L to R: Nevada Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Justice Kristina Pickering, and Justice Mark Gibbons at Lincoln County High School in Panaca, Nevada
Since 2003, at the urging of Justice Mark Gibbons, the Nevada Supreme Court has been hearing cases at high schools throughout the state. Panels, usually made up of three of the seven Justices, have traveled to a number of rural areas, conducting hearings that usually have a connection to that specific region, in an effort to allow the general population and students to see how the court functions.
“I talked to my colleagues and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great for high school students to see how courts work and explain how a Supreme Court is different than a Traffic Court?’,” Justice Gibbons said. “We figure it’s an encouragement to continue on with their education.
The court is run in a different fashion than it would be in Carson City. The Justices have allowed each attorney to explain their side of the case to the audience before proceeding with their arguments. The Justices also explain how the court functions, the court’s purpose, how they reach a decision, and what they write in their opinions for each case. Justices may also mold their questions to the local area or students, in order to add relevance to the questioning.
One high school government teacher told a local newspaper that she was excited to see the students actually able to process the curriculum first hand.
L to R: Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Attorney Christopher Arabia, Justice Kristina Pickering, Justice Mark Gibbons, and Attorney John Friel at Tonopah High School in Tonopah, Nevada
After a hearing at the Churchill County High School in Fallon, NV, the local paper ran an editorial stating, “This courtroom on wheels serves the citizens well by giving students and adults a better insight into the workings of the Nevada Supreme Court. We thank the justices for their contributions to the state and for enlightening our students and community on one aspect of the judicial system. Seeing a proceeding like this is definitely worth more than words in a textbook.”
Chief Justice Michael Cherry said, “The Nevada Supreme Court holds arguments at Nevada high schools for several reasons: to bring the court process to high school students helping bring civics and constitutional processes to life to allow students to witness their court system in action, to humanize the judiciary and judges by sharing stories of personal experiences and general information on decision making, to provide an opportunity for interaction between legal professionals and students in an educational manner, and to make tangible studied concepts such as judicial impartiality.”
In 1986, several events took place that reflected the culture and technology of the time: the Internet Message Access Protocol was designed, opening the door to the widespread use of email; Voyager completed the first nonstop circumnavigation of the earth by air without refueling; the first ten Rock and Roll Hall of Fame artists were inducted; and, The National Judicial College (NJC) offered a course entitled Dispute Resolution Skills (DRS) for the first time.
(L to R) Hon. Sophia Hall, Chair, NJC Board of Trustees; Hon. Sam DeSimone; Hon. William Dressel, NJC President
By and large, theories and practices relating to dispute resolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s focused on conflict management outside the courtroom. However, in 1986, court-mandated mediation and statutory arbitration were trending on the legislative front, models for appropriate alternatives to trial were emerging, and judges were hungry for information and tools. After a nationwide assessment of judges’ needs, the NJC determined that an ideal course would include information on the various modes of dispute resolution, setting up programs in courts, methods specific to case type, and judicial ethics implications. The resulting DRS course was so popular that in 1986, it was offered three times to a total of 141 judges.
As DRS gained momentum among the judicial community, a New Jersey judge named Samuel DeSimone (or “Big Sam” to his colleagues) adopted it and helped the NJC further refine the core competencies of dispute resolution skills for judges. “Big Sam was instrumental in bringing the judicial perspective to a topic area that on its surface, may appear to appeal to non-judicial practitioners,”said Joy Lyngar, Chief Academic Officer at the NJC. “Since its inception, the NJC has offered continually improved versions of the course thirty-eight times and has tailored the curriculum for state court judges, administrative law judges, and tribal court judges.”
Big Sam joined the distinguished ranks of emeritus faculty for the NJC in 2012 after 25 years of teaching. “DRS is a better course because of his vision and dedication,” said Lyngar.
Where once ADR stood for “alternative” dispute resolution (i.e., that which occurred outside of the courtroom), ADR is now thought commonly to stand for “appropriate” dispute resolution, whether in or out of court. No longer are the skills used for mediators or arbitrators outside of the courtroom setting. The skills that are required in practicing ADR are essential to a judge who finds him or herself needing to negotiate, conduct settlement hearings, refer to mediation, or one who chooses to become a private or state-appointed arbitrator once he or she leaves the bench. As the course continues to evolve, the NJC hopes to honor Big Sam’s legacy by continuing to offer a Dispute Resolution Skills course that appeals to a judiciary invested in holistic problem-solving in a 21st century court system.
Katheryn Yetter, Esq., is the Academic Director for The National Judicial College. She can be contacted at The National Judicial College, Judicial College Building/MS 358, Reno, NV 89557; 775-327-8213; www.judges.org
By Nancy Smith, Field Trainer, Pima County Superior Court, Tucson, Arizona
Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice. – Anton Chekov
As judicial educators, we focus on how to present important topics to the judiciary in ways that not only inform them, but also assist them in changing practices which at times are deeply ingrained in judicial tradition and legal practice. When considering how to teach procedural fairness, Washington state judicial educators searched for a way that extended beyond the traditional conference plenary session so commonly used in our state. We sought to do more than inform, but also to convince people to change.
Adult learning theory teaches that adults learn better when they see both the extrinsic and intrinsic value of what they are being taught, when the topic is relevant to their work, and when they get to practice what they are learning. We also know that chunking a topic into easily digestible pieces and spreading learning out over time helps. This article describes a recent learning series on procedural fairness executed using a blended model in Washington State, following those adult learning precepts.
Procedural fairness concerns the public’s perception of how they are treated by the judicial system. Studies have shown that the perception of unfair or unequal treatment in the courts is the most important factor in public dissatisfaction with the American legal system (Burke and Leben, 1). If court users feel that they have been treated fairly, they are more likely to accept the outcome of their case, even if they lose. Judges and lawyers are concerned with fair legal outcomes—did the defendant get what he deserved? The public, on the other hand, is more concerned with whether they were treated fairly from a procedural standpoint—was the decision arrived at using fair methods? Professor Tom Tyler describes four key components to procedural fairness:
Voice – Court customers expect to be able to express their viewpoint, or their side of the story.
