Evaluation of the Centers for Complex Litigation Pilot Program • Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda Otto

Complex civil litigation has been a topic of perennial concern for state courts.  Most state courts rarely have the resources or time to adequately handle complex civil cases.  This has stimulated a great deal of dissatisfaction among counsel that specialize in complex civil cases and has forced many of these attorneys to seek other venues for adjudication (e.g., federal courts, private arbitration).  Recently, the state of California has sought to address these issues by pilot testing several courts that specialize in handling complex civil cases.  These courts differ in a variety of ways from other courts in California.  They handle only complex civil litigation cases, they have more resources and personnel, and their personnel have extensive training and experience in the processing of complex civil cases.  While these courts are innovative in a variety of ways, their impact on the processing of complex civil cases is poorly understood.  Moreover, there is scare information detailing the actual procedures, reforms, and other innovative techniques currently being implemented by these courts.  Are the complex civil litigation courts processing cases more expeditiously, effectively and efficiency than in the past?  Are retained counsel expressing a greater amount of satisfaction with the way that these courts are handling their civil cases?  What are the actual reforms and innovations currently underway in these courts? The Administrative Office of California's Courts has contracted with The National Center for State Courts to evaluate California's complex civil courts and answer these important questions.  This evaluation will take place over a two-year period and will involve a quantitative and qualitative analysis of these particular courts.  

Evaluation of the Development and Implementation of Virginia's Sentencing Laws: A Partnership of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission and the National Center for State Courts • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

This project is designed to provide the first systematic description and evaluation of the development and implementation of Virginia’s new sentencing reforms.  These incorporate three of the key reforms that many states are currently considering:  truth in sentencing, abolition of parole, and lengthier prison terms for violent offenders.  Policymakers in Virginia are particularly concerned about the impact of the new sentencing reforms on violent crime. The study has three main components:  1) an evaluation of the development process for the new sentencing guidelines; 2) an evaluation of the implementation process and the effect of the reforms on sentencing practices; and 3) an initial look at recidivism under the new sentencing regime.  

Offender Risk Assessment in Virginia - Is now available on-line (click on title).  A hard copy is available by contacting Pam Petrakis

Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Domestic Violence Unit • Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam Petrakis

This evaluation sought to address several critical issues about the benefits of an integrated domestic violence court, including whether the DVU encourages victims to stay engaged in the system, assists victims to remain out of abusive relationships, and increases compliance of respondents/defendants with the court’s orders and sanctions. Staff gathered data for the evaluation from case records and interviews with victims, batterers, and practitioners in the DVU, its related components and other parts of the justice system. Evaluation findings were distilled in a guide entitled, Implementing an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: Systemic Change in the District of Columbia - Available in PDF Format (click on title). For more information, please contact Pam Petrakis.

Evaluation of the Habitual Offender Program • Victor E. Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis

This Program is based on the assumption that early identification of potential habitual offenders will deter driving offenses, and thus reduce the number of drivers who will become habitual offenders.  The measure of success, or failure, (dependent variable) is the proportion of habitual offenders, defined as the percentage of the driving age population identified as a habitual offender, or alternatively, the percentage of those drivers with two offenses that commit a third offense.  A successful intervention should result in a decrease in the percentage of persons being identified as an habitual offender.

Evaluation of the Integration of an Empirically-Based Risk Assessment Instrument into Structured Sentencing • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

In 1994, Virginia abolished parole and developed truth-in-sentencing guidelines for all persons convicted of felonies.  These changes were designed to increase time served in prison for selected violent offenses and for those with prior violent records.  At this time, the General Assembly also required the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC) to recommend a method for diverting 25 percent of non-violent, prison-bound offenders into alternative sanction programs, and to use risk assessment to identify offenders who pose the lowest risk to public safety.  After 18 months of staff research and oversight by the sentencing commission, the VCSC has created a risk assessment instrument for use by judges at the time of sentencing and initiated a pilot test of the tool in four judicial circuits beginning on September, 1998.

This study builds on and extends the “practitioner-researcher partnership” between the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission (VCSC) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).  The partnership will be used to develop and execute a comprehensive evaluation guided by three primary goals:  1)  to evaluate the development of an empirically based risk assessment instrument for use by judges on the bench at the time of sentencing, 2)  to evaluate the implementation, use, and effectiveness of the instrument, and 3) to establish a database and methodology for a complete follow-up study on recidivism for offenders diverted through risk assessment use.  This innovative project has the active support of the Virginia judiciary.  

Expediting Appeals for Dependency Cases in State Courts: Examining and Measuring Promising Practices • Carol Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis

The monograph, Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delays, describes best practices for expediting appeals for dependency cases and a journal article that will reach a wide audience of individuals involved in dependency cases is now available.  The monograph  describes all expedited appeals procedures for dependency cases in state courts; describes their implementation process; and provides a guide for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of adopting one or more procedures for expediting cases.  It is now available on-line (click on title).

F                                                    Return to Top

The Foundation for Tracking Family Violence Caseloads: A Data Reporting Prototype • Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam Petrakis

This project developed a family violence data reporting prototype for state courts. In recent years, state and federal policy makers have realized the need to gather information about the incidence of family violence that is more accurate and useful than is currently available. They need guidance on basic data collection issues such as how to define, classify, and count family violence cases. The project addressed these issues by developing definitions of family violence cases, methods for classifying and counting cases, and model case data variables that courts should include in their data collection systems. 

G                                                    Return to Top

H                                                    Return to Top  

How the Public Views the State Courts: A 1999 National Survey • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis   

Interviews were conducted with 1800 Americans in January and February of 1999 to produced How the Public Views the State Courts: A 1999 National Survey funded by The Hearst Corporation (available on-line - click on title). The survey is intended as a model that can be used by individual states and localities.  Other objectives are to establish what the American public thinks about the performance of state and local court sin key areas such as access to justice, timeliness, fairness and equality, and independence and accountability; to ask questions that clarify what the sources of public concern or satisfaction with various aspects of court performance; and to repeat questions from the Hearst Survey and other surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1980s to assess changes over time in public opinion about the courts.  They survey findings were made available at the May, 1999 National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System.

