Race and Ethnic Fairness
State:
Committee/Report
Name: The State of
Number of Members: 28 task force members
Number of Subcommittees: 7 Subcommittees: 1. Workforce; 2. Courtroom; 3. Criminal; 4. Juvenile;
5. Civil; 6. Profession; 7. Methodology
Chair/Co-Chairs: The Honorable Robert D. Glass, Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Honorable Francis X. Hennessy, Deputy Chief Court Administrator (now Appellate Court Judge), were appointed as co-chairs to the Task Force on Minority Fairness.
Methods Used: The Task Force conducted a research review, held correction institution hearings, public hearings, focus group discussions, meetings with individuals, surveyed judges, surveyed attorneys, and surveyed court employees to collect the information used in the final report.
Topics and Recommendations
Perceptions
Public
Findings
1. Profound
differences exist in the way minorities and non-minorities perceive the
workings and attitudes of
2.
3.
- The Task Force discovered troubling disparities in the way Caucasians and minorities, both staff and clients of the court, reported situations and opportunities in the system. Minorities were much more apt to report that they had fewer opportunities in a range of judicial areas, while Caucasians felt that minorities had greater opportunities. Where appropriate, there should be outreach efforts—for defendants and their families as well as for jurors, witnesses, and victims—that work to allay fear and build trust in the justice process
Recommendations
1. The Task Force recommends that the numbers of minorities visible at all levels of the judicial system should be expanded. (See also Court as Employer/Appointer: Hiring/Promotion, Recommendation #1)
2. The Task Force recommends that multi-lingual/cultural recruitment, hiring and promotional efforts should become even more aggressive to ensure a diverse Judicial Branch workforce, and more opportunities for skills enhancement should be available to encourage the promotion of current minority employees. (See also Court as Employer/Appointer: Hiring/Promotion, Recommendation #2)
3. The Task Force recommends that the Judicial Branch should encourage the Executive Branch to nominate and the Legislative Branch to appoint more minority judges. (See also Judicial Selection, Recommendation #1)
4. Education initiatives that address the gaps between perception and reality about the system should be designed and implemented. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #2; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #2; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #2; Education: Public, Recommendation #1)
Access
Findings
1. The need for expanded services for non-English speaking individuals—whether they be defendants, litigants, witnesses, jurors or victims—is critical and exists at all levels of the system. The shortage of court interpreters and multi-lingual staff, both inside and outside the courtroom, is seen as an acute problem by a high percentage of judges, attorneys, and Judicial Branch employees.
2. Without an understanding of the legal system and without equal access to the services and programs offered by it, non-English speaking individuals cannot receive equal justice and will continue to perceive themselves as second-class citizens. Linguistic barriers provide perhaps the most concrete example of racial/ethnic unfairness in the justice system.
3. The court interpreters who are available are perceived by both minority and non-minority judges, attorneys, and employees as performing their jobs competently, but they are stretched too thin.
4. Because of the limited availability of qualified interpreters, bilingual members of the audience, courthouse maintenance workers, and volunteers are often called to interpret whether or not they understand court proceedings. Currently, young children are being taken out of school by their parent and brought in as interpreters for complex legal proceedings. The use of children or volunteers from the general public as interpreters when they are not versed in legal terminology jeopardizes the litigant’s right to a fair trial.
5. There is no provision for state-paid interpreters in civil court.
6. There
are pockets of populations in
7. There are no interpreter services available that enable non-English speaking defendants to take advantage of existing alternative sentencing and to make dispositions effective, e.g. to enable non-English speaking individuals to fulfill requirements in Driving-While Intoxicated and Family Violence Education Programs, even though these programs are dealing with criminal issues.
8. Victims are at a severe disadvantage in the system. A victim has access to an interpreter only when that victim is a witness. Often, victims need to resort to the use of an interpreter from the victim’s own family. This becomes especially difficult in case of child abuse and elder abuse, particularly if both the victim and the perpetrator are from the same family.
9. How interpreters are used in the criminal courts should be reviewed in light of the impact deployment has on court clients. Currently, work is prioritized by a standard that sees criminal courts covered first. Criminal arraignment requests are taken on an immediate need basis; other courts and facilities send in written requests for interpreters one to two weeks in advance. Interpreters are generally available to family relations counselors for scheduled office interviews upon request, however, they are not available during Family Court or to provide services on a spontaneous basis when unanticipated needs arise.
10. Telephone contacts with non-English speaking clients presents an added problem for many divisions, since interpreters are not available without having made prior arrangements.
11. Many
Superior Court staff and interpreters would like to see that: interpreters be certified in
12. There are not sufficient multi-lingual forms and public informational materials to preclude the need of an interpreter.
13. Most divisions have attempted to be aggressive in their recruitment of multi-lingual staff and in their attempts to expand the number of multi-lingual and multicultural service and education offerings. (See also Court as Employer/Appointer: Hiring and Promotion, Finding #9)
Recommendations
1. Information barriers that preclude fair and just treatment for non-English speaking clients of the court should be reviewed, and a strategic plan for addressing identified needs and service gaps should be developed.
