity for team members (new and old) to reflect on their individual role on the team. The activity generally takes around 20 minutes. Consider doing this during the first pre-court staffing or during another team meeting such as a brown-bag lunch. See below for full instructions:

    On National Public Radio there is a series called This I Believe. Please visit the NPR website to listen to a news piece in the series. This segment describes the background of the series, why it is important to get diverse opinions, and why these opinions can create a web or connection between diverse populations. Because each team member comes from different agencies or backgrounds professionally, it is important to hear the individual beliefs connected to working within a juvenile drug court and the program itself.

    Activity: Choose a team member to lead or facilitate. If possible share the following essay with the team – Frederic Reamer’s essay, “The Real Consequences of Justice”, which can be found at the This I Believe website. This essay in particular applies to the justice system.

    Ask team members to create their own “This I Believe” statement centered on their views, vision, or expectations for working as a team member in a juvenile drug court program. For example:

    • I believe the juvenile drug court in my community will give access to valuable resources to youth struggling with substance abuse.
    • I believe I will be a valuable team member on our JDC team because I am a court-appointed defense attorney, and I protect the rights of the youth that are involved in the system.
    • I believe a JDC will reduce recidivism rates among youth that abuse alcohol and other drugs.

    Guide team members through this process. Feel free to use one of the examples above or create your own “This I Believe” statements regarding your JDC. Have each team member read their statement aloud to the other team members and then discuss the commonalities in each of the statements. The number of commonalities may surprise everyone.

    5. Don’t forget about the youth and families!

    It may seem confusing for participants and family members to walk into court one week and find that the JDC coordinator whom they have been working with, and come to trust and even like, has left and been replaced by someone they have never seen before. To alleviate this type of confusion, it is suggested that teams design an orientation group session for youth and families to meet new team members. This will, hopefully, provide a seamless transition for the participants. Below are a few tips the team should consider:

    • Have the orientation correspond with bi-weekly or weekly court sessions that are already in place.
    • Have the outgoing and incoming team members make a few comments to the group.
    • A short question and answer segment will give participants and families an opportunity to ask any questions that are weighing on their minds.
    • Suggest that the new team member provide a treat or snacks for the orientation (or the team – make it a celebration).
    • Give families updated program materials (i.e., contact information sheets/brochures).

    In addition, when a new team member joins the JDC team it is important to take the time to update all program materials as soon as possible. Because JDC participants rely so heavily on JDC team members, updates or additions need to be made so that youth and families will know who to call and how to contact them. Participants are required to do many, many things while they are in the program, and making this an easy process will help decrease any confusion and mishaps that may make a situation worse than it has to be.

    6. Introduce the new team members to the Stakeholder Committee.

    It is important to keep current stakeholders engaged in the JDC “happenings” (i.e., program outcomes, upcoming events, and new team members). Organize a meeting to introduce new team members to the current stakeholder committee members. This can coincide with a quarterly meeting schedule or you can organize a meeting just to introduce the incoming member (i.e., brown-bag lunch or a pizza night). Much like an orientation for the youth and families, try to make this transition very strength-based and celebratory.

    7. Codify the transition policy in the JDC procedure manual.

    Consider having a designated team member role to compile transition packets, update contact information and programs guides, coordinate shadowing efforts, and orientate current youth and families. Designating a specific “role” on the JDC team instead of an actual person will alleviate having to find another person on the team to complete the task, if that particular person leaves for one reason or another. Within the procedure manual, have a detailed checklist to assist the incoming team member who will take over this responsibility.