There is an article entitle Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts: What Public Opinion Surveys Mean to Judges by David Rottman and Alan Tomkins that was published in Court Review - Fall 1999 that is available in PDF format (click on title).

I                                                    Return to Top

Impact of State Incarceration Policies on Local Court Felony Case Processing • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

During the previous twenty years, the United States has incarcerated an increasing number of its felony offenders. This trend accelerated dramatically throughout the 1990s. Since the beginning of the decade, the number of people incarcerated increased by 36.8%. At present, around 1.25 million people are behind bars in the United States. These numbers are staggering; the United States incarcerates more people today than at any other point in its history. The growing number of people behind bars has had significant impacts on society in general and on states, in particular. State institutions, ranging from the local police to the legislators and governors, have shifted their priorities in response to this incarceration trend. State courts have been effected too, though the nature of these effects is unknown. While the impact of incarceration on state courts has not been researched, it is a topic of substantial importance. Are the state courts convicting and incarcerating their felony criminals at higher rates than in the past? Are the state courts sentencing their convicted felons to considerably longer prison terms in response to this national incarceration trend? These issues were examined in 11 courts: some located in states that incarcerate a very high number of offenders, others in states that incarcerate a relatively few number of their convicted felons, and the remainder fell in-between the high and low incarceration states. The study included case sampling/data collection and interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys regarding the impact of these differing incarceration policies on their workloads.

Implementing Court Interpreter Training and Certification Testing in the Colorado Courts • William Hewitt
Contact Amy Spencer-Westerkamp

NCSC staff worked with the Colorado Supreme Court staff to design and implement basic educational programs and performance testing for Spanish interpreters in Colorado.

Implementing Court Interpreter Training and Certification Testing in the Cook County, Illinois Courts • William Hewitt
Contact Amy Spencer-Westerkamp

NCSC staff worked with the Cook County Supreme Court staff to design and implement basic educational programs and performance testing for Spanish interpreters in Illinois.

Improving Courts' Delivery of Services to Families and Children • Victor E. Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis

Recognizing the critical role of courts as the decision-maker of last resort for families in need of assistance, Congress set aside 35 million dollars in grants to state courts to improve court proceedings of foster care and adoption cases during a four-year period. The Court Improvement Program grants (provided to the highest court of each state) are intended to “... help State courts perform their role in the continuum of care provided for families and children at risk.” With these grants, each participating state court system is assessing their courts’ handling of foster care and adoption cases and developing plans to improve the administration of justice in these cases. In 1996, the NCSC, American Bar Association’s (ABA) Center on Children and the Law, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) coordinated three regional conferences to acquaint state courts with the rationale for the assessment, the federal requirements, the performance goals and the assessment methodology. The conferences were sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Influence of Court, Prosecutors and Defender Resources, Procedures and Interagency Coordination on Felony Case Processing • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

This recently completed project (January, 1999) is the first comprehensive, comparative examination of state criminal courts in a decade.  This study produced a monograph, Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality:  A New Perspective from Nine State Trial Courts, that addresses the fundamental question:  Is it possible to resolve cases expeditiously without sacrificing the quality of justice?

On the basis of an examination of nine contemporary state criminal trial court systems, we conclude that timeliness in felony case processing occurs in contexts that also are conducive to the achievement of case processing quality.  In both faster and slower courts, the more serious, more complicated, and more difficult cases take a longer amount of time to resolve than the less serious, less complicated, and less difficult cases.  This pattern suggests that courts generally adhere to a norm of proportionality, which states that the amount of attention that each case receives should be in proportion to the amount that it warrants.  The difference is that in the more expeditious courts, the work gets done within tighter time frames. 

The presence of more efficient work orientations among prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys underlies the tighter time frames.  Attorneys’ views about their work environment and toward each other’s activities are linked to how timely their particular court is.  In expeditious courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys are adversarial in their outlook to the same degree that prosecutors and defense attorneys are in less expeditious courts, but they share views toward resources, management, and the competency of their opponents that are unlike those of their counterparts in less expeditious courts.  In faster courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys are more likely to see each other as well prepared, well trained, and trial tested.  Additionally, they are less likely to see resource shortages, even though their caseloads are no less burdensome than those of their counterparts in slower courts.  Hence, the main policy implication from the inquiry is that the agenda of future national, state, and local judicial and attorney training programs should center on how judges and attorneys can become more efficient and how to use the gains in efficiency to secure both timeliness and case resolution quality.

Innovations in Jury Trial Procedures • G. Thomas Munsterman, Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda Otto

Jury Trial Innovations brings together and describes in detail the various innovative techniques used in state and federal courts to assist jurors in civil and criminal, simple and complex cases. This publication, which has become the single most popular text for judicial education on jury issues, categorizes innovative practices by stage of litigation (e.g., administration, pretrial, voir dire, trial, deliberations, post-verdict) and includes concise descriptions of each practice with references to illustrative statutes, court rules and case law, expert commentary and empirical studies.

Integrating Criminal and Civil Matters in Family Courts • Brenda Uekert
Contact Pam Petrakis

Family violence is a complex issue that involves a variety of family and criminal legal issues.  Yet the court system remains fragmented—typically handling criminal cases in one court and civil cases in another.  While many larger jurisdictions now have “family courts,” the jurisdiction of the family court seldom includes criminal cases and varies by locality.  Court fragmentation may lead to inconsistent court orders and the lack of information and coordination between courts may jeopardize the safety of family members who seek reprieve from the courts.

This study, sponsored by the State Justice Institute, examined how family courts handle criminal family violence cases.  The study design addressed two questions.  First, what are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of family courts handling criminal cases?  Second, what types of processes should be in place in family courts to enhance case coordination and family outcomes?  The research tools used to address these questions included a national survey of “family courts” and a cross-site comparison of three courts.