2. Expansion of interpreter services should be a high programmatic and financial priority for the Judicial Branch.
3. The proportion of multi-lingual employees should be increased at all levels of the system where needed to enable the courts to serve an increasingly non-English speaking population.
4. Affirmative
action goals do not always reflect the fact that the Branch needs more
multi-lingual employees. It is clear to judges that the service areas of
5. The Judicial Branch should develop guidelines for dealing with non-English-speaking people around issues of courtroom discourse, attorney-client communications (written and oral), understanding of court procedures by minorities, and delivery of services to clients by court personnel.
6. Districts and divisions should review the need for interpreters and any gaps in services should be addressed.
7. Interpreters should be available for victims, especially for arrested, battered Hispanic women.
8. Probation, Family Relations and Support Enforcement Divisions should have access to interpreters who are impartial.
9. A certification system for all interpreters should be developed to ensure quality service provision for clients in the courts.
10. Only judicially trained interpreters should be allowed to interpret before the Bench.
11. Funding should be available to allow for more competitive pay rates for per diem interpreters.
12. Stipends should be available for bilingual employees with other job titles who also assist with interpreting.
13. Judges should be educated not to proceed with a case without a court interpreter present when necessary; and should encourage attorneys to press for qualified interpreters at all stages of case preparation, trial and post trial. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #3)
14. A committee should be established to review all Branch forms and publications to determine what needs to be translated and available in languages other than English. This committee should include employees from the Interpreters and the Communications Offices, as well as representatives from the large Judicial divisions.
15. Information booths should be placed in courts, staffed by multi-lingual employees who could direct people, explain summons, and help with forms.
16. A multi-lingual handbook should be published for the public that explains the role of the interpreter in the court, and that provides information to the client in need of services regarding such issues as simultaneous interpreting, language dialects, avoidance of street language, and the role of the attorney. (See also Education: Public, Recommendation #3)
17. An information brochure about the workings of the Court should be published in English and other languages common to defendants in the courts. (See also Education: Public, Recommendation #4)
18. Multi-lingual information about victim compensation should be developed and made available to organizations or churches within minority communities. (See also Civil and Family: Civil, Recommendation #3)
Findings
1. Cultural sensitivity training has been shown to make the court environment more sensitive to, and more tolerant of, cultural and socio-economic differences. (See also Access: Economic, Finding #2; Education: Judges, Finding #1; Education: Court Staff, Finding #1)
2. Perceived disparities in judicial treatment are as likely to be cultural or socio-economic in nature as racial or ethnic. Racial/ethnic minorities are, for the most part, economically disadvantaged. It is sometimes difficult to disentangle racial/ethnic issues from socio-economic realities. (See also Access: Economic, Finding #1)
Economics
Findings
1. Perceived disparities in judicial treatment are as likely to be cultural or socio-economic in nature as racial or ethnic. Racial/ethnic minorities are, for the most part, economically disadvantaged. It is sometimes difficult to disentangle racial/ethnic issues from socio-economic realities. (See also Access: Culture, Finding #2)
2. Cultural sensitivity training has been shown to make the court environment more sensitive to, and more tolerant of, cultural and socio-economic differences. (See also Access: Cultural, Finding #1; Education: Judges, Finding #1; Education: Court Staff, Finding #1)
Other
Findings
1. 61% of minority attorneys and 60% of minority employees said that minority pro se litigants are treated less favorably by the courts, while only 18% of Caucasian attorneys and 11% of Caucasian employees said that happens with frequency.
Juries
Selection
Findings
1. Cultural and socio-economic issues are also of concern in the jury process.
2. There is a concern that minorities are being removed from the chosen jury pool though the use of peremptory challenges allowed by attorneys during the selection process.
3. Because data on jury pools is not captured by race/ethnicity in the state, accurate information about race/ethnicity in jury selection is unavailable.
4. General findings indicated a strong feeling that the public should be educated, not only about Connecticut’s exemplary efforts to include a broad segment of the state’s population in its jury pool, but also about the importance of serving on a jury when called.
5. There needs to be a more targeted effort to improve minority response to juror summons. This should include the design of an insert for the first juror summons package letting citizens know about the 1 day/1 trial provision.
6. Initiatives should extend “downwards” into the high schools, in order to educate students about their future role as jurors: both the incentives for serving, and the penalties for not serving.
Recommendations
1. The jury information form should be amended to indicate racial/ethnic group affiliation (with an explanation to reassure citizens about why this information is being gathered and how it will be used), and then evaluated to determine whether those responding are equitably distributed racially and ethnically.
2. In addition to the current motor vehicle and voter registration bases, the current jury pool selection data banks should look at other possible sources, such as welfare, unemployment and disability recipient lists, and state income tax lists.
3. Initiatives should be developed to improve minority response to juror summons.
4. The court should explore expanding penalties against those who have not responded to a jury summons in a timely fashion; and provide resources for the enforcement of these penalties.
