Tag: Summer 2011

The Summer 2011 issue

  • From the New President – Summer 2011

    NASJE President, Joseph Sawyer
    NASJE President for 2011-2012, Joseph Sawyer

    As the new president of NASJE, I would like to thank immediate past-president Judith Anderson for her leadership and vision. Judith worked hard to keep NASJE moving forward during a financially difficult year for the country.

    I would also like to thank the chair-persons of the Education Committee, Evie Lancaster and Crystal Banks, for putting together NASJE’s first join conference with the National Association of Court Managers. The conference was a wonderful success.

    During the rest of 2011 and through 2012, the NASJE executive board and various committees will continue to bring new ideas, curricula, and other education opportunity to NASJE members through the use of live webcasting, the members’ only site, and of course regional and national conferences.

    The Education Committee is busy at work planning the 2012 conference being held in Boston. We look forward to seeing all NASJE members in Boston in August of 2012.

  • From the President: Good Bye, But Not So Long

    NASJE President,  Judith M. Anderson
    Judith M. Anderson

    This is my last letter to you as President of the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE). In July, Joseph Sawyer will take the reins as President at the NASJE/NACM Joint Conference.

    I am truly honored to have served as NASJE’s President this past year and have thoroughly enjoyed working with the NASJE Board—one of the most dynamic, energetic, and forward thinking Boards I have ever experienced. It was a pleasure to represent you and NASJE at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Board of Director’s meeting and at the live webinar on Professional Development for Court Leaders that NACM and NASJE developed and was conducted by our NASJE colleagues in Ohio. These opportunities provided a voice for NASJE and judicial branch educators to convey our message to other organizations and court employees about who we are, what we do, and how we can help.

    Many exciting things have been happening with more still to come. One of the most obvious changes is the new look to NASJE’s Website and newsletter. A huge thank you goes to our Web and Technology Committee, Newsletter Committee, and to our Webmaster Steve Cicero for making this happen. The Website is easy to use, easy to update, and full of resources for NASJE members.

    Our regional directors are busy keeping members informed and connected via Webinars, newsletters, and face-to-face meetings. I encourage all of you to get involved in your region. With dwindling resources, you just might find a “golden nugget” or resource that can help your state weather the fiscal storm in the coming years. Keeping in touch with educators within your region is a good way to stay connected to those in the business of judicial branch education. Over the years, I have found many “golden nuggets” and resources via the regional meetings and implemented them in my state.

    I look forward to attending the NASJE/NACM Joint Conference in July. This is a one-of-a-kind opportunity for NASJE members and court administrators from around the country to connect and share resources and common goals in the training and education of judges and court staff.

    Finally, I want to thank all of you who are chairing committees or serving as committee members. NASJE is a volunteer organization and would not be thriving without you.

    “Those that can, do. Those who can do more, volunteer.” – Unknown

  • Using Sober Support Groups in Juvenile Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The NCJFCJ has a new Executive Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Highlights from NASJE Western Regional Conference

    map of USA with western region highlighted

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

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

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

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

  • Transitions – Summer 2011

    Please join us in welcoming the following new NASJE members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dr Fred Osher
    Dr. Fred Osher

    Judge Steven Leifman
    Judge Steven Leifman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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