The final report, Integrating Criminal and Civil Matters in Family Courts: Performance Areas and Recommendations, is available on-line (click on title). A hard copy can be obtained by contacting Susan Reinhardt.

Internet-Based Domestic Violence Court Preparation System • Contact Barbara Kelly

This project is designed to test, deploy and disseminate an Internet-Based Domestic Violence Court Preparation System for the state of Georgia. The system will provide on-line computer assisted preparation of the court papers domestic victims need to obtain protective orders and the support and information that will enable them to make safe and effective use of this assistance. The project has the potential to dramatically increase the rate of filing of protective orders, to improve the quality of the requests filed by victims and the orders issued by the courts, and their enforceability, and thus to impact the entire protective system.

J                                                    Return to Top

Judicial Education on Substance Abuse • Hillery Efkeman
Contact: Pam Petrakis

On behalf of the American Judges Association (AJA), the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) will develop, demonstrate, and disseminate an educational curriculum on substance abuse for judges.  The curriculum will be adaptable for various judicial educational contexts at the national, state and local levels and appropriate for judges who deal with substance abuse issues in all types of cases.  The curriculum will seek (1) to create an awareness of the substance abuse problem in the court population, (2) to provide the judiciary with general education on successful treatment delivery and prevention programs, and (3) to offer approaches on how to build a collaborative network with other disciplines that are involved with substance abusing populations.  In particular, the curriculum will highlight the drug court field's positive outcomes and lessons learned in managing offenders with substance abuse problems.  The project also will support on-going dissemination efforts through the establishment of a Judicial Leadership Consortium.  The Consortium will provide national leadership for the implementation of national, state, and local efforts to educate judges on substance abuse issues.  AJA will lead the development of the educational curriculum in cooperation with representatives from other national organizations and with staff support by the NCSC.

Jury Summit 2001: A Planning Grant for a National Conference • G. Thomas Munsterman
Contact Paula Hannaford-Agor, Brenda Otto

The New York State Unified Court System and the NCSC hosted the conference, entitled "Jury Summit, 2001",  which was held Jan 31-Feb 3, 2001 in New York City.  The National Center for State Courts was awarded a planning grant to supplement the efforts of the New York Unified Court System.  The conference decision making body was a small executive committee with representation of the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the New York Unified Court System, the American Judges Association, the National Association for Court Management, and the National Center for State Courts.  Participation by the Federal Courts was coordinated through the Federal Judicial Center. 

The purpose of this conference was to:

1. Showcase the changes made in the jury systems in U.S. courts and the methods of implementation through which these changes were made;

2. Describe the rationale for these changes;

3. Develop a national focus on jury system innovations and provide a means to keep that focus alive; and

4. Inspire those states that have not been active in the jury improvement process to consider such an effort.  

Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence:  The Effects of Court-Based Intervention Programs on Recidivism • Brenda Uekert
Contact Pam Petrakis

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC), in collaboration with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), will conduct a 24-month study of the effectiveness of intervention programs in the area of juvenile domestic/family violence.  

The project’s goal is to document the effectiveness of court- and probation-based intervention programs on offender recidivism and post-treatment behaviors.  There are four specific objectives.  First, the study seeks to identify promising components of specialized intervention programs that can be adopted by courts and probation departments nationwide.  Second, a descriptive analysis of juvenile domestic/dating violence offenders and family violence offenders will be conducted to determine variances among offenders based on the type of violence.  Third, the effectiveness of treatment will be explored by comparing juvenile domestic/family violence offenders who complete the treatment program with noncompleters.  Fourth, the program’s effectiveness on recidivism and post-program behaviors will be analyzed in comparison with those of a control group.  

The NCSC/APPA research team will conduct a quasi-experimental research design incorporating pre/post and experimental/control comparative analysis.  The Santa Clara (CA) Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court and the San Francisco Youth Family Violence Court have specialized intervention programs that comprise the experimental sites.  An additional site, Contra Costa County , which does not have a specialized court or probation program, will act as a “control.”  Contextual analysis will be conducted through semi-structured staff interviews, focus groups, unobtrusive observation, intake assessment, document review, and the collection of aggregate statistics.  Outcome evaluation methods include case review and statistical analysis of post-adjudication compliance (recidivism) and behaviors using probation files and criminal records as secondary sources.  Data will be analyzed using survival analysis and Cox regression.  The products resulting from the study include:

• Implementation Guide for Courts and Probation Departments: Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Domestic/Family Violence

• Differential Aspects of Juvenile Dating/Domestic Violence and Family Violence: Implications for Intervention Programs

• The Effectiveness of Court-Based Intervention Programs in Addressing Juvenile Domestic/Family Violence

• Resources for the Court Community: Juvenile Domestic/Family Violence (web-based module)

The research team will make selected products available through NCSC’s and APPA’s  World Wide Web sites, as well as more conventional means of dissemination.    

Final Report is available here.

K                                                    Return to Top

L                                                    Return to Top

M                                                    Return to Top

Major Therapeutic and Preventative Justice Programs • Pam Casey
Contact Pam Petrakis

The purpose of the paper, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts,  is to make the council knowledgeable about major therapeutic and preventative justice programs occurring outside California.  The paper is designed to identify and discuss how, in the aggregate, these programs represent significant changes in the traditional roles of judicial officers and courts, and provide brief examples of the policy/legislative/constitutional changes that are required to institutionalize these role changes.  The paper provides a lead-in or entrée into a discussion by the council of the changing role of the justice system, and how they might lead the California justice system in these changes.  