    —–

    Wendy L. Schiller is the Technical Assistance Manager at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Ms. Schiller has worked for NCJFCJ for nine years, and as a Technical Assistance Manager, she coordinates all forms of technical assistance (office-based and on-site), facilitates team retreats and strategic planning meetings, and researches evidence-based practices for juvenile drug courts across the nation. Ms. Schiller specializes in developing work plans for juvenile drug courts that request on-site technical assistance and works closely with teams to implement changes in their programs. In addition, Ms. Schiller has presented on such topics as “Incentives & Sanctions in Juvenile Drug Court”, “What is a Juvenile Drug Court” and “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” on a National level. Ms. Schiller has served as editor for three publications produced by NCJFCJ: Managing and Sustaining Your Juvenile Drug Court, Ensuring Fidelity to the Juvenile Drug Courts Strategies in Practice—A Program Component Scale, and Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court. Ms. Schiller has an Associate in Arts degree from Truckee Meadow Community College, with an emphasis in Para legalism and is currently working toward her degree in Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Reno.

  • Turnover within Judicial Education Organizations: Cost and Opportunity

    By David Gordon, Academic Coordinator, Judicial Education Unit, Nevada Supreme Court

    Employee turnover can produce both positive change and increased challenge. Among the positive changes are fresh vision, a renewal of enthusiasm, and a chance to leave behind past issues that live on for no other reason than the memories of those involved. Challenges may include a loss of human capital in the form of skills, training and knowledge, as well as a loss of trust and working relationships with colleagues and clients.

    The impact of turnover within a judicial education organization may be amplified by the small size of a judicial education staff, or the scarcity of qualified judicial educators. First, this article will consider the role played by the organization’s size.

    Judicial education organizations vary widely among the different state court systems. A judicial education unit with four staff members will be impacted to its core when two employees leave. An education services division with 25 staff members will be more easily able to spread the work among remaining staff. Jeff Schrade, Director of the Education Services Unit in Arizona relies on cross-training to exercise flexibility when dealing with staff turnover. Nevada’s four-person Judicial Education Unit is necessarily cross-trained in order to deal with things as routine as the occasional sick day. Other judicial educators have stated that in a large organization, the value of cross-training can be diluted by an emphasis on specialization.

    Experienced judicial educators are a rare commodity, and it is rare that a fully trained and experienced judicial educator joins a judicial education organization. Judges indicate that the characteristics they seem to value most in judicial educators are confidence and trust: confidence that the educator will pursue the best faculty for a topic, and trust that judicial education conferences provide an environment in which judges feel free to speak openly and honestly. One judge described turnover in a judicial education organization as a delicate proposition because the judges enjoy personal relationships with the judicial education staff, and yet expect the utmost in professionalism. Judges do value consistency and institutional knowledge in judicial educators.

    One judge stated that judges don’t like turnover in judicial education organizations because the confidence and trust must be earned; another stated that turnover can create opportunities for recruitment of more qualified candidates who can assist in furthering more modern judicial education approaches and objectives. Still another judge said that he is more likely to agree to serve as faculty when asked by a staffer whom he believes has an in-depth knowledge of the value of his contribution.

    All judicial educators must exhibit competence in adult learning theory, knowledge of the issues relevant to the judiciary of their state, and sensitivity to the political realities that permeate the life of a judge. Questions remain. Is there more value to having educators with experience as attorneys? Or is the best educator steeped in adult learning theory? There is no question that educators can only benefit from time spent observing court operations. As one judge told me, educators who observe court operations would be in a better position to tailor curricula to everyday practical situations, and court relationships could broaden the judicial faculty pool. Another judge said he believes the best instructors are often other judges. As judicial educators work with faculty judges, a shared vocabulary and a recognition of common problems faced in court can only enhance curriculum development.

    Turnover within a judicial education organization will always have far-reaching impact. It may be positive or challenging, but it remains that the new judicial educator will have to work hard to establish trust and confidence… the judicial educator’s stock in trade. No less important is providing guidance to the consumers of judicial education so curricula are developed with appropriate emphasis on learning styles and learning environments.

    —–

    David Gordon is the Academic Coordinator for the Judicial Education Unit at the Nevada Supreme Court, a position he has held since 2007. Prior to joining the Judicial Education Unit, he was the Supreme Court’s Certified Court Interpreter Program Coordinator. Mr. Gordon is a former Naval Officer and military linguist.