Neutrality – Court users believe that decisions are made consistently based on sound legal principles by unbiased decision makers.
Respect – Individuals are treated with dignity and their rights are protected.
Trustworthy authorities – Authorities care about the individuals before them and listen carefully to what they say. They address litigant’s needs by explaining decisions. (Burke and Leben p. 6)
The need for procedural fairness begins at the courthouse door (or on the courthouse web page) and permeates many aspects of the administration of the courts, as well as what occurs in the courtroom. Thus, things like good signage, a useful website, and helpful staff impact procedural fairness, as does what actually occurs when the defendant stands in front of a judge during hearings and trials.
For more information about procedural fairness, what it means and how it affects courts, please go to the Procedural Fairness website.
In order to understand how a blended learning model can be applied to the topic of procedural fairness, it is important to know what blended learning is. According to the Sloan Consortium, blended learning consists of courses or programs in which 30%-79% of the learning is offered online while the rest is face-to-face (Allen, Seaman, and Garrett, p. 5). The online portions and the face-to-face portions can be combined in whatever order best fits the learning objectives of the program. Online segments can be webinars, self-paced elearning, web-based research and activities, wikis, blogs, email and much more. Face-to-face portions can be lectures, workshops, seminars, discussion groups, or experiential learning modes such as field trips and interviews. For a longer discussion on a blended learning model for the courts, see Smith, N., Blended Learning: Seven Lessons Learned through Experience in the August 2012 NASJE News.
In Washington, we sought to put together a blended learning series that incorporated many best practices for adult education. Based on input from our diversity committees, our education committees and two Supreme Court commissions, we knew the material was important and relevant to our intended audience of judges and court administrators. We looked for methods to chunk the content, spread the learning out over time, offer opportunities to practice what was being taught, and provide practice activities to be able to self-assess progress. Ideas for the learning series are based on the model Context-Challenge-Activity-Feedback, as explained by Ethan Edwards at Allen Interactions (Edwards, p. 6). In short, and in the context of eLearning, Edwards counsels instructional designers to provide a relevant, work-related context for the learning design so learners’ interest is heightened. He suggests providing realistic challenges for learners, and interactive activities to allow them to practice solving the challenges. Finally, he advises providing feedback that offers guidance to the learner, not just “you’re right” or “incorrect, try again.”
To accomplish these goals and decide on learning modes that provided the necessary context, challenge, activity and feedback, several questions needed answers.
In what order and in what time frame should the various parts of the program be presented. (context)
What groups in the court community would serve as resources and planners for the program? (context)
Who could be the respected expert(s) to meet judicial officers face-to-face and teach the topic? (context)
What did judicial officers need to know prior to the face-to-face session, if anything? (context)
How would judicial officers and court administrators know how they were doing with respect to procedural fairness? How could they measure their current and future status? (activity, feedback)
What concrete steps could judicial officers take to be able to see themselves through the public’s eyes in the courtroom? (activity)
Could judges be persuaded to take concrete steps? How could they be persuaded of the value of the steps? (challenge)
How could judges measure their progress in their courtrooms? (activity, feedback)
How could judges and court administrators measure progress in their courthouse? (activity, feedback)
One question we did have to answer was how to fund the project. The Washington Courts Blended Learning Project, a grant from the State Justice Institute, provided funds.
We found a willing expert and advocate in Judge Kevin Burke of Hennepin County Courts in Minnesota. Judge Burke has conducted research on the topic and written a white paper and other articles about it, as well as speaking nationally. His passion for the topic served as an inspiration for the Washington Courts educators involved in the project.
With Judge Burke on board, we were able to enlist the help of the Washington Supreme Court Minority and Justice and Gender and Justice Commissions. The Diversity and the Education Committees of the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association and the Equity and Fairness Committee of the Superior Court Judges’ Association all climbed on board the project train early in the process. As it turned out, the judges on these committees really took a big risk later in the project to make it real to the audience, as you will see later. Washington Court Education Services educator Nancy Smith and several support staff completed the project team. The importance of buy-in from the various commissions and committees cannot be overstated in establishing the legitimacy of the project.
We decided on a four- or five-part learning series:
Part One: Read the Burke/Leben white paper called Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction.
Part Two: Complete a Web-based Self-Assessment to measure procedural fairness throughout the court house.
Part Three: Attend a face-to-face session at spring conferences with Judge Burke and Washington judges as faculty.
Part Four: Participate in a webinar: Procedural Fairness: Real Steps for Real Improvement; facilitated by Judge Burke, with faculty from Washington State.
Part Five: Repeat the web-based self-assessment to monitor progress. This part is optional, but encouraged.
To begin the series and establish a context for the topic, a lesson on the basics of procedural fairness was essential. We chose Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction, a white paper of the American Judges Association written by Judge Burke and Judge Steve Leben as our basic “text.” Reading this article would help judges to understand what is meant by procedural fairness and how good techniques in this area could impact not only their workload, but also compliance with court orders, while also increasing public satisfaction. The article also cites sociological research on the topic, thus providing credibility about the value of the concepts put forth. We provided all judges and administrators with a hyperlink to the article and included a printed copy in conference materials.
In addition to having basic definitions and concepts, we decided it would be helpful for judges and administrators to have a good tool to assess where they stood with regards to procedural fairness in their courtrooms and court houses. We searched for a means to allow and encourage them to measure their effectiveness. Through the assistance of a court educator in California, we found the answer in the report published in 2011 by the Center for Court Innovation on research conducted on procedural fairness in California: PDF. We are grateful to Ms. Diane Cowdrey and Mr. Douglas Denton of the California Administrative Office of the Courts for sharing this report.