The Many Facets of Juror Privacy: What Can Courts Do? • Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda Otto

As access to personal information in public records, over the Internet, and through other sources has improved, prospective jurors across the country are beginning to demand that courts take steps to keep personal information that is provided during jury service confidential. Some courts have struggled with juror privacy issues for a substantial period of time and have modified their jury procedures to accommodate these concerns by sealing records, withholding certain information from litigants and attorneys, using "anonymous juries" and other techniques. Other courts have not yet confronted these issues or have only begun to seriously consider these matters. The result is a national hodge-podge of court procedures concerning public access to juror information - few of which adequately address all of the facets of juror privacy and many of which are of questionable legality given the strong statutory and constitutional policies in favor of open judicial records. What courts need at this time, and what this white paper attempts to provide, is a comprehensive framework for courts to use in formulating effective and legal defensible policies and procedures to protect the confidentiality of juror information.

The paper begins with a description of how multifaceted and nuanced the issue of juror privacy can be in the context of contemporary society. A brief overview of caselaw on this topic demonstrates a surprising lack of consensus about the importance that courts should ascribe to protecting the confidentiality of jurors’ personal information. It then proposes a new framework in which the principle criteria for determining whether juror information should be publicly accessible is whether that information is relevant to the juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the context of a specific trial. The framework is illustrated with a detailed description of whether information collected during various stages of the pretrial and trial process - summoning and qualification, voir dire, post-verdict - should be protected or disclosed.

An early draft of the white paper was distributed at Jury Summit 2001, a national symposium that focused on all aspects of contemporary jury management and trial procedures held in New York City on January 31 to February 3, 2001. The final draft, entitled Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures, is available on-line on the NCSC Web site (click on title) and on the Jury Summit 2001 Web site (click on title). It was included in the course materials for the Institute for Court Management workshop on Jury Management (September 4-7, 2001 in San Francisco). A version of the white paper was expected to be published in the July/August 2001 issue of Judicature.

Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants: A Consumer-Based Approach • Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda Otto

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) propose a unique partnership to reduce the complexity of civil proceedings, a root cause of many of the problems that litigants, as well as judges and court staff, experience when litigants appear without lawyers.  Through its Institute of Design and Chicago-Kent College of Law, IIT contributes to the partnership the most powerful, cutting-edge research, process design, and communication techniques now used by business and industry.  The NCSC contributes a comprehensive understanding of the needs and operations of the state courts, experience in conducting research in courts, and close links to the leadership of the state court community nationwide.

The purpose of the partnership is to apply a consumer-based approach to meeting the needs of users of court services.  Our focus is on the kinds of cases in which litigants often appear without legal representation.  The central purpose of the proposed project is to re-design court processes to overcome limitations inherent in traditional pro se assistance programs.  Although focused on pro se cases, a consumer-based approach is applicable across the full civil caseload spectrum.  This consumer-based approach designs new court processes from the ground up based on the needs of all users – attorneys, court staff, and litigants.  The partners will also develop user-friendly electronic interfaces through which the public can access the redesigned court processes. 

An Executive Summary entitled Access to Justice: Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants is now available on-line (click on title).  The Final Report is available through Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Integrating Intermediate Sanctions into Guidelines and Examining the Judicial Response to Sentencing • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

This project establishes a “researcher-practitioner” partnership to create a system of sentencing guidelines for the state of Michigan that will (1) mandate significant prison sentences (with truth-in-sentencing) for all violent offenders, (2) identify and provide graduated punishment for non-violent offenders outside the prison system, (3) operate within the existing financial resources, and (4) help inform the national dialogue on sentencing reform. Policymakers in Michigan want to increase the likelihood that violent offenders will serve time in prison and that time served as a fraction of sentence length will increase, while also developing a system of appropriate non-prison sanctions for non-violent offenders.  The benefits of integrating of a set of graduated intermediate punishments into the framework of sentencing guidelines has been discussed widely, but never fully implemented.  This project has the support of the Michigan judiciary and legislature.

Models of Effective Court-Based Service Delivery to Children and Their Families • Pam Casey
Contact Pam Petrakis

In response to reported increases in the number of criminal trials resulting in hung juries in several jurisdictions, the National Center for State Courts obtained a grant from the National Institute of Justice to conduct a four-year study of the frequency and causes of hung juries.  The project combined three different methodological components: a broad-based survey of hung jury rates in state and federal courts; a jurisdictional study that compared juries that were able to agree on a verdict to juries that deadlocked on one or more charges; and a case study of hung jury cases from the jurisdictional study sample.  Project staff found that criminal hung jury rates in 30 large, urban courts averaged 6.2%, but with considerable variation among sites.  In federal courts, the average rate was 2.5% over an 18-year period, again with variation at the individual district court level.

In the jurisdictional study, project staff administered questionnaires to judges, attorneys and jurors to 382 felony jury trials in four jurisdictions.  Nearly 8% of the juries hung on all counts and 12.8% hung on one or more courts.  Comparisons of the verdict juries to the hung juries identified three critical aspects of felony jury trials that are related to the likelihood that a jury will hang: the evidentiary characteristics of the case; the interpersonal dynamics of deliberations; and the individual jurors’ opinions about the fairness of the law as applied during the trial.  Multivariate analyses as well as the case studies component confirmed that all three of these aspects contribute to the likelihood of jury deadlock.

The authors concluded that implementation of a non-unanimous verdict rule would reduce the number of hung juries by 42%, but cautioned that such an approach would treat the symptoms of juror disagreement but not necessarily the causes.  Based on the study findings, they recommended better case selection and preparation by attorneys, better tools for jurors to understand the evidence and law, and guidance for jurors about how to conduct deliberations as more appropriate responses to hung juries.

The final publication, Court Responses to Individuals in Need of Service: Promising components of a service coordination strategy for courts, is available on-line (click on title).  A hard copy can be obtained by contacting  Pam Petrakis

N                                                    Return to Top

A National Study and Action Plan on Attorney Conduct and Professionalism • Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda Otto

The goal of the CCJ Committee on Lawyer Competence and Professionalism (CCJ/CPR) was to formulate a national action plan for judicial oversight and support of programs designed to bolster attorney competence and professionalism. To achieve this goal, NCSC conducted a research study to assist the CCJ Committee. With assistance from the American Bar Association/Center for Professional Responsibility, project staff compiled the responses of a detailed survey to produce a comprehensive picture of lawyer professionalism initiatives.  This study was then used as the basis for a National Action Plan on Attorney Conduct and Professionalism, which was adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices in 1999.