  • Team Life Cycles

    By Jeff Schrade, Education Services Division Director, Arizona

    Much like any relationship, teams experience phases of growth and development. Bruce Tuckman, currently professor emeritus of educational psychology at the Ohio State University, studied group and team dynamics for the US Navy in the 1960s to improve training for small crews of naval vessels and isolated stations.  Through research and observation, he discovered a developmental sequence of team formation.  The four “Tuckman’s stages” include (1) orientation/testing/dependence, (2) conflict, (3) group cohesion and (4) functional role-relatedness.  He soon coined the terms “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing” and with them established an influential framework for understanding the life cycle of teams.  Judicial branch educators can use this framework to better understand their own teams, as well as to educate judges and court managers about the essential practice of building teams.

    Stage 1 – Forming
    In the “forming” stage, members are usually positive and polite. Some members feel anxiety about risks; others are excited about potential. A leader is challenged during the forming stage to articulate the goals and objectives of the team, to assign roles and to facilitate introductions and relationships among team members.  This stage may pass as quickly as one initial meeting, so a team leader must make the most of it.

    Stage 2 – Storming
    Although a leader may do a great job of articulating roles among the team, the team must bring that vision to life through the “storming” phase.  This stage typically gives rise to conflict as team members jockey for position, define their roles through interaction, and establish dependency relationships with the leader and team members. It’s difficult for everyone to be on the same page, because the page is still being written. Although the team structure is in place, processes and relationships are not yet solidified.  In addition to friction among the team members, members may also question the authority of the leader or the worthiness of the team goal.  Trustworthiness, communication and conflict management are essential skills for leader and member alike at this stage.

    Stage 3 – Norming
    Stages are often fluid, and storming and norming behavior often overlap.  The team may lapse back to the storming stage as new tasks come up.  Gradually through relationship building and trust, the team establishes a hierarchy around both the formal and informal leaders of the group.  More firmly established relationships give rise to team members socializing together and providing each other a comfortable space to help and provide constructive feedback. The team often develops a stronger commitment to the goal and is able to more visibly demonstrate progress towards the goal.

    Stage 4 – Performing
    At the performing stage the team is able to leverage established structures and processes to operate towards the goal.  A firmly-established team culture supporting performance emerges despite individual members joining or dropping from the team.  At this stage a leader can, and should, delegate much of the work and concentrate on maintaining the relationships, culture and processes that are crucial to performance. Team members are strategically aware and are often able to resolve small disagreements without the intervention of the leader because they understand and are invested in the team’s culture, values and mission.

    A final “adjourning” stage has also been suggested, as the team reaches its goal and is able to celebrate shared success.  Although often an afterthought, this stage has relevance to judicial branch educators who often reach a defined “finish line” when conducting an educational program or conference.  While you may not disband your team after each program, it is nevertheless important to take a step back before moving on to the next program and celebrate both your operational success and the successful transformation of your team through the team lifecycle.

    For more on the topic:
    Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965) “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,”  Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. The article was reprinted in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal ‑ Number 3, Spring 2001

    Egolf, D.  Forming Storming Norming Performing: Successful Communication in Groups and Teams (Second Edition) ISBN: 9781462093946. iUniverse: 2007.

    The Ohio State University Walter E. Dennis Learning Center.

    —

    Jeff Schrade is the Education Services Division Director for the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. In this senior level position Jeff provides leadership on statewide judicial branch education initiatives and innovations that have made Arizona one of the leaders among states in judicial education. Jeff directs the work of 25 employees, oversees a $3 million budget and operates two free-standing training facilities. The education services division is responsible for the development and delivery of relevant, timely and quality educational programs for the Arizona Judicial Branch, reaching about 10,000 judges, probation officers and other judicial staff. Prior to joining the court in 2009, Jeff worked for more than a decade in the non-profit sector.  Most recently, he served in a variety of positions with the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education, the charitable arm of the State Bar of Arizona.  Jeff also served as Senior Director for Kids Voting Arizona, reaching more than 450,000 Arizona students with civic education during the 2008 election cycle. Prior to his years at the Foundation, Jeff worked with the Children’s Action Alliance and the United Way of Greater Tucson.