5. Concerted effort should be made to ensure that jury pools reflect the socio-economic makeup of society.
6. The Judicial Branch should conduct an outreach campaign to educate the public—especially youth and their teachers—about jury representation: both the incentives for serving, and the penalties for not serving. (See also Education: Public, Recommendation #7)
Treatment verdicts
Recommendations
1. The Judicial Branch should develop a multi-lingual jury handbook.
2. Judicial members should discuss ways to educate juror pools on ethnic and racial bias through films or other training devices when the jury pool reports for service.
Courtroom Experience
Findings
1. The Task Force survey, public hearings, focus groups and interviews all revealed a perceived pattern of behavior that indicates that, most of the time, courtroom behavior and treatment of minorities by judges and attorneys is appropriate, fair and respectful. While inappropriate courtroom behavior does exist, it does not appear to be widespread on the part of judges or attorneys. (See also Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Finding #1)
2. Confusion about courtroom activities can contribute to a perception of bias by minorities. Approximately one-half or less of the respondents to the Task Force survey felt that, aside from language barriers, racial/ethnic minority litigants, witnesses, and jurors received effective communication from judges, attorneys and court personnel about the court system less than a quarter of the time. Judges, attorneys, and court employees should take time out to explain courtroom activities so that sometimes confusing courtroom proceedings are not misconstrued as racist.
3. When instances of racial/ethnic bias occurred in the courtroom, judges appeared to feel free and willing to confront It because of their positions of authority.
Recommendations
1. Judges should take time out to explain courtroom activities so that sometimes confusing courtroom proceedings are not misconstrued as racist.
Court Staff
Findings
1. Court employees were more commonly perceived as treating minority litigants, witnesses, jurors and attorneys with less respect and courtesy than they did Caucasians.
2. General findings indicated that court personnel and attorneys, however, often did not mention or report unfair or insensitive treatment of a minority when it occurred for two reasons: (i) it was perceived that a complaint would not help the situation and, in fact, would not be acted on; and (ii) it raised concerns that the complainant and/or his or her attorney’s division or firm would be jeopardized. (See also Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Finding #2)
Lawyers/Others
Findings
1. The Task Force survey, public hearings, focus groups and interviews all revealed a perceived pattern of behavior that indicates that, most of the time, courtroom behavior and treatment of minorities by judges and attorneys is appropriate, fair and respectful. While inappropriate courtroom behavior does exist, it does not appear to be widespread on the part of judges or attorneys. (See also Courtroom Environment: Judges, Finding #1)
2. General findings indicated that court personnel and attorneys, however, often did not mention or report unfair or insensitive treatment of a minority when it occurred for two reasons: (i) it was perceived that a complaint would not help the situation and, in fact, would not be acted on; and (ii) it raised concerns that the complainant and/or his or her attorney’s division or firm would be jeopardized. (See also Courtroom Environment: Court Staff, Finding #2)
3. Of those responding to the Task Force survey, 21% of employees over all and 67% of minority attorneys (compared to 11% of Caucasian attorneys) thought that minority victims were questioned less respectfully by defense attorneys.
Quality of Legal
Representation
Findings
1. Defendants and their families often see public defenders as working in collusion with the state.
2. Defendants were also concerned about: lack of time with their public defenders prior to hearings; lack of pretrial procedures for guaranteeing representation of clients’ needs, such as pretrial investigations; delays in filing writs; dependency on evidence accumulated by state prosecutors (rather than pursuing potential witnesses and evidence that might exonerate their clients); and pressure to plea bargain instead of going to trial.
Legal Profession
Recruitment/Acceptance
to
Findings
1.
2. Unfortunately, the pool of applicants for these schools remains small, and the schools are often competing for the same individual applicants. Law school deans feel they are doing as much as they can to attract and terrain minority students and faculty with a limited pool and with limited financial resources Given limited financial resources, department chairs and currently enrolled students appear to be effective recruitment sources.
3. While
there has been an increase in applications by women to law school, the number
of minority applicants to
4. A school’s ability to attract qualified students hinges not only on the school’s academic reputation, but also on intangibles having to do with the student’s perception of the school and on the realities of financial aid.
5. There
was some discussion in focus groups and interviews that Connecticut law schools
are losing many bright minority students because they don’t get to them early
enough in their academic careers.
6.
7. It is just as hard to attract and retain minority faculty as it is students. There is recognition that a diverse faculty helps to attract a diverse student body; and the availability of role models on the faculty affects student decision-making when choosing a law school. Diversity in the faculty may actually be more difficult to attain because of the low turnover rate. Adjunct faculty, while presenting more opportunities to fill positions, are not the optimal solution because they do not form the fabric of the faculty in the same way tenured faculty do.
8. The
shortage of mentoring opportunities for law students in
9. While
sitting judges and attorneys in
10. The Bar Examining Committee does not collect race or gender information on those who take the bar examination; therefore it is not possible to draw empirical conclusions regarding minorities passing the bar.