Besides a wealth of information, tools, techniques and suggestions, this report contains a self-assessment for court leadership. We loved the idea of a self-assessment as an activity that would provide court officials with a means to see how procedural fairness impacts many aspects of their courts, as well as to get feedback about their effectiveness. They could also quickly see their strengths and weaknesses. The problem was persuading court officials to actually complete the survey.
In order to make it as easy as possible for the court officials, we worked with our web designers to transform the paper assessment into an online tool, accessible at any time, easy to complete, and providing instant results. Another benefit realized from this method was that the data from the survey fed a spreadsheet from which analysis could be made and shared. The online self-assessment became part two of the project, with the hope that it could also be a part five for officials willing to reassess themselves at a later date. The assessment gathered information on date of completion and court level, but was otherwise totally anonymous.
Over 200 judicial officers and court administrators completed the self-assessment, although not everyone completed it before the face-to-face session which constitutes part three. In addition to providing a contextual activity with feedback for participants, results of the self-assessment were used to guide the focus of part four of the learning series, a webinar, as will be explained below. Thus, parts one and two of the learning series provided in-depth background and context for the learning, as well as serving to inform judges of their own level of procedural fairness through an interactive activity.
With the way prepared for him, Judge Burke presented face-to-face sessions at two judges’ spring conferences as part three of the series. In April, he presented a 2-hour session to Washington’s Superior Court Judges and Administrators, an audience of close to 200 people. In June, he returned to the state to present to the District and Municipal Court Judges at their conference. We videotaped the June presentation so that anyone who missed the live conference session could also view it when they wished to do so. In June, the presentation lasted three hours and included a listening self-assessment for 175 audience members.
While Judge Burke is an important and well-known figure nationally, one of our goals was to involve local judges in the conference sessions to provide relevance. In order to do this, two judges from the Equity and Fairness Committee of the Superior Court Judges’ Association and two judges from the Diversity Committee of the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association agreed to be videotaped during an entire half day while presiding in their courtroom. We shared the videotapes with Judge Burke, who subsequently worked with each of the four judges about what he saw in their videos and what techniques they could use to improve their fairness. During the live presentations, Judge Burke shared video of judges in other states, and led discussion and provided commentary on these videos. Next, the local judges testified as to how videotaping helped them, and what changes they planned to improve their procedural fairness. After the live session, judges had a solid understanding of what procedural fairness is, why it is important, how it can make a difference for them in their jobs every day.
The two conference sessions reached over 350 judges and court administrators and were highly rated for content and effectiveness. We also found that many more judges completed the online self-assessment after hearing the live presentation.
The goal of the fourth part of the learning series, the webinar, was to provide concrete steps for improving procedural fairness in areas Washington judges identified as being less developed in their courts. It would also serve as a reminder of what they had previously learned, and add to their knowledge of the topic. Finally, it would suggest activities for judges and administrators to undertake in order to get more feedback about their progress on procedural fairness in both court room and court house. In preparation for the webinar, we analyzed the results of the self-assessment to identify where Washington judges believed they needed the most help.
Table 1: Self-assessment analysis of responses for all courts completing the survey.
KEY: W=weak, D=Developing, S=Strong, Total=total number of respondents, %S=Percentage of respondents indicating a strong response.
The table shows the nine areas of self-assessment as developed in the California Courts report. As can be seen, Washington judges considered themselves and/or their courts weaker in three areas, as indicated not only by the number of weak responses, but also by the lack of strong responses. These areas are Understanding Court Proceedings, Ensuring a Voice in the Court, and Limited English and Culturally Diverse. Due to time constraints, faculty for the webinar decided to focus in on the first two areas of need; another webinar is planned for the third area.
During the webinar, we showed clips from the Washington judges’ videotapes, and the judges themselves provided commentary related to the specific clips they chose. We also offered concrete activities that judges and administrators could do to gather feedback and make improvements in each of the focus areas. We polled the audience during the presentation to encourage them to seriously consider being videotaped and to discover their opinions on relevant topics. We also asked for their feedback using chat about steps they have taken or would like to take in their jurisdictions.
Sixty-five people attended the live webinar, called Procedural Fairness: Real Steps for Real Improvement, and another 80 have viewed the recording. According to polling taken during the webinar, 82% of participants said they are “very likely” to videotape themselves in order to see what they look like and how they sound to court users, while 18% said “maybe.” No one said they definitely would not be videotaped. Participants also shared many ideas they thought would work in their courts to improve procedural fairness. Participants overwhelmingly rated this webinar high. In applicability to their jobs, likelihood of implementing what they learned, increase in content knowledge level, and content delivery, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed in every case.
While our polling and evaluations indicate high interest and satisfaction with the learning they experienced about procedural fairness, we have no way of knowing how much change has actually occurred, or is occurring, because of participation in all or part of the learning series.
We do know several things:
We reached many judges and court administrators through our efforts. Over 400 people participated in one or more of the components of the process.
We did much more than simply present a conference session. We provided several concrete activities with opportunities for participation, discussion or feedback to help make the learning more real. We chunked up the content and spread it out over a five month timeframe.
There is a “buzz” around Washington Courts on the topic. Anecdotally, the author has heard judges from several different court levels talking about incorporating aspects of procedural fairness into sessions at the Washington State Judicial College. In addition, several conference sessions are planned for spring 2013 that tie into the topic—judges have stated this while planning the sessions, and as a reason for having the sessions. “This will tie in well with what we learned last year about procedural fairness.”
Concepts integral to procedural fairness are appearing in plans for reorganization of the Washington State Judicial Branch.
Will this learning series improve the public’s perception of procedural fairness in Washington’s Courts? One can always hope so. If nothing else, evaluations show that participants found the series relevant to their work, and they tell us they will apply what they learned in their jobs. If they follow through, positive change will occur.
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. and Garrett, R. (2007) Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States, Sloan Consortium.
Burke, K. and Leben, S. (2007) Procedural fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction. The American Judges Association.