  • Court Staff Benefit from Law and Literature Course

    by Lee Ann Barnhardt, Director of Education, North Dakota Supreme Court

    Law and literature courses are common offerings in law schools across the country and are a regular feature in many judge trainings. In these instances, literature is used as a way of understanding the complex issues that are faced in the justice system. This serves a purpose, but there is also benefit in extending the study of literature to judicial staff beyond the bench.

    Using literature as a teaching tool in court staff training provides a means for employees to achieve self-understanding and to see their work and their lives from a different point of view. Literature allows individuals to develop capacity for empathy and to achieve self-understanding. Viewing the world through the lens of a particular character allows individuals time to think and reflect on complex issues, something that the hectic pace of the court system rarely allows. Literature gives exposure to other ideologies and points of view and provides employees with a resource in resolving complex ethical and value-laden problems.

    Literature lets staff think beyond the nuts and bolts of process and procedure. As Pat Murrell and William Carpenter wrote in their article, “Reconnecting with Values and Ethics,” Judges Journal (Spring 1999), “as individuals reach a level of technical proficiency and specialization in their work, they are no longer interested simply in more substantive content, but wish to engage with the larger issues and more universal concerns.”

    It is also important for court staff to be comfortable with the storytelling format. We often hear that litigants in court just want to be heard. They want a chance to tell their story. Teaching with literature helps employees communicate clearly and precisely and helps them see the court system from another’s point of view. This is important in professions where the narrative of another’s story is so imperative to ensure the enactment of justice.

    There are many legal topics found in literature including ethics, access to courts, the death penalty, delays in justice, and trial procedure. But there are also great works that touch on larger social issues such as diversity, gender fairness, mental illness, substance abuse, and violence. These and others impact the court system as a whole and lead to rich discussion on both professional and personal levels.

    In North Dakota, we added a law and literature session to our juvenile court officer training about four years ago. The session has been well received. Topics covered include bullying, gun violence, substance abuse, cultural competency, and autism spectrum disorder. Both novels and short stories have been used. This year, we will add a session for our clerk of court training. The sessions not only increase the employee’s appreciation of literature, but also increase their understanding of human development and the human condition.

    Looking at the world through the eyes of literary characters helps participants understand themselves and how their values and beliefs influence their work in the court system and ultimately justice for the litigants in our system. Literature provides a lens through which to look at the human condition and the role of values in the judiciary.

  • Civics Education for Court Staff

    by Jennifer Wadsworth, Iowa

    According to The Nation’s Report Card, the official site for results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, high school seniors are falling behind in their understanding of government and civics, scoring less than 50% on national tests.

    And unless you pursue a career in law, government, or politics, it doesn’t get any better after high school. A study done by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in September of 2011 claims that only 38% of adults surveyed could name all three branches of government, and 33% of those surveyed couldn’t name any.

    So it seems that people who know very little about government could be hired into government jobs. As educators, we may feel the need to rectify this lack of knowledge in our employees to make them more effective, to increase their job satisfaction, and to create better role models for the public.

    Kristopher Steele, of Ohio, and his co-worker, Margaret Allen, have been contemplating civics education for court staff for several years. Since court staff can come to government jobs from a wide variety of backgrounds, Steele feels they need a good grounding in the profession. “Many of them see themselves as paper pushers,” Steele says, “and don’t understand why quality and timeliness are important. They see a file as a stack of papers. We want them to see a file as a family or a child.” Steele believes that if court staff members understand the impact they have on the system as a whole, they will be able to make better decisions about their work.