11. The Task Force survey revealed a perception of bias on the bar examination that was related to the race of the respondent: while 80% of Caucasian attorneys responding to the survey though the exam was not biased, only 39% of the general attorney plus minority oversample thought it was not biased. However, according to the Administrative Director o the Bar Examination Committee, there appears to be little evidence to support this concern about bias on the bar examination.
a. The
percentage of minority graders of the exam is high (33%); and there is a
rigorous system of checks and balances built into the grading process to avoid
differences in personal grading style and avoid bias. Minority graders in
b. Concerted efforts are being made to ensure minority representation among graders and monitors.
c. With the exception of one person’s complaints (which were all dismissed in court), there have been no complaints to the BEC in keeping with race or gender bias litigation since 1978.
12. Minority attorneys reported significantly more often than did Caucasian attorneys (18% vs. 8%) that their employers paid their tuition for the bar review course.
Recommendations
1. Explore availability of financial assistance: to provide scholarships, to underwrite recruitment of students and staff, and to subsidize the myriad related demands on law school resources.
2. Analyze issues of race/ethnicity as they relate to the bar examination: to include a study of bar examination scores for minorities and Caucasians as they relate to LSAT and GPA scores; and a study or the minority pass rate.
3. Encourage the expansion of scholarship funds for those who must look to their own resources to study for the bar examination.
Hiring and
promotion
Findings
1. The Task Force survey indicated that minority attorneys felt that they have less access to mentor relationships than non-minority attorneys, and that an expansion of mentoring opportunities would increase minority attorney retention.
2. There
appear to be three primary factors that contribute to the law retention rate
for minority attorneys in
a. The system is perceived as being “too white.” In the private sector, particularly, there is little sense of community in the workforce. There is a great sense of loneliness as “the minority lawyer,” particularly for lawyers in private law firms.
b. There are not enough mentoring or peer support opportunities.
c. It is perceived that there are not comparable opportunities for assignment of cases and for promotion for minority attorneys.
3. The Division of Criminal Justice has been active in its attempts to attract minority candidates to all vacancies in the agency: though broad advertising in minority publications across the state and through formal and informal contact with law schools. In particular this office has a well-developed intern program in which law student interns work with many of the statewide bureaus. This has helped increase the visibility of the Division among the law schools and, in many cases, has resulted in the hiring of former interns as prosecutors once they have passed the bar. The Division has recently taken steps to broaden this approach and attract more minority candidates by attending law school recruitment programs for regional law schools with the aim of informing candidates of the opportunities within the Division upon their admission to practice in the state.
4. The Division of Public Defender Services has recently increased efforts to identify and recruit minority applicants for attorney positions. Resumes are now required to be sent to the supervision attorney in the office where a vacancy exists, and to the Chief Public Defender for independent review. Based upon this review, all identifiable, qualified minority applicants are interviewed for these positions. In addition, the Chief Public Defender maintains a file of qualified minority applicants for future vacancies.
5. In order to be more proactive in recruiting minority applicants, the Chief and Deputy Chief Public Defender also conduct interviews of minority law students and attorneys who express an interest in public defender work on an ongoing basis. The Division does respond to requests from law schools (generally, in-state) to conduct informational sessions on public defender career opportunities. However, it does not conduct on-campus interviews because it is unable to offer employment to law students based on the requirements that appointees be members of the bar.
Recommendations
1. Expand mentoring and training activities for minorities in the court system, and in public and private law practice.
2. Collect
racial and ethnic data that would profile minority and non-minority attorneys practicing
in
3. Encourage the Connecticut Bar Association Minority Committee to study minority fairness in the profession, looking particularly at recruitment, training and retention of minority attorneys.
Education
Judges
Findings
1. Cultural sensitivity training has been shown to make the court environment more sensitive to, and more tolerant of, cultural and socio-economic differences. (See also Access: Cultural, Finding #1; Access: Economic, Finding #2; Education: Court Staff, Finding #1)
Recommendations
1. Comprehensive, mandatory cultural sensitivity education and training initiatives should be available for Judicial Branch personnel at all levels of the system. In addition, the Judicial Branch should encourage key players who are not under the direct authority of the Judicial Branch—such as state’s attorneys, police, and sheriffs-to provide like training. (See also Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #1; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #1)
2. Education initiatives that address the gaps between perception and reality about the system should be designed and implemented. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #4; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #2; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #2; Education: Public, Recommendation #1)
3. Judges should be educated not to proceed with a case without a court interpreter present when necessary; and should encourage attorneys to press for qualified interpreters at all stages of case preparation, trial and post trial. (See also Access: Language, Recommendation #13)
Court Staff
Findings
1. Cultural sensitivity training has been shown to make the court environment more sensitive to, and more tolerate of, cultural and socio-economic differences. (See also Access: Cultural, Finding #1; Access: Economic, Finding #2; Education: Judges, Finding #1).