Porter, R. (2011) Procedural Fairness in California: Initiatives, Challenges, and Recommendations. Center for Court Innovation, New York, NY and Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, CA.
NASJE member Nancy Smith recently moved from the Washington State AOC to the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, AZ 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. She has worked in judicial branch education since joining the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in September 2008 as a Court Education Professional. She has worked in education for most of her career, including 14 years as a teacher at the community college and secondary levels in Tucson. Prior to moving into court education, she assisted the Deans of Curriculum at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA planning and producing the curriculum for Evergreen’s full-time programs. In a past life, she spent four years as an Army Intelligence Officer.
Ms. Smith has produced education events for judges and court staff at all levels and in several different formats, most recently adding eLearning to her repertoire. She completed a certificate in Electronic Learning Design and Development at the University of Washington. She has organized a variety of webinar and self-paced learning modules for different court groups. In 2009, Ms. Smith was awarded a grant from the State Justice Institute to establish a model for blended learning (combining e-learning with face-to-face learning) for Washington Courts. The Procedural Fairness learning series was the last project for the grant.
Ms. Smith has broad experience in multi-cultural education, and has traveled widely in the United States and abroad. A French linguist, she earned her bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her master’s in French Language and Literature from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. She is a certified community college and secondary teacher. She also studied Spanish at the University of Arizona. When not at work, she enjoys travel, gardening, and a variety of outdoor activities.
Educating and training court personnel is every bit as important as educating our judges, but often it gets less airtime. So NASJE News is launching a new feature category exclusively dedicated to education for court personnel, starting with this article.
In preparation for the launch, I surveyed NASJE membership to learn about the types of education we collectively provide to court staff. The survey received 35 responses representing 24 states and the District of Columbia, the province of Ontario, and two national agencies. Many thanks to all of you who took the time to respond.
Nearly 89% of respondents indicate they support the education and training of court staff. However, the percentages of budgets dedicated to court staff range from less than 5% to 100%, so it’s clear that the degree to which court staff are supported ranges widely. Whether courts are unified or non-unified also impacted responses. Approximately 59% of respondents indicate they work in a unified court while 41% do not. Additionally, some respondents only support a small portion of court staff, such as a specific job type, rather than all staff; and some respondents are dedicated to supporting court staff only while their peers are assigned to support judicial officers.
Slightly more than half of the respondents indicate their court has mandatory education for all court personnel. Some of these requirements seem to be supported by statute while others are court policy. Some of the mandatory education includes ethics, discrimination, diversity, harassment, new employee orientation, and supervisory skills. Primarily, though, requirements seem to be based on the model of continuing education hours per year. The reported required hours ranges from 6 to 20.
Sometimes, requiring mandatory education for staff can be complicated when staff work under labor contracts. Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated some portion of their staff is unionized.
Distance education is getting a lot of play in state courts for a variety of topics. Seventy-two percent of respondents have used synchronous distance education, such as webinars and phone or video conferencing, and asynchronous education, such as on-demand computer-based training or videos. However, small group and conference-style live education is still very much the core of most education programs.
The topics of interest to court employees vary widely, from computer skills to customer service, from CPR to court security. The good news is that court staff personnel are getting a wide variety of educational opportunities in many states!
Over the next five years, respondents feel that a variety of technology topics will become increasingly important, from learning to use an e-filing system to understanding how social media can impact the court system. Many people commented that electronic delivery of content will also become important as the time and money available for traveling for live training dwindles.
Comments also indicate education that helps increase retention and succession planning may be forefront in educators’ minds, such as management skills, motivation and wellness, respectful behavior, diversity, onboarding, etc. There is a strong leaning toward increasing an employee’s breadth of knowledge – understanding why they do what they do and how it is important – rather than just on specific, task-oriented knowledge and skills learned in great depth.
As a disclaimer, I must say that the observations made in this article are based solely on the responses to the survey and may or may not be representative of state courts in general. In fact, one truth this survey did reveal is that state court education programs run the gamut from well-developed to “barely there,” and while many courts are interested in similar topics, they may not be interested in them at the same time and may approach them in very different ways. The world of state court education is one of “wondrous variety.”
The raw data from the survey is available on the members-only website for your review. If you did not get the chance to complete the survey, it will remain open at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WB5CDM3 for you to contribute to our data collection. Updated copies will be added to the members-only site periodically.
The next article in this series will examine how state courts educate non-law trained staff on concepts of government, civics, and the role our court system plays in society. If you are willing to discuss the challenges you’ve faced in this area, relate your experiences teaching these topics, or share course content you’ve developed to address this need, please contact me at Jennifer.Wadsworth@iowacourts.gov.
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 of the Hawkeye Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), 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.
In a year that marks the 150th anniversary of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 50th anniversary of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech, the 2013 Law Day theme is particularly apt: “Realizing the Dream: Equality for All.”
Law Day was started in 1958 by President Eisenhower to celebrate the rule of law and to educate citizens on how law and legal processes support American freedoms, with an emphasis on the role of courts in our democracy. Law Day is May 1.
The American Bar Association’s Law Day website, www.lawday.org, provides judicial branch educators with some great tools for community outreach. The site is well-organized and provides easy access to numerous resources including the Law Day 2013 planning guide, reflections on the theme and strategies for incorporating it, downloadable artwork, resources and ideas for programming and promotion, and activities for teachers and students. A particular strength of the information provided is the wide range of ideas and tips for reaching different audiences.
Talking points, lesson plans (for all ages), quotations, and film and print resources focus in particular on the serious issues of human trafficking and gender equity.
Ideas for activities that are well-suited to the courts include court tours, information fairs, mock trials, judge “shadowing,” career panels, and book/movie discussions. In addition to the web-based tips, ideas, and resources, the ABA also offers individual assistance through Chandra Fitzpatrick, outreach manager for the ABA Division for Public Education, at (312) 988-5720 or chandra.fitzpatrick@americanbar.org.