    Ohio has recently mandated education standards for parole officers, and Steele and his colleagues are working to get that education in place. Included in the plan are four online, on-demand modules about the Criminal Justice System and the Court. These modules will cover the criminal justice system in general, the authority of a probation officer and the role of the court, concepts of due process, and ethical behavior for parole officers. Steele hopes that parts of these modules can be used to provide civics education to all employees of the court.

    Dan Rettig, a senior attorney in Florida, was asked to create a course that provides court staff a basic understanding of the working of Florida government. As part of the course’s field test, he administered an informal pretest to a sample of non-attorney court employees. They averaged a score of only 68.5%. His judges were stunned that employees of the court system could know so little of state government as a whole. Rettig’s course aims to fill that gap by teaching the concepts of the constitution, the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the function of court administration.

    Like Ohio, Rettig also chose to deliver his course electronically in an asynchronous, on-demand format, making it quickly and easily accessible to employees all over the state. After researching the options, Rettig selected Adobe Captivate as his authoring tool.

    It took Rettig about a year to do a thorough needs and learner analysis, write the content, develop the course in Captivate, and test the course. One of Rettig’s challenges was that most people cannot grasp the amount of time it takes to develop an online course. “It’s not like putting together a PowerPoint presentation,” he says. To make an online course interesting, interactive, and appropriate to the audience takes a lot more effort, but the effort can be well worth it for a course that is reused multiple times and eliminates the need for employees to travel.

    The course has been well received in Florida, and its use by employees is increasing as managers incorporate it into their employee orientation plans. Initially, Rettig’s course was available only to employees of the court. It has now been made available to the public on the Florida Courts website. You can view the course here.

    Like Florida, Indiana chose an online format for their civics education. Indiana utilized the services of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to create their Trial Court Staff Orientation Tool that aims to educate court staff about Indiana’s state government.

    Judge Barbara Harcourt of Indiana, much like Steele, believes that the more court employees understand about their role in the system, and the importance of the justice system as a whole, the more they can feel confident in themselves and the greater ability they have to assist customers.

    Judge Harcourt proposed that Indiana create an on-line orientation for court staff that gives them an accurate picture of Indiana courts, makes them feel welcome and valued, helps them identify and properly handle ethical issues they may encounter, and understand the importance of quality customer service.

    For help in creating the course, Indiana turned to the NCSC and Daniel Straub, a professional trainer who works often with courts. Judge Harcourt and her staff gathered material they found in existing documents and training and sent it to Straub who organized it into a course. NCSC filmed Straub’s presentation and created the course using the Sakai platform. Indiana’s Orientation Tool is very similar in format to the NCSC’s “Different Work: A First Course in Effective Supervision.”

    “Everyone at every level of the branch participated in getting this course off the ground,” says Judge Harcourt, and the response has been amazing. Judge Harcourt received many emails from long-term employees saying this course really broadened their knowledge of the court system.

    In addition to the course itself, Indiana created a guidebook for supervisors of employees who take the course. This guidebook explains that the Orientation Tool is not a complete orientation to an employee’s job, but just to the workings of the state court system. It also contains exercises that a supervisor could use with employees to support their learning.

    Indiana is willing to allow NASJE members to view their course; email Judge Barbara Harcourt to request a password. Judge Harcourt says that this course will need to be updated at some time, maybe even to a different delivery method. “At that time,” she says, “we’d be open to the idea of including other states in the project.”

    As it seems many states agree that increasing court employees’ knowledge about the operations of state government in general is a worthwhile pursuit, perhaps civics education that can be used by many states would be valuable. There will always be differences between the operations and organization of different state courts, but concepts like due process, ethics, customer service, and distinctions between public and private sector employees might be common to all states. As Steele claims, “it would be great if we could share resources so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.”