Recommendations
1. Comprehensive, mandatory cultural sensitivity education and training initiatives should be available for Judicial Branch personnel at all levels of the system. In addition, the Judicial Branch should encourage key players who are not under the direct authority of the Judicial Branch—such as state’s attorneys, police, and sheriffs-to provide like training. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #1; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #1)
2. Education initiatives that address the gaps between perception and reality about the system should be designed and implemented. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #4; Education: Judges, Recommendation #2; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #2; Education: Public, Recommendation #1)
3. Funding should be allocated to ensure that training can be sustained over a period of years.
4. Training on site, as opposed to bringing staff to centralized training sites, should be provided to encourage the broadest range of participants.
5. Multi-cultural issues should be included in the statewide customer service training for Judicial Branch personnel who interact with the public.
6. System-wide training should be held for court staff on the role of race and culture in crime victim dynamics, especially in domestic violence case.
Lawyers
Recommendations
1. Comprehensive, mandatory cultural sensitivity education and training initiatives should be available for Judicial Branch personnel at all levels of the system. In addition, the Judicial Branch should encourage key players who are not under the direct authority of the Judicial Branch—such as state’s attorneys, police, and sheriffs-to provide like training. (See also Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #1; Education: Judges, Recommendation #1)
2. Education initiatives that address the gaps between perception and reality about the system should be designed and implemented. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #4; Education: Judges, Recommendation #2; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #2; Education: Public, Recommendation #1)
Public
Recommendations
1. Education initiatives that address the gaps between perception and reality about the system should be designed and implemented. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #4; Education: Judges, Recommendation #2; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #2; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #2)
2. A media campaign should target the Hispanic community, in particular, as to the location of legal assistance centers; and a public education film should be distributed in Spanish that explains the Connecticut court system and the process in housing, small claims, civil and criminal courts.
3. A multi-lingual handbook should be published for the public that explains the role of the interpreter in the court, and that provides information to the client in need of services regarding such issues as simultaneous interpreting, language dialects, avoidance of street language, and the role of the attorney. (See also Access: Language, Recommendation #16)
4. An information brochure about the workings of the Court should be published in English and other languages common to defendants in the courts. (See also Access: Language, Recommendation #17)
5. Public education initiatives targeted to the court and the larger community should be funded that will help counter perceptions about unfair sentencing practices. (See also Criminal Justice: Outcomes, Recommendation #4)
6. Public
education should be directed at targeted minority communities to provide
information about the role of the civil court in
7. The Judicial Branch should conduct an outreach campaign to educate the public—especially youth and their teachers—about jury representation: both the incentives for serving, and the penalties for not serving. (See also Juries: Selection, Recommendation #6)
Civil and Family
Civil
Findings
1. Minorities are underrepresented in Civil Courts compared to their numbers in the general population.
2. 71% of minority attorneys and 64% of minority employees said that minority defendants are treated les favorably by the courts in eviction cases, vs. 18% of Caucasian attorneys and 13% of Caucasian employees.
Recommendations
1. Public
education should be directed at targeted minority communities to provide
information about the role of the civil court in
2. The average settlement and award amounts received by minorities vs. non-minorities for similar cases should be investigated further.
3. Multi-lingual information about victim compensation should be developed and made available to organizations or churches within minority communities. (See also Access: Language, Recommendation #18)
Family
Findings
1. 76% of minority attorneys and 52% of minority employees said that family violence cases are taken less seriously more than a quarter of the time, compared to 21% of Caucasian attorneys and 14% of Caucasian employees. 72% of minority attorneys and 67% of minority employees estimated that family violence cases are taken less seriously by courtroom employees when the parties involved are minorities than did Caucasian attorneys (19%) and Caucasian employees (15%)
2. There
is a concern that the majority of domestic violence cases do not result in a
conviction; instead they are dismissed or nolled (the
prosecutor decides not to prosecute but can reopen the case within 13 months).
Dismissals and nolles together have accounted for 85%
or more of domestic violence criminal dispositions since
a. A substantial set of pretrial services provided in these cases are not reflected in this figure. Interviews are conducted with the defendants and victims who appear in court at arraignment, and further assessments and referrals for counseling and other services are common. Protective orders are entered in about 70% of the cases. In 1995, 10% of offenders were referred to the 6-10 week pretrial Family Violence Education Program. Following compliance with this program or other interventions, the case are dismissed or nolled by the prosecutor.
b. There are complex issues involved in proceeding with prosecution, including a reluctance on the part of some victims to testify against their partners for many reasons. The Task Force survey found that 47% of employees and 40% of attorneys perceived that minority victims of domestic violence were less likely to cooperate with prosecution more than 25% of the time. Minority attorneys in particular (68%) perceived that these minority victims were less likely to cooperate with prosecution.
c. There is an absence of specialized and appropriate post-conviction sanctions for family violence offenders.
Criminal Justice
Pre-Trial
Findings
1. Racial/ethnic minority defendants have different, less favorable outcomes than Caucasians at this earliest stage of the court process. Charge seriousness and number of felony convictions (factors required to be considered by Practice Book, Rule, and statute), as well as number of arrests were the factors most associate with a defendant having to post monetary bond in order to be released. However, even after these criminal justice factors were controlled statistically, Hispanics were more likely, and Caucasians less likely, to have to post bond.