National Symposium on Children, Courts and the Federal Child Support Program • William Hewitt
Contact Pam Petrakis, Amy Spencer-Westerkamp

This project responds to concerns voiced by state court leaders regarding the role of state courts in national child support program reform efforts. The Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators have joined together to work with the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to develop and conduct a National Symposium on Children, Courts and the Federal Child Support Enforcement Program. The Symposium is scheduled for September 17-19, 1998 at the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver. The Symposium will provide an opportunity for the states’ judiciary and child support service administrators to work together in developing a comprehensive, integrated service delivery program for improved family support programs. NCSC project staff will consciously act as agent both for the OCSE and for the state court community.

O                                                    Return to Top

P                                                    Return to Top

A Program of Support for Judicial Branch Involvement in Judicial Selection Reform:  2003/2004 • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis

The 12-month long project continues a concerted effort to help key states and localities prepare for the 2004 election season and to take significant strides to promote selection reform in the longer term.  The project builds on the recommendations in the Call to Action issued by participants in the National Summit on Improving Judicial Selection (December 2000).  In anticipation of the 2004 judicial elections, the project is working with two national ad hoc advisory committees established by the NCSC to (a) revise their codes of judicial conduct to be consistent with recent federal court decisions and effective restraints on non-judicious campaigning and (b) establish non-governmental judicial campaign conduct committees to monitor campaigns and educate candidates and voters about the appropriate standards for judicial elections.  The project works with other national organizations like  the ABA, AJS, and Justice at State, as well as with the state court leadership.

Public Opinion on the Courts: A Survey Planned for 2000 • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis   

The National Center for State Courts, through a grant by the National Institute of Justice, completed a public opinion survey early in the year 2000. The immediate purpose of the survey was to inform a national conference that was convened in Atlanta, Georgia the week of August 13, 2000. "Symposium 2000: Meeting the Justice Needs of a Multi-Cultural Society in the 21st Century" was convened  by the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Judges Association and most other national court leadership organizations. Copies of the report were distributed at the Symposium to all participants. The questions asked in the survey follow-up on what was learned from two recent surveys of public opinion on the justice system. The main objective of the survey was to develop a better understanding of the bases underlying the significant racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of the courts that were identified in How the Public Views the State Courts: A 1999 National Survey. (Click on title) Public opinion were or will be solicited on court innovations that are currently underway or are being considered for implementation.

Also available:

How Recent Court Users View the State Courts: Perceptions of Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos, by David Rottman and Randall Hansen (Click on title).  

Perceptions of the Courts in Your Community:  The Influence of Experience, Race and Ethnicity - (click on title)

Perceptions of the Courts in Your Community:  The Influence of Experience, Race and Ethnicity - Executive Summary (click on title)

Q                                                    Return to Top

R                                                    Return to Top

Reexamining Time on Appeal in Appellate Courts • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

This project was co-sponsored by the council of Chief Judges of Courts of Appeal of the Appellate Judges Conference, American Bar Association. The project made the basic research results in the previous study, Time on Appeal, more accessible and useful to the nation’s state intermediate courts. A model was developed to demonstrate that resources do make a difference and that the court can use this information in support of budgetary requests. The end product added information on time standards to the model to determine the balance between resources and management in affecting processing time.

Responding to Juror Stress  • Pam Casey
Contact Pam Petrakis

The right to a trial by jury is an integral part of the American judicial system. This right is dependent upon the willingness of individuals to serve on trial juries, which in turn is influenced by their perceptions of jury service. Recently, national television broadcasts, newspaper and magazine articles, and a few limited research reports have focused attention on the topic of juror stress. The NCSC, in partnership with the Department of Psychology at the College of William and Mary, studied systematically the incidence, nature, sources, and severity of juror stress, factors that contribute to or prevent the occurrence of this stress, and steps that courts can take to identify, respond to, or mitigate this stress. The ultimate product of the project was a Benchbook to assist judges in managing juror stress, Through the Eyes of the Juror: A Manual for Addressing Juror Stress (click on title).

S                                                    Return to Top

Sentencing Policy and Practice: A Research in Action Partnership • Brian Ostrom, David Rottman
Contact Pam Petrakis

This completed project (May, 1998) was designed to promote awareness, comprehension, and use of research on sentencing.  Two publications were produced.  The first, entitled The Sentencing Digest, summarizes a range of relevant research and evaluation projects in five general areas:  Truth-in-Sentencing, Judicial Discretion, Disparity, Intermediate Sanctions, and Cross-State Comparisons.  Each topic area is addressed through a series of questions and answered by short, self-contained analyses.  The second publication, Sentencing Commission Profiles, outlines how eighteen states have approached the development and implementation of structured sentencing laws and sentencing guidelines.  This comparative analysis is the first of its kind—providing a concise summary of the goals, structure, and mechanics of each sentencing guideline system currently in place or slated to come on line within the near future.  In addition, each system’s grid or worksheet scheme is illustrated.  Both publications have proven useful to practitioners such as sentencing commission members, judges, and court administrators as well as state lawmakers and executive branch officials.  

Serving Limited English Proficient Battered Women:  A National Survey of the Court's Capacity to Provide Protection Orders • Brenda Uekert
Contact Pam Petrakis

This study explored the capacity of Limited English Proficient (LEP) petitioners to receive orders of protection.  It was carried out by using a multi-method study design that included a national survey of courts, an intensive survey of a select group of courts and community-based organizations within their jurisdictions, and the assessment of selected sites that can serve as national models. 