    If you have civics, government, or orientation education that you would be willing to share with your fellow NASJE members, you can share it on the Member’s Only website. From the NASJE Member’s Only Homepage, click on “Newsletter Extras!” Then click on the discussion group titled “Civics/Government Education for Court Staff.” (Depending on your computer settings, you may need to click the arrow to move to page 2 of Newsletter Extras!) In the discussion group you can add your course material, ask questions, comment on submissions by others, and more.

    If you have trouble logging on to the Member’s Only website, contact Joseph Sawyer or William Brunson for assistance.

    —–

    Jennifer J. Wadsworth serves as an educator in Iowa’s Judicial Branch.  As part of a small Education Division, she does a little bit of everything.  Her focus lately has been on eLearning design and on-demand facilitation.

    Jennifer graduated from Iowa State University with an M. Ed. in Adult Education, Curriculum Design, and Training & Development.  While in college, she served on the board of the student chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) for several years and later served as president of the Hawkeye Chapter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  As president, Jennifer and the board designed, obtained funding for, and taught a Train-the-Trainer seminar for the community to promote the use of Adult Education principles in local businesses.

    During her fifteen years in the education field, she has worked as a trainer for a variety of organizations, including software companies, business coaching groups, educational institutions, and both state and federal government.  Though she frequently teaches technology skills, she has also designed new employee programs; taught communication, management, and change leadership courses; and written numerous newsletter articles, job aids, and other training documents.

  • Transitions – Spring 2013

    Please join us in welcoming the following new NASJE members:

    • Mr. John Bowers, Education Coordinator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Salt Lake City, UT.
    • Mr. Anthony Cornay, Education Specialist, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, AZ.
    • Ms. Susanne Johnson Inman, Judicial Education Program Attorney, Louisiana Judicial College, New Orleans, LA.
    • Ms. Rose Patterson, Chief of Court Improvement, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, FL.

    Please note other transitions of NAJSE members:
    Nancy Smith recently moved from the Washington State AOC to the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, Arizona, where she has assumed the position of Field Trainer.  In this position, Nancy is responsible for providing training to six courts of limited jurisdiction in Pima County on topics such as the case management system, legislative changes, ethics and more.

  • Dr. Maureen Conner receives 2013 Karen Thorson Award

    In February 2012, the NASJE board established the Karen Thorson Award to honor a NASJE member who has made a significant contribution to both NASJE and judicial branch education nationally.

    Dr. Maureen Conner
    Dr. Maureen Conner

    Karen Thorson, the first recipient of the award, is a former NASJE President and director of judicial branch education in Arizona and California. Karen helped advance the judicial branch education profession through encouraging inclusion of all those involved in the judicial education process. Karen was also instrumental in the adoption of the NASJE Core Competencies. She continues to positively impact and improve judicial branch education through her service on the Curriculum Committee.

    I am very excited to announce that Dr. Maureen Conner is the recipient of the 2013 Karen Thorson Award. Dr. Conner has been a friend and mentor to many NASJE members. For those who do not know her, she serves as the director of the Judicial Administration Program at the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice and has overseen the infrastructure, personnel development, and financial growth of the program since 2002. She has been vital in the growth of the program and curriculum expansion for noncredit and graduate-level credit courses taught online. She also serves as the Executive Director of the Judicial Education Reference, Information, and Technical Transfer (JERITT) Project, also at the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice. In this position, she oversees many of the project’s programmatic and grant activities, which include collecting and disseminating information from seven databases all throughout the United States and territories, to spread awareness and knowledge of the field of judicial education.

    Without Dr. Conner’s leadership and guidance, the JERITT Monographs, which remain the cornerstone of our profession, may have never been developed. Additionally, Dr. Conner was instrumental in fostering the partnership between NACM and Michigan State University. This partnership resulted in the development of the Judicial Administration Program which provides opportunities for court administrative personnel to gain academic credit by attending conference sessions offered by NACM.

    We congratulate Dr. Conner on her outstanding work.