2. Defendants who were incarcerated pretrial were significantly more likely to be sentenced to incarceration rather than placed on probation than similarly situated defendants who were released pretrial. Because of this, disparities attributable to race or ethnicity at this pretrial stage can have serious future consequences and must be studied further.
3. 94% of minority attorneys and 72% of minority employees felt minority defendants were less likely to be released on a Promise to Appear than similarly situated non-minorities, compared to 39% of Caucasian attorneys and 20% of Caucasian employees.
4. A high percentage of minority attorneys indicated that prosecutors were less likely to reduce charges against minority defendants than non-minorities (86% vs. 26% of Caucasian attorneys responding.
Recommendations
1. Further research should be conducted to identify more clearly the nature of racial/ethnic pretrial disparities and to explain why they exist.
2. A study should be done to determine whether the existing criteria for release on bond have an unintended bias against minorities, particularly Hispanics.
3. Pretrial community supervision should continue to be used in place of bond whenever appropriate.
4. Interpreters should be available to probation officers during their pre-sentence investigation process.
Outcomes
Findings
1. The Court Disposition Study of cases disposed in 1991 found that Caucasians were significantly more likely to be placed on probation, while similarly situated minorities were sentenced to incarceration.
2. Although 50% of Latinos, 45% of African-Americans, and 25% of Caucasians were sentenced to prison, most of this difference disappeared when the type of charge and its seriousness, number of arrests and felony convictions, and pretrial incarceration were controlled.
3. More than half the attorney and employee groups responding to the Task Force survey indicated that minority defendants received the same sentences as similarly situated Caucasian defendants most of the time. However 63% of the general attorney and minority attorney oversample and 56% of minority employees felt that race was a factor in sentencing decisions vs. 25% of Caucasian attorneys and 22% of Caucasian employees.
4. Several focus group participants citied examples of Caucasians being given Accelerated Rehabilitation from more serious crimes while minorities received incarceration for less serious crimes.
5. A majority of focus group participants who worked in criminal court perceived that black-on-black offenses resulted in less time served than parallel black on while or white on black offenses, and that defendants were sanctioned less severely in cases involving minority victims.
6. Defendants in particular perceived that sentences were higher for minorities than Caucasians for equivalent crimes, and that sentencing was harsher fro defendants represented by a public defender.
Recommendations
1. More thorough research should be conducted to understand factors affecting sentencing, and to determine whether there is disparity in sentencing patterns related to race/ethnicity. Such research should include good measures of defendants’ economic status or situation.
2. More research should be conducted that looks as misdemeanants, who are the target of much alternative programming and who account for the majority of convictions.
3. More research should be conducted to document “reality”; especially research that includes data on race/ethnicity of crime victims, and that has a large enough sample to examine specific offenses, such as domestic violence crimes.
4. Public education initiatives targeted to the court and the larger community should be funded that will help counter perceptions about unfair sentencing practices. (See also Education: Public, Recommendation #5)
5. Community-based alternative sentencing options should continue to be used in place of incarceration whenever appropriate.
Incarceration
Findings
1. There were not significant differences in the length of prison sentence by race/ethnicity among those sentenced to incarceration when other factors are controlled.
2. Correction officers and inmates perceived that courts “tacked” additional sentence time on to inmates who requested a trial instead of accepting a plea bargain or seeking an appeal.
Court as
Employer/Appointer
Hiring/Promotion
Findings
1. The Judicial Branch developed its first affirmative action plan in 1982, and minority representation in the Judicial Branch workforce has increased every year since then. A decade ago, minority representation was approximately 9%; today, it is 21%, a percentage that is higher than the 16.4% minority population of the state.
2. Perceptions that minority employees are underrepresented continue, however, primarily because of two factors: (i) Minorities are concentrated in office/clerical positions and remain underrepresented in the more visible professional, administrator and official categories. Data being collected for the 1995/1996 AAEAC report indicate that while minority numbers have increased in all Judicial Branch categories, including professional, over the last four years, more emphasis still needs to be placed on minority recruitment and promotion. (ii) While the Judicial Branch minority workforce is at parity to the population in the state’s job market, it is not at parity to the racial/’ethnic makeup of the disproportionately minority population served by the Judicial Branch. This fuels perceptions of minority workforce underrepresentation.
3. Because of recommendations made by the Affirmative Action Employee Advisory Committee, the Judicial Branch has taken a number of significant steps during the past two years that are helping to change any perceptions or realities that hiring and promotional decisions may be racially or ethnically biased including a centralized recruitment unit, a two-tiered job posting hotline, a centralized promotion process, and training and career counseling.
4. Minorities in the professional, administrator, and official categories have increased over the last four years; however, percentages are still lower than those for general staff.
5. There are large numbers and large percentages of minorities in the paraprofessional, protective services, and clerical categories who might be trained for more advanced positions.
6. Some staff members commented on the need to change the structure and composition of clerical positions so they are not female dominated.