Findings from the national survey of 158 courts (76 percent response rate) demonstrated that courts had inadequate resources, including a shortage of interpreters.  Courts had sparse informational or instructional material on protection orders in languages other than English and rarely posted signs informing the public of the availability of interpreter services.  Court relationships with community-based organizations were limited.  Furthermore courts had poor data collection and information management systems that did not track requests for language assistance.  The study concludes that the courts have unmet needs in the area of language assistance to protection order petitioners.

A subset of 40 courts and 84 community-based organizations (CBOs) participated in structured telephone interviews.  Both court and CBO respondents recognized three service gaps in interpreter services: (1) a major gap in the provision of interpreters occurs at the filing level; (2) language determines the quality and timeliness of interpreter services; and (3) the courts vary considerably in their use of qualified interpreters.  Generally, respondents advised that language services could be improved by taking the following actions: (1) provide information in multiple languages, (2) improve outreach to LEP communities, (3) collect data, (4) increase human resources, and (5) professionalize interpretation.

Three sites ( Miami-Dade County , Florida ; King County , Washington , and Washington , DC ) were selected for further study based on the high quality of their court programs and community collaboration.  The results of the site visits were used to develop five components of an effective court response to the language assistance needs of LEP domestic violence survivors. The components underscore the collection of language and ethnicity data, access to the courts, professional court interpretation, collaboration with community-based organizations, and the use of national networks to expand resources.

In conclusion, courts have serious challenges in providing access to LEP protection order petitioners, especially those who speak languages less commonly spoken in the community the court serves.  Yet there are a number of promising practices that can be implemented by courts and community-based organizations that can improve access to justice for LEP domestic violence survivors. 

The final report and attachments are available online by clicking on the title below.

Serving Limited English Proficient (LEP) Battered Women: A National Survey of the Courts' Capacity To Provide Protection Orders, Final Report

Should Jurors Be Permitted to Discuss the Evidence Prior to Deliberation? • G. Thomas Munsterman, Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact: Brenda Otto

The Arizona Supreme Court adopted a number of jury reforms designed to improve the ability of jurors to understand the evidence presented during trial, that become effective December 1, 1995.  One reform contrary to common practice created a great deal of interest.  Under certain conditions, jurors may now discuss the evidence in civil cases prior to the deliberation.  This project conducted a systematic evaluation of this procedure, using an experimental design with random assignment in 172 actual jury trials.

Judges and jurors strongly support juror discussions during civil trials.  Both types of survey respondents reported that they believed that discussions improve juror comprehension and do not encourage premature judgment.  Based on the data, project staff found no evidence that juror discussions contributed to premature judgment or otherwise operated to prejudice either of the parties.  Comparing the agreement rate between the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the jury's verdict, staff also found no evidence that discussions significantly improved juror comprehension.  They did find that jurors who discussed the evidence among themselves were more likely to engage in informal discussions with other jurors, but less likely to discuss the case with family or friends.  This report provides the empirical basis needed by other States considering whether to adopt the Arizona reforms.  

Reports from this study were published in:

• Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, and G. Thomas Munsterman, Speaking Rights:  An Evaluation of Arizona's Rule Permitting Juror Discussions, 85 Judicature 237 (2002).

•  Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, and G. Thomas Munsterman, The Timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases:  An Empirical Examination, 67 U. Tenn. L. Rev. 627 (2000).

• Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, and G. Thomas Munsterman, Permitting Jury Trial Discussions During Trial:  Impact of the Arizona Reform, 24 Law and Human Beh. 359 (2000).

• Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, and G. Thomas Munsterman, The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions:  The Views of Trial Participants, Judges, and Jurors, 32 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 349 (1999).

State Court Model Systems and Statistical Dictionary, First Edition • Carol Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis

The State Court Model Statistical Dictionary 1989 is still a frequently requested and well used basic reference for the Court Statistics Project (CSP), court-related research, technology projects, and most importantly the courts themselves.  The Dictionary provides a structural framework for communicating the work of courts; suggests definitions that could be adopted to encourage common usage--the prerequisite for comparative analysis within and among the states; and helps to incorporate standard definitions into integrated management systems.  This reference helps the CSP attain one of its goals--to overcome data collection problems by promulgating nationally accepted terms and definitions that make statistics uniform and comparable. 

The project produced a new dictionary, The State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, 2003.  This book updates the older 1989 Dictionary not only by adding new terms and refining old ones, but also by producing for the first time the definitions of information systems terms that courts need for their work in automation.   It will convert the statistical model into a set of specifications frequently referred to as a data dictionary and link these to the functional requirements for information systems (currently referred to as standards--civil, criminal, domestic, juvenile, etc.).

State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting •  Richard Schauffler
Contact Pam Petrakis

The State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), the Court Statistics Project (CSP) of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), trial court administrators, state and trial court statisticians, and other court experts from around the country. Since the first edition of the State Court Model Statistical Dictionary, published in 1980, and the subsequent revisions of 1984 and 1989, these groups and individuals have worked together to assist all state courts in organizing information on their caseloads. The nature of the assistance is a suggested way of counting, defining, and classifying cases at the initial stage when they are filed, and at the final stage when they are resolved. Guidelines are offered for both trial and appellate courts and for the full variety of matters that they handle.

The Guide is more than an updated version of the 1989 Dictionary. It has been redesigned to provide a comprehensive set of model reporting matrices, rather than an alphabetized list of terms. The new focus is on clearly differentiating and defining the primary components of state court data reporting. It is qualitatively different because of developments in the law, the influx of new and previously undefined case types (e.g., domestic violence), enhancements in technology, and the growing professionalism of court managers during the past 15 years. The reader will find many improvements in the current Guide that are intended to keep pace with the changing world of court management.