As it says on the ABA website: “Law Day, May 1, 2013, will provide an opportunity to explore the movement for civil and human rights in America and the impact it has had in promoting the ideal of equality under the law. It will provide a forum for reflecting on the work that remains to be done in rectifying injustice, eliminating all forms of discrimination, and putting an end to human trafficking and other violations of our basic human rights.”
Kelly Tait is a college instructor and communication consultant with eleven years of experience in judicial branch education. Her areas of expertise include procedural fairness, courtroom communication skills, communicating effectively with non-legally trained court participants, faculty development, and avoiding bias and perceptions of bias. She is Vice President of NASJE and can be contacted at ktconsulting@aol.com.
Like a mechanical timepiece, judicial branch education (JBE) programs have many moving parts. For a JBE program to be effective, these moving parts must complement one another and move together: facilities must nurture a learning environment, content must meet participant professional needs, materials must be clear and engaging, faculty must be prepared, and participants must show up at the right place at the right time, ready to learn. As the Globe Theater manager was fond of reminding young Shakespeare during moments of trepidation in the film Shakespeare in Love, “it always comes together in the end.” Indeed it does, but never without the effort of a team.
Regardless of whether you are a member of a team, a formal manager, or an informal leader, it is important to understand how teams can be formed and enhanced to produce the most effective JBE programs.
First, a group is not necessarily a team. Perhaps the most distinguishing difference between the two is mutual accountability. Whereas members of a group can contribute to the outcome of the group through individual action, a team relies on mutual accountability and coordination among members to produce a collective outcome.
One of the seminal works about teams, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (2003) by Katzenbach and Smith, defines teams as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”
To help us better understand the difference between a team and a group, let’s examine a group of attendees at a training session. These individuals are assembled for a common purpose and likely assessed on their ability to learn key pieces of content, but the group effectiveness is a function of individual performance. Can this group become a team? You bet! Assign the group an activity requiring interaction and upon which their performance will be assessed as a whole, and the group can build mutual accountability around a common purpose to function as a team. In this respect, interactive classroom activities not only enhance learning but can also build team skills directly transferrable to the court workplace.
So is your judicial education department a team or a group? Future Manager’s Briefcase articles will examine how teams form and which characteristics make teams effective.
Additional Reading on the topic of teams:
Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003. (link to Amazon – http://amzn.com/0060522003)
Katzenbach, Jon R. & Smith, Douglas K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review: Best of HBR 1993. 2005. Reprint R0507P. (link to HBR – http://hbr.org/2005/07/the-discipline-of-teams/ar/1)
In the Fall 2012 issue of NASJE News, I highlighted the content of Taking the Bench: An Online Course for New General Jurisdiction Judges. See http://tinyurl.com/taking-the-bench. The online, self-study course is for newly elected or appointed general jurisdiction judges to educate them about their new role. The course takes a judge between seven to nine hours to complete, and it includes readings, interactive quizzes, videos and case studies. This article addresses the six lessons that I learned from creating the program. Some of the lessons are obvious (at least now they are) and some are more obscure. However, to fully understand how The National Judicial College (the NJC) created the program, a little background information is necessary.
In 1999, the NJC began its journey into distance education. In doing so, the NJC wanted to ensure that the participants in those courses could participate in “the NJC experience” – a safe, comfortable environment where judges can speak freely about their fears, accomplishments, and backgrounds and share ideas about how they do their work in their different states and jurisdictions across the globe. To capture the NJC experience in its distance learning courses, the NJC’s staff reviewed distance learning efforts around the country to find what was working and what was not.
The NJC reviewed the efforts of both national and state organizations. More specifically, it reviewed the efficacy of satellite broadcasts, videoconferencing, learning management systems, and webcasts. The NJC elected not to use satellite broadcasts because they were mostly one-way communication, and they were expensive to implement requiring an upload site and satellite dishes at all download sites (which, for a national provider, was not financially feasible). It also found that at many download locations, judges were not participating because there wasn’t the possibility of interaction with other judges or with the instructors. Likewise, videoconferencing required that the sending site and the receiving sites all have videoconferencing hardware. While videoconferencing allowed for two-way communication, it was still quite expensive, and it was not financially feasible to install videoconferencing equipment at the receiving sites. For these reasons, the NJC elected to use both a learning management system and web conferences and webcasts because the vast majority of judges had access to internet-connected computers.
In 2001, the NJC’s first foray into distance education involved the creation of a small claims course called “Handling Small Claims Cases.” The NJC created the course in WebCT, a learning management system. In that environment, the NJC is able to create a variety of learning activities including readings, quizzes, small and large group discussions, debates, role play exercises, etc. Indeed, the environment in a learning management system such as WebCT is conducive to creating an infinite variety of learning activities just as it would be true in a face-to-face classroom. To create the NJC experience in this environment, the NJC’s staff and faculty created learning activities that enabled two-way, faculty-to-participant and participant-to-participant discussions. Further, after one year of trial-and-error, the NJC instituted weekly web conferences in which the faculty and participants could interact in real-time as well.
From 2004 to 2007, the NJC and a partner tried to launch a 40-hour curriculum for attorneys who wanted to be judges. Unfortunately, the NJC could not locate a foundation to fund the project. The NJC also approached states without success. Consequently, President William Dressel decided that we would create a shorter course (no more than 10 hours) which would educate judges who were recently elected or appointed. Most importantly, the course would not have assigned faculty. Rather, it would be self-study. The big question for the NJC was, “how do we create the ‘NJC experience’ in a self-study course?”
I began creating the course with help from long-time NJC faculty members. I chose the judges for my advisory committee because they were always willing to assist the NJC and because of their diligence. In hindsight, this was a mistake. Lesson 1: Choose committee members with the subject matter expertise and recent experiences concerning the topic being addressed. While diligence and willingness to work are excellent qualities, the committee members lacked one quality that was necessary for success in the overall project: a clear insight into what new judges would want to know. I selected committee members who had, on average, more than 15 years of experience as judges. I realized that I should have selected judges with two or three years of experience; in other words, I should have chosen relatively new judges who had very recent experiences about what new judges needed to know.