7. Maintenance workers are overrepresented by minorities and the majority of Hispanic workers are listed in this category. Though it might look as though this is a dead end for these workers, maintenance supervisors I, II, and III are all include in this category. There are some Hispanic supervisors. However, some Hispanic maintenance workers have reported that they are passed over by white males for supervisory jobs.
8. Affirmative
action goals do not always reflect the fact that the Branch needs more
multi-lingual employees. It is clear to judges that the service areas of
9. Most divisions have attempted to be aggressive in their recruitment of multi-lingual staff and in their attempts to expand the number of multi-lingual and multicultural service and education offerings. (See also Access: Language, Finding #13)
Recommendations
1. The Task Force recommends that the numbers of minorities visible at all levels of the judicial system should be expanded. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #1)
2. The Task Force recommends that multi-lingual/cultural recruitment, hiring and promotional efforts should become even more aggressive to ensure a diverse Judicial Branch workforce, and more opportunities for skills enhancement should be available to encourage the promotion of current minority employees. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #2)
3. All judges and employees with hiring responsibilities within the Judicial Branch should receive training regarding the Judicial Branch Affirmative Action Plan.
4. Line staff should have more information available to them about the activities of the Affirmative Action Office and the Affirmative Action Employee Advisory Committee.
5. The Judicial Branch should commit to adequate funding to ensure the ongoing and regular publication and distribution of the affirmative action employee newsletter.
6. Client needs and regional needs should be considered when studying hiring goals, especially as they relate to appropriate minority representation and to language needs.
7. Supervisors who are responsible for hiring and promotion should have increased opportunity for training.
8. In order to increase accountability for reaching affirmative action goals, the supervisory performance review process should include a determination as to whether those with hiring and promotion authority are meeting affirmative action goals.
9. There should be expanded opportunities for education for current employees to encourage career ladder promotions. The Judicial Branch should explore ways to allow clerical workers to make a gradual, supervised transition to professional categories.
10. Employees should be cross-trained so that they can take advantage of promotional opportunities in other divisions.
Judicial
Selection and Discipline
Findings
1. There was wide agreement among judges, attorneys and employees that having more minority judges would help alleviate the perception that minority defendants are treated unfairly by the system.
2. Currently, of the 174 sitting judges in Connecticut’s Supreme, Appellate and Superior Courts, 8 are African-American (4.6%) and 3 are Hispanic (1.7%).
3. Since
judicial candidates must have been practicing attorneys in
4. Because of the secrecy and lack of information surrounding the judicial selection process there is still a sense among many that the way one gets access to a judicial appointment is through political power and connections. In short, perceptions of racial/ethnic bias in judicial selection continue to exist.
Recommendations
1. The Task Force recommends that the Judicial Branch should encourage the Executive Branch to nominate and the Legislative Branch to appoint more minority judges. (See also Perceptions: Public, Recommendation #3)
2. Expand information about the judicial selection process to inform potential or interested judicial aspirants about the judicial selection process and other relevant issues that would encourage participation of minority judicial applicants.
3. Collect and report data concerning race/ethnicity of applicants for the judiciary and of those approved and disapproved for judicial office.
Findings
1. The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee report, commonly called the “Spectrum” report, documented a disproportionate representation of African-American and Hispanic juveniles at three key points in the juvenile justice system: arrest, detention, and commitment to the Long Lane School (Connecticut’s only state-run secure residential juvenile facility).
2. African American and Hispanic juveniles were found to receive more severe determinations at all points of police decision-making. Some of these differences, however, were neutralized when considering other social, offender and offense characteristics (e.g. possession of a weapon, age, size of city/town, presence of a Judicial Review Board).
3. While
there were a number of instances where no differences were found in court
decisions across race/ethnicity, minority juveniles were found to be placed in
detention more often than non-minority juveniles and, in some cases, to stay
longer. Those African American juveniles detained were more likely to be
adjudicated as serious juvenile offenders and those minorities detained for
non-SJO felonies were more likely to be placed in
4. According
to study findings, minority juveniles were more likely to be placed at
5. The
Spectrum report examined the impact of predictor variable son the commitment of
African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian juveniles to
6. A lack of pre-adjudication alternative placement options short of secure detention of youth also influences overrepresentation of minorities in juvenile detention.
7. While
the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee recognizes that minority overrepresentation
exists in
8. The State Senate gave final legislative approval in June 1995 to a restructuring of certain components of the juvenile justice system. Key provisions of this juvenile justice bill include:
a. Fourteen and fifteen year old accused of the most serious crimes will be treated as adults. Juvenile prosecutors will have the option of reducing charges for those youth they think it appropriate to keep in juvenile court.
b. Judges and prosecutors will have more of the pretrial options long available to judges in adult court, creating more community-based treatment and sanction alternatives to detention.
c. Juvenile officials will have new authority to send young offenders to substance abuse programs under threat of being returned to court to be sentenced and incarcerated if they do not succeed in the program. This recognizes the reality that early drug or alcohol use is one of the most certain precursors to later, more serious, criminal activity.
d. Early intervention programs for juvenile offenders as young as age eight will be developed, in include peer tutoring, community service, counseling, skill training, mentoring, and work with learning disabilities.