State Court Organization, 1998: Fourth Edition • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis   

This is the fourth edition in the series, and describes the state courts in 1998. The previous edition offered a comprehensive view of the courts in 1993. The project sought to repeat the aspects of State Court Organization 1993 that proved useful and remain relevant and in demand. Changes were made in a number of respects. The main change is that this edition is available on the world wide web at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sco98.htm.  The printed version has been redesigned to be more user-friendly and in line with the standards of other BJS-funded reference sources. Other changes include revising the contents of the edition to reflect the current and anticipated information needs of BJS, the courts, and others interested in criminal and civil justice. An index is included for both the electronic and printed versions.  To order a printed copy of this publication, please go to the BJS website mentioned above.  Instructions for ordering can be found at the bottom of that page.

The 1998 edition covers several new topics: 

• Specialized courts

• Domestic violence

• Standards regarding the insanity defense

• Automation of court information systems

Strengthening the Judicial Perspective on Judicial Independence:  A National Forum and Outreach Efforts • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis

The American Judges Association will conduct an 18 month, in-depth debate among judges from all levels of the state judiciary about three current challenges to the independence of the judiciary.  The critical challenges to be examined are:  (1) state and local government control over court budgets and operations, (2) lower standards for the conduct of candidates for judicial office, and (3) the spread of problem-solving courts that change the judiciary's traditional role.  The project will be carried out in collaboration with the National Center for State Courts and with the involvement of the Constitution Project and other organizations committed to judicial independence.

The centerpiece of the project will be a National Forum on Judicial Independence (the Forum) to be held on the first day of plenary sessions at AJA's 44th Annual Educational Conference, scheduled for October 24-29, 2004 in San Francisco, California.  In contrast to many treatments of judicial independence, the Forum will focus on the everyday exercise of judicial independence and efforts to preserve it as they affect the lives of ordinary citizens.  The Forum's concluding session will highlight common threads among the various challenges considered.  The participants' views on the challenges to judicial independence will be recorded and distributed to the full AJA membership for their reaction.

A Summit on Judicial Election Reform • David Rottman
Contact: Pam Petrakis 

The primary purpose of the summit was to mobilize state judicial and legislative leaders to address existing and potential problems in judicial election systems in these states, and to establish a network of support for reform efforts.  A secondary purpose of the summit was to attract national attention to the common problems presented by current judicial election systems and the efforts of state judicial and legislative leaders to address those problems.  The summit thus provided a forum to identify common problems associated with current state judicial election processes, as well as to develop principles for judicial election reform. 

The summit is unique in two ways.  First, it ended with a Call To Action statement (click on title for on-line version) rather than another report.  Second, it served as the first step for representatives from attending states to formulate their own plans for action.

Concise background papers were prepared on key topics by knowledgeable experts, and sent to all participants before the Summit.  One paper summarized the recent experience of judicial elections in the 15 states.  The papers  replaced formal presentations and lectures.  A selection of the papers and Call To Action were published in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, June 2001.  If you have any questions, please contact  Pam Petrakis or by calling (757) 259-1822.  

Support for Jury System Standards and Improvements • G. Thomas Munsterman
Contact Paula Hannaford-Agor, Brenda Otto

The project continued efforts to improve jury systems through the completion of three tasks. The first task supported the American Bar Association/Judicial Administration Division’s Committee on Jury Standards in its activities that promote the adoption and implementation of the Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management by states and courts and as it investigates and deliberates on recurring and new jury system issues. The second task provided short-term assistance to states and courts as they work to improve their jury systems. The results of this assistance were improved juror representativeness, reduced hardship on jurors and their employers, reduced cost to the courts, improved attitudes towards jury service, and expansion of the educational value associated with jury duty. The third task developed a monograph - Jury System Management (NCSC 1996) - on jury system resources.

Support for State Interpreter Test Rating Services (DE, FL, ID, MN, NM) • William Hewitt
Contact Amy Spencer-Westerkamp

T                                                    Return to Top

Technical Assistance to AFCARS • Carol Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis

In the past, the NCSC was a recipient of grants from the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to help states improve the reporting of information on all adoptions--whether accomplished under the auspices of public agencies, private agencies, tribal agencies or independent persons. The means to do this was to provide technical assistance to states implementing the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). NCSC assisted Ellsworth Associates and the Children’s Bureau to continue this initiative. NCSC reviewed the status of data collection; and through telephone surveys, the NCSC coordinated with representatives of social service agencies, courts and bureaus of vital records in each state to solicit clear guidance with respect to the nature of the obstacles in providing data that states are experiencing. Ten sites were chosen to receive technical assistance. NCSC provided on-site and telephone technical assistance and prepared a summary report of the objectives of the technical assistance. Results of the state surveys, complete with criteria for site selection and a capsule view of problems encountered at each of the sites, was prepared. A summary of the requests for information and assistance received and addressed by telephone, and a set of conclusions based upon all of these activities was prepared. The goal of the report was to help the Children’s Bureau determine what has been accomplished, and what remains to be accomplished, to fulfill the goal of obtaining complete and accurate adoption information from the states.

Time on Appeal in Courts of Last Resort • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis

The NCSC, in cooperation with the Appellate Judges Conference, studied how long it took courts of last resort to resolve cases, determine why some cases are resolved more expeditiously than others, and explain why some courts are more timely than others.  The results are intended to clarify what enhances the timely resolution of cases and to develop realistic time standards that take into account the relevant differences among the courts.

The publication Jurisdiction, Caseload, and Timeliness of State Supreme Courts is now available on-line (click on title) - To order the a hard copy of the publication, contact Pam Petrakis

Trial Court Performance Standards Demonstration Project • Pam Casey
Contact Pam Petrakis

Four states (NJ, OH, VA, and WA) are testing the Trial Court Performance Standards (TCPS) and accompanying measurement system. The Demonstration Project was designed to: (1) provide training, technical assistance, and overall coordination for the participating states and trial courts; (2) move the Standards Project from innovation (research, development, testing, and refinement) into a demonstration phase in the four states where the actual use of the Standards and accompanying measurement system will be implemented; (3) continue refinement and adaptation of the measurement system to meet the requirements of trial courts and state administrative offices of the courts; and (4) provide the foundation for the acceptance of the Standards and accompanying measurement system as a useful tool of judicial administration by the nation's state courts. The demonstration courts have completed their participation in this phase. In January 1995, an independent evaluator completed and disseminated a favorable evaluation report to a broad cross-section of members of the courts community.