In March 2007, we held our first conference call. As we created the course, I still had doubts whether anyone would ever complete the course. There would be no faculty to persuade the participants to complete it. I felt that the participants would have to be incredibly self-disciplined. Also, since the course was going to be free for the participants, it would be easy for them to procrastinate or entirely fail to do the work necessary. In other words, I felt that there was not much incentive for the participants to complete the course and no sanctions for failing to complete it.
I initially chose six committee members to work on the four modules, although it wasn’t clear then that there ultimately would be four modules. I chose six members because that was, in my experience, a good working group size. This also was a mistake. Lesson 2: Choose enough committee members with expertise in the different areas of the curriculum and give them the opportunity to lead themselves.
The committee of six and I ultimately refined the curriculum into four modules: (1) transition from the bar to the bench; (2) in the courtroom: explores the role of a judge in the courtroom and what new judges can expect; (3) behind the scenes: explores the work that a judge does in chambers that even trial lawyers wouldn’t necessarily be aware of; and (4) the judge, the court, the community: explores what judges should (and should not) do in relating to their communities.
I assigned topics to committee members based upon their interests. I felt that they would do a better job if they had a passion for their assigned topics. Interestingly, no one chose Modules 3 and 4, arguably the most important modules. This leads me to the next lesson. Lesson 3: Ensure you have a clear vision of how you’re going to create the distance learning course and have internal personnel available to complete the project before involving outside resources or personnel.
In this case, with no funding source, the NJC’s funded projects took precedence and the project received very little attention over the next couple of years. Ultimately, we decided to consolidate the committee’s efforts to complete module 1. We also found a source of funding to support the NJC’s efforts: the NJC’s Pillars of Justice. This pushed the project forward again.
In 2010, the NJC learned that the State Justice Institute (SJI) could be interested in funding the completion of the project. Consequently, we proposed to pilot test Module 1 and complete all other modules under a grant.
With SJI’s funding, I was able to choose a committee of relatively new judges. I used recommendations from the course administrator and program attorney who oversaw our General Jurisdiction course because the course is designed for new judges. From a list of nearly 30 recommendations, I was able to locate 11 judges who were interested in the project and who had been on the bench for less than three years in most cases. I asked them to note their preferences for which modules they wanted on a scale of 1 (most interested) to 3 (least interested). Some of the judges volunteered for the modules (Modules 2 and 4 were most popular), so I had to assign judges who didn’t respond to Module 3. This was a problem later on.
In writing the proposal, I prepared a timeline of activities that kept us fairly well on time. Scheduling the first web conference was difficult because we had to coordinate 11 schedules; nevertheless, I knew that I would only have to do this once since my plan involved splitting them into three subcommittees. I sought volunteers to serve as chairpersons or leads for each of the subcommittees. Again, for module 3, I had to pick one of the judges. This was a sign of problems to come. Because the committee members were geographically dispersed, we only met via web conference; there were no in-person meetings.
With this leadership structure, two of the three subcommittees worked well together. They held conference calls with their members. I provided potential articles and materials for them to review for each of the modules. In some cases, I forwarded materials that were not a perfect fit, but I was hopeful that the judges would either find another resource or create an article of their own.
Two of the three groups met their deadlines, but the third subcommittee was not responsive. The subcommittee members were not meeting, and they were not reviewing the provided materials as far as I could tell. I re-set deadlines on a number of occasions. Ultimately, I had to seek an extension to the grant term to complete the module. Lesson 4: When a subcommittee is not responsive, don’t continue to give deadline extensions to the members. Rather, readjust the committee composition, so it can be effective.
Meanwhile, one of the subcommittees surpassed my expectations. Not only did the members locate articles and a video scenario, one of the members also drafted quiz questions to assess whether the students understood the articles.
Joseph Sawyer and I created the course structure and added the content into WebCT, the NJC’s learning management system. I also drafted quiz questions for module 2 and supplemented the module 4 quiz questions to include student feedback with references. Since one of the subcommittee chairpersons was going to be in Reno, we were able to shoot a video welcome for use on the course site.
After a few missed deadlines, I decided to ask two eager members from module 4 to join the module 3 subcommittee. Also, I spoke with Program Attorney Susan Conyers who gave me some excellent suggestions for content and provided those resources to the reconstituted subcommittee. Lesson 5: Utilize all available resources to assist you in creating your course. The new hybrid subcommittee was quite productive and met its deadlines. After they had finished their choices for articles, I drafted quiz questions for the readings.
The NJC pilot tested each of the modules to determine what should be modified by assigning modules to groups to assess. During this process, we had to make very few changes. Now, the course was finally ready for judge participants.
As I mentioned earlier, I expressed concern about judges completing the course because of a lack of sanctions or incentives. Consequently, the NJC created some incentives. If a judge completes the course, she or he receives three incentives: (1) a tuition reduction of $250 off of their first NJC tuition-based course; (2) a certificate of completion; and (3) a nice NJC pen.
The NJC gives the judges five weeks in which to complete the course which contains approximately nine hours of material. The rationale is if the completion date is left open-ended, the judges will procrastinate and never finish the course. Likewise, the NJC sends a reminder notice to the registered participants after two and one-half weeks to remind them of the deadline. The sanction is if a judge fails to complete the course within five weeks, the NJC will withdraw that student. To give appropriate notice of this event, the NJC sends a withdrawal notice to participants one week prior to the end of the course stating that they will be withdrawn from the course unless they finish. In actuality, the NJC waits one week after the finish date to actually withdraw participants because once the NJC withdraws participants, their data is lost and they must re-take the entire course.