9. There is no racial/ethnic data base for the child protection side of the court similar to that collected for juveniles involved with delinquency proceedings.
10. The court should have as a priority the development and affirmation of permanent placement plans for juveniles in a reasonable time. If the court finds that plans for a juvenile to reunite with family are not appropriate within twelve months, other dispositional alternatives should be available. The court should support efforts to study the barriers to such timely placement—by the court and by the community—and should facilitate efforts to effect change.
11. Members of focus groups were concerned that once a child is placed, there is no outreach program, and family therapy is difficult because of geographical locations. Three should be more case management and wraparound services that address multiple family needs.
12. Early targeting of youth in high-risk urban areas in particular, and prevention programs for them, will help prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place.
13. Juvenile matters are considered “poor people’s courts” because the people served by them are, in the large majority, economically disadvantaged.
14. As in adult court, there is a perception among clients that public defenders are not doing an adequate job of representing youth.
15. In
reality,
16. As in the adult system, there is a critical need for more interpreters and for more multi-lingual staff. In addition, it is important that forms be multi-lingual where possible.
17. Lack of transportation for youth and their families is a major issue. Because transportation is not readily available, young people are held in detention and they and their families are not taking advantage of potential program service options. In any new program it creates, the Family Division is encouraging that transportation for juveniles and their parents, where appropriate, be emphasized, so that children and parents can have better access to program services. Transportation needs for juveniles and parents should be studies statewide, and recommendations should be made for the Judicial Branch, contracting agencies and the community for the provision of transportation: how; under what circumstances; and for what kinds of cases.
18. It is beneficial to have parents and the larger community educated about the system so that they can be active and informed participants in all juvenile justice system handling decisions. Local service and public education initiatives that involve families, neighborhoods, and community based agencies serving minority youth should be developed and implemented, to include multi-lingual educational material describing the system.
Recommendations
1. Ongoing cultural training should be required for Judicial Branch staff and encouraged for non-Branch staff at all levels of the juvenile justice system—within police, court, and juvenile correction agencies including commissioners, administrators, judges, attorneys, line staff, and staff of private contractors.
2. The numbers of minority interpreters and multi-lingual staff in the juvenile justice system should be expanded—in juvenile probation, in the clerks’ offices, and in Juvenile Matters courts.
3. Community-based residential and non-residential programs should continue to be expanded, particularly those designed for drug treatment, Latinos, and young females.
4. Community-based supplemental services, including mental health and drug treatment services, should be expanded for juveniles in home placement statewide.
5. Educational materials for parents should be published, to include a multi-lingual brochure describing system referral, program and placement alternatives, and agency procedures.
6. Multi-lingual forms should be widely available.
7. Research should be conducted to determine the degree to which the projected expansion of community-based options for youth will have an effect on minority representation in the system.
8. The Task Force recommends that the Department of Children and Families study whether racial/ethnic barriers to permanent placement plans for children exist, both form a court and from a community perspective.
9. The Task Force recommends that the Department of Children and Families expand case management and services that address multiple family needs after placement.
Findings
1. The lack of ability to communicate concerns without fear of reprisal results in employee dissatisfaction and alienation. According to early subcommittee findings, employees still were concerned whether there were safeguards from racial and ethnic discrimination. The position of Affirmative Action Program Coordinator existed before May 1994, but the Coordinator worked under the umbrella of the Human Resources Administration Unit. The position was changed to report directly to the Deputy Chief Court Administrator, and hence was given greater credibility. Since that change, several employees appear to feel they have greater recourse for their problems without fear of retaliation or payback.
Recommendations
1. A multi-lingual pamphlet should be prepared and distributed to employees that outlines the process for pursuing complaints and for the confidential reporting and investigation of incidents of unfair treatment to minorities.
2. A mechanism should be put into place for reviewing the complaints the Judicial Branch has received from citizens and for reporting on the type, nature, and outcome of the complaints.
Measurement and
Evaluation
Recommendations
1. A court evaluation form, similar to
Findings
1. Minorities are overrepresented in criminal courts compared to their numbers in the general population. Minorities are also overrepresented in juvenile, magistrate, small claims, and traffic courts—courts perceived as having fewer resources devoted to them.
2. A number of minority and non-minority staff, judges, and attorneys acknowledged in focus groups and interviews a perception that a system of “poor people’s courts” exists—magistrate, small claims, housing, traffic, and juvenile—and that systemic discrimination in the use of courtroom facilities is a very real and visible reflection of this problem.
Recommendations
1. More resources should be committed to high volume courts.
2. The Judicial Branch’s Facility Plan and Five Year Capital Plan, 1995-2000 should be reviewed to ensure that it addresses the needs and allocation of courtroom space and resources, particularly in urban areas and for magistrates’ courts with high volume.
3. Private and/or alternative funding should be explored to improve courtroom facilities, particularly for courthouses with historic value.
National Center for
State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone (800)616-6109 Fax (757)564-2022
Questions or Comments - email research@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2004 The National
Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.