Four major products have been produced as a result of the project: (a) a Planning Guide for Using the TCPS and Measurement Systems, (b) an updated Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary, (c) the TCPS and Measurement System volume, and (d) a program brief for policymakers and court officials, as well as a summary fact sheet. The BJA will print and distribute the material in 1996.

Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System: Coordination Efforts • Pam Casey
Contact  Pam Petrakis 

The goal of the "Coordination Efforts" was to promote the institutionalization of the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (TCPSMS) at the state and local level of the Nation’s judicial system. The NCSC encourages widespread use of the Standards, provide education and training regarding implementation, provide technical assistance to jurisdictions wishing to implement the Standards, and maintain a database of experiences regarding implementation for long-term evaluation of the program.  The project was to: 1) produce a videotape on the Standards and Measurement System; 2) convene a conference on the System; and 3) develop and maintain an Internet Resource Center.

The publication Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System Implementation Manual is now available on-line (click on title).  The forms related to this manual are also available for downloading in both PDF and Word formats.  Version 4.0 or better of either Explorer or Netscape is necessary to view all of the site.

A 5 minute video on Trial Court Performance Standards is now available (click on title).  It is quite large (80MB) so it may take a while to download from a dial-up connection.

The publication Trial Court Performance Standards Desk Reference Manual is now available on-line (click on title)

The publication Trial Court Performance Standards Implementation Profiles, January 2003 is now available on-line (click on the title)

There is an article entitled Defining Optimal Court Performance: The Trial Court Performance Standards by Pamela Casey that was published in Court Review - Winter 1998  that is available in PDF format (click on title).

Other Trial Court Performance Standards publications are available from BJA through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). 

U                                                    Return to Top

V                                                    Return to Top

W                                                    Return to Top

West Virginia Judicial Workload Assessment, 2006 • Brenda Uekert, John Douglas, Richard Schauffler, Matthew Kleiman, Scott Maggard, Paul Stenbjorn
Contact Pam Petrakis

How many family court judges are needed to provide effective case resolution for the people of the State of West Virginia ?  To answer this question, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of Appeals, West Virginia , contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to measure judicial workload in the West Virginia Circuit and Family Courts.  Each study demonstrated a need for additional judges to meet current caseloads. Final Reports are available online (click on title below).

West Virginia Family Court Judicial Workload Assessment - Final Report
West Virginia Circuit Court Judicial Workload Assessment - Final Report

When Domestic Violence and Custody Disputes Coincide: Effective Court Responses • Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam Petrakis

This project is examining court responses to domestic violence issues arising during child custody litigation. A 150 court survey has catalogued programs and procedures established by courts to handle custody cases that involve domestic violence. The survey will be followed by intensive research in three sites to determine the extent of the coincidence of custody and domestic violence, the availability of administrative mechanisms to identify custody cases involving domestic violence, the methods of disposition that result in the least need for future court intervention, and the feasibility of using mediation under court supervision to settle custody cases involving domestic violence.

Workload Assessment • Richard Schauffler, Brian Ostrom, Matthew Kleiman
Contact Pam Petrakis

A clear measure of court workload is central to determine the number of judges and court staff needed to handle and resolve all cases coming before the court. Similarly, measures of caseloads are critical to determining the appropriate resources for other agencies within the judicial system, such as prosecutor, defender, and probation offices. Adequate resources are essential to ensure that courts and related agencies are able to effectively deliver quality service to the public without delay. Meeting this challenge involves systematically assessing the number of people, including judges and staff among the courts, required to handle caseloads and determining whether these resources are allocated equitably.

Historically, states have used a variety of criteria to assess the need for judges and court staff. These include current caseload (filings), work already completed (dispositions), and factors thought to produce future work (population). However, given the ever increasing number and complexity of cases, it is increasingly important for states to use an objective workload assessment process to ensure that existing judges and court support staff are used most effectively and allocated equitably. 

Weighted caseload is a method used to translate court cases into workload for judges and court staff. While case filings can help determine the demands placed on state courts, unadjusted case-filing numbers offer only minimal guidance as to the amount of judicial work generated by those case filings. Moreover, the inability to differentiate the work associated with each case type could create the misperception that equal numbers of cases filed for two different case types result in equivalent workloads. Cases vary in complexity, and different types of cases require different amounts of time and attention from judicial officers and court support staff.

Traditionally, many states have conducted studies of the need for more judges only when determining the need for additional resources. However, if the goal of a workload and resource study is to ensure quality in the processing of cases, then assessing the optimal level of judicial resources is a necessary but insufficient step toward that goal. There are distinct, yet interrelated roles for judges and court staff in the effective processing of cases. Efficient and effective case processing depends on courts having the appropriate number and arrangement of judges and court support staff. Different case types may demand a different balance of judicial attention (e.g., felony cases) in comparison to administrative handling (e.g., traffic cases). A combined study of both judges and support staff accounts for the interconnectedness of judicial and staff work and allows for a holistic assessment of the resources needed to provide efficient and effective service to the public.

Workload standards developed through a rigorous weighted caseload study should be accurate for many years; however, periodic updating is necessary to ensure that the standards continue to accurately represent judicial workload. Increased efficiency, statutory or procedural changes, or implementation of caseflow management initiatives over time may result in significant changes in case processing.

Recent studies include the Maryland Office of Public Defender, Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment, Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment and the Wisconsin Judicial Needs Assessment. Current projects include updating Florida and West Virginia judicial workload assessments, and assessing public defender and judicial workload in New Mexico.

X                                                    Return to Top

Y                                                    Return to Top

Z                                                    Return to Top

Return to Top

Last updated 05/01/09