If a participant requests an extension or two, the NJC liberally grants the request because the overriding goal is to motivate the judge to complete the course. While the incentives may persuade some judges to complete the course, I believe the reminders and the sanction of withdrawal pressure the judges to complete the course. Also, chief justices in many states prompt their new judges to take the course, so this may serve as a motivating factor as well.
From August 1 (the course’s start date) to November 30, 2012, the course had a total of 108 enrollments, with 52 participants withdrawn from the class due to non-completion, two participants who withdrew on their own, and 53 participants who completed the course. This amounts to a 49% completion rate, which is a substantially better success rate than I expected with no faculty or peers involved with the course. Lesson 6: For online courses, set a deadline for completion and utilize a staff member to send reminders about the completion date.
The evaluations for the course have been admirable overall. In response to the question whether the modules are worthwhile learning experiences, the average score is 4.3 out of 5 or 86%. While I would love to see a score in the 90s, I’m content with it considering that there are no faculty members or peers. While the course is not a true NJC experience because it lacks faculty and participant interaction, the evaluations testify that it’s substantively important, interactive, and provides much needed information to new judges embarking upon a new career.
William J. Brunson is director of special projects for The National Judicial College (NJC). In this position, he performs business development, conducts faculty development workshops, manages international programs, and oversees numerous grant projects primarily related to curriculum development for judges. Prior to this position, he served as the College’s academic director for more than three years and assistant academic director for more than four years. He also served as a program attorney for four years and as a program coordinator in 1992. He served as NASJE’s president in 2004-2005 and continues his involvement in the association. He is the co-author or co-editor of numerous curricula and publications. He has educated faculty both nationally and internationally on adult education principles and practice (also known as train-the-trainer) and curriculum development. Mr. Brunson joined the faculty of NJC in 1997.
By Jessica M. Pearce, Projects Coordinator, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Engaging the local community to build resources has become imperative for most juvenile and family courts. With local, state, and federal resources disappearing, many courts are hoping to find help for children, youth, and families in other areas of their communities. But “community engagement” is an elusive and potentially unattainable goal. If you want to be successful in your efforts to engage your community you need to determine who you want to engage and why, then create a concrete plan with measurable goals. Here are some common-sense tips to get you started.
1) Make Community Engagement and Resource Development a Priority
Community engagement and resource development cannot happen overnight. You’ll work to build on existing relationships and create new ones, which will take time. If you’ve decided you’d like to undertake this challenge, make it a priority, and plan to spend twelve to eighteen months on the project. Conduct regular monthly meetings at which the only agenda items are community engagement and resource development.
2) Create a Community Engagement and Resource Development Team
A team approach can be helpful in identifying and cultivating new community resources. With that in mind, create a community engagement and resource development team. Your team may be an off-shoot of an already existing steering committee or development group, but make sure that your team works exclusively on the task of community outreach and resource development. Be sure to include court staff who are interested in community engagement – they are usually the people that are already involved in engaging the community as individuals (i.e., belong to a civic organization, volunteer at the local animal shelter, etc).
3) Establish Measurable Goals and Objectives
Once you’ve put together your team, spend time during first meeting or two to decide on a group vision and determine goals. Many courts have been successful using the SMART method (See Wikipedia for one explanation of SMART).
SMART goals are
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Relevant, and
Timely.
Below are some samples:
Invite at least one new community contact to each of our community outreach and resource development meetings in the months of October, November, and December.
Over the next three months, develop an incentive program for staff at the juvenile court and social services for either identifying or outreaching to a new community linkage.
4) Inventory Your Needs
There is nothing more frustrating in community engagement and resource development than creating a new linkage and finding that you’re not ready to use their services. This can damage the newly developed relationship and can make your new linkage wary of working with the court. So, first take an inventory of needs. Survey staff and the children, youth, and families who are coming to court to find out what services they need. Ask your veteran staff about programs that existed in the past, but may have been eliminated due to budget cuts. Use the Community Map on the NCJFCJ website to create a wish list for programs under each of the different domains. For example, under the domain of education, you may want to find tutoring services and GED programs.
5) Inventory Your Community Resources
Your community is not one single entity but rather a collection of different domains, each with their own resources, goals, and concerns. The Community Map is a great visual tool to help your team identify all of the different domains in the community and begin to create a list of specific programs within each domain that may be helpful to children, youth, and families involved in the court system. As you explore the resources in your community, try to find not only natural allies, but also seek out community groups and members that share the court’s concerns; they can become excellent allies in systems change. Here’s a tip: use the local Yellow Pages or a similar directory – a compendium of community resources! Once you’ve created a list of the local programs within each domain, match up your wishes and needs with the different groups that could be approached about partnering with the team.
6) Develop Marketing Tools
It will be helpful to first identify existing services, organizations, groups, and individuals who have an investment in the same outcomes you are seeking to achieve. Determine who wants to reach out to the population of children, youth, and families you are planning to serve. Build on areas of common interest to create marketing materials. Marketing materials should include the team’s vision; an overview of the children, youth, and families; and a brief overview of some of the things these court users need (i.e., housing, tutoring, transportation assistance, etc).
7) Engage Your Community
Once the team is formed, measurable goals have been developed, needs and wishes have been inventoried, and marketing materials have been crafted, you and your team are ready to engage the community. Continue working with your team to determine the best path to collaboration, to making existing connections work better, and to finding new partnerships. Here are some strategies that have been successful for other courts:
exploring existing partnerships to see if there are new ways for you to collaborate
look to your “sister” systems (social services, probation, etc) to find ways to share resources
host a roundtable meeting with community leaders to discuss your areas of mutual interest
reach out to universities, United Way organizations, and other entities whose business is to gather information about resources, create directories, and conduct research
It is no coincidence that a synonym for community is kinship. In the end successful community engagement is based on relationships. Work to form a cooperative spirit among those with whom you wish to collaborate.
The conversation regarding the need for judicial outreach in increasing public trust and confidence in the courts is not a new one. In the Summer 1998 issue of the NASJE News, Roger Warren, then president of the National Center for State Courts, said that the court community is well aware of the challenge of public mistrust and that public trust and confidence are the ultimate measures of court performance.
Warren suggested that effective public communication is essential to court performance and said courts should be engaged in informing the public of the structure, functions, and programs of the courts and educating the community about the law and the roles of the courts.
The five justices of the North Dakota Supreme Court hold court in a public high school gymnasium.
With recent surveys indicating a lack of public knowledge about the judicial system and a growing distrust of government in general, the question today is not whether the courts should engage in public education, but rather how should they engage. For judicial branch educators, a further question is what is their role in public education efforts?
The National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) helps answer that question in its Principles and Standard of Judicial Branch Education. Principle Seven, Outreach and Collaboration, states, “Judicial Branch Education should help all judicial branch personnel develop skills in public outreach, community collaboration, community leadership and public service.” Two standards in particular give guidance for educators in this area.
Standard 7.2, Collaboration and Leadership, states that judicial educators should work closely with judicial branch leaders, public information officers, court services organizations, committees, and community partners to develop and institutionalize outreach programs that inform the public, court users, and policy makers about the courts. Examples of such programs include Law Day, the Color of Justice, We the People, teen courts, orientation for new state legislators, and other programs that bring the courts to schools and communities.
Many state court systems sponsor teacher institutes or have developed law-related lesson plans and instructional material for use in classrooms. These programs tie into Standard 7.3, Programs and Materials, which states that judicial branch education organizations should develop education programs and materials that help judicial branch personnel implement outreach programs in their local courts and communities.
According to the National Center for State Courts publication Future Trends for State Courts 2007, recent years have seen a growing recognition of judicial outreach as an appropriate judicial activity. This belief is justified because outreach is needed to promote public understanding of the courts. In 2006, the Iowa Supreme Court took this idea a step further and issued a Bench Order that summoned its judges and court employees into judicial outreach service. Part of the order reads, “For too long, courts have relied on other organizations, such as schools, bar associations, and the media, to shoulder the responsibility of increasing public understanding of the court system. But now more than ever, it is imperative that courts take the lead in enhancing the public’s knowledge about the function of the courts in our democracy, including the constitutional role of the courts, the value of judicial independence, and the fundamental importance of the rule of law, as well as the day-to-day importance the courts have on the lives of all Americans.” The court also said that training should be provided to judges and court staff on public outreach.
North Dakota Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle swears in secondary teachers prior to mock oral arguments held as part of the North Kakota Justices Teaching Institute.
In his opening plenary at the 2007 NASJE Annual conference, Oregon Chief Justice Paul De Muniz said the power of the judiciary comes from the majority of Americans believing in the impartiality of the courts and having confidence in the courts. “Civic education is often seen as external to the courts, but the responsibility resides with us,” he said. “We know how important an educated electorate is and it is up to us to educate the public about the courts.” De Muniz added that judges also have an obligation to be out in the community educating the public, adding that there are tremendous opportunities to partner with others to educate the public, students, and teachers.
It is clear that judicial educators should support judges and court personnel in their efforts to educate the community about the judiciary and its function in society and should also have a role in planning how judicial branch support for civics education is developed. One way to provide support is through offering training for judges and staff related to public speaking, leadership, customer service, teaching, and planning.
An example of this is California, which has developed a curriculum on outreach for new and experienced judges. The goal of this curriculum is to provide participants with the skills and knowledge needed to find an appropriate role in the court’s outreach efforts. It is based on the idea that while not every judge is suited by personality, temperament, or interest to be active in the community, every judge needs to understand the importance of outreach and how it should be conducted. Educational content of such training could include the following:
Definition of court/community outreach and the audiences reached
Outreach and its impact on the court’s strategic planning
Community focused planning
Techniques for educating the public about the judicial branch and the courts
Impact of the media on the public perception of the judicial branch and the courts
Relationship between the courts and the public
Judicial philosophy and its impact on community outreach
Public service
Communication skills and dealing with diverse groups
Marshalling appropriate resources for effective community outreach
Ethical considerations
Cultural and fairness considerations
Another way that judicial educators can support public outreach is through training judges and staff on the use of media. A 2010 report of the New Media Committee of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers calls for collaboration with national judicial associations, including NASJE, to develop a national response to the use of new media such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs by judges and court systems. Judges and court staff not only need education about new media and how it works, but also on ethical considerations of using media and how to react when things go wrong.
The court’s relationship with the public continues to evolve, but one thing has not changed since our country was founded: Belief in the justice system is critical to public respect for all government. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice … contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people, affection, esteem, and reverence towards the government.” Through judicial outreach and training of judges and court personnel, the courts can continue to play an important role in connecting the people to their government.
Nearly 89% of respondents indicate they support the education and training of court staff. However, the percentages of budgets dedicated to court staff range from less than 5% to 100%, so it’s clear that the degree to which court staff are supported ranges widely. Whether courts are unified or non-unified also impacted responses. Approximately 59% of respondents indicate they work in a unified court while 41% do not. Additionally, some respondents only support a small portion of court staff, such as a specific job type, rather than all staff; and some respondents are dedicated to supporting court staff only while their peers are assigned to support judicial officers.
Over the next five years, respondents feel that a variety of technology topics will become increasingly important, from learning to use an e-filing system to understanding how social media can impact the court system. Many people commented that electronic delivery of content will also become important as the time and money available for traveling for live training dwindles.
Like a mechanical timepiece, judicial branch education (JBE) programs have many moving parts. For a JBE program to be effective, these moving parts must complement one another and move together: facilities must nurture a learning environment, content must meet participant professional needs, materials must be clear and engaging, faculty must be prepared, and participants must show up at the right place at the right time, ready to learn. As the Globe Theater manager was fond of reminding young Shakespeare during moments of trepidation in the film Shakespeare in Love, “it always comes together in the end.” Indeed it does, but never without the effort of a team.
