Race and Ethnic Fairness
State:
Committee/Report
Name: The Supreme Court of Iowa
created The Equality in the Courts Task Force on
Number of Members: 29 Task Force members
Number of Subcommittees: 4 Subcommittees including only committee members
The Intraprofessional Dynamics Committee
The Committee on Interaction in the Litigation Process
The Criminal Committee
The Family Committee
Chair/Co-Chair: One Chair: James R Havercamp, Seventh Judicial District Chief Judge.
Methods Used: To gather and analyze the quantitative
data about attitudes and experiences, the Task Force contracted the services of
the research firm of Selzer Boddy,
Inc. to conduct four major studies, directed at judges, attorneys, court
personnel and the general public. Printed survey forms were sent to all the
judges and court personnel in the state. A random sample of white male
The Task Force gathered qualitative data through a variety
of methods. At five public hearings in
The Executive Director of the Task Force also met with small
groups of attorneys and service workers who convened to discuss their
experiences with the court system in
Topics and Recommendations
Perception
Findings
1. When questioned about whether courts treat African Americans and whites alike, only 38% of all people responding to the survey agreed there is equal treatment among the races; however, only 16% of the African Americans agreed that racial equality can be expected, compared to 38% of white respondents.
2. Economic status was perceived by the public to make a difference in
how one is treated by the
3. Though similar percentages of users and non-users (51% and 49%) rate the state courts excellent or good, court users are more extreme in their dissatisfaction. Twenty one percent of users give state courts a poor rating, compared to 11% of non-users.
Language
Findings
1. Most administrators needed the services of an interpreter more than 25 times per year. The districts were evenly split as to whether such services were difficult or easy to find.
2. Most attorneys believe that persons who are not fluent in English are more likely to spend pretrial time in jail than persons who are fluent in English. Most judges disagree with this statement.
3. Most attorneys and judges agree that non-English fluent parties are disadvantaged in the court system and that English fluent parties are treated neutrally or advantaged.
4. A sizeable majority of minority attorneys (58%) were of the opinion that increasing the availability of qualified interpreter services for parties who are not fluent in English would have a major impact on addressing any potential problems of racial or ethnic discrimination in the Iowa court system. A majority of all attorneys, judges and court employees believe that increasing the availability of qualified interpreter services would have at least some impact on addressing problems of discrimination in the court system.
5. Some sentencing arrangements which require oral communication—notably supervised probation—may not be practical for or provided to defendants who are not fluent in English.
6. If qualified translators who are well versed in the legal system and in legal terminology are not available, rights may not be communicated or may be misunderstood.
7. Because of a lack of bilingual counselors, non-English speaking persons may not derive any benefit from state mandated counseling or treatment.
8. Many persons testifying stressed the need for interpreters who have enough familiarity with the legal system to translate the substance of the proceedings accurately.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Court of
2. A central, comprehensive list of interpreters should be maintained to facilitate the use of qualified personnel.
3. Financial incentives—such as the award of a merit step or the reimbursement of tuition—should be created to encourage court personnel to develop language capacities needed in that district.
4. Bilingual and multilingual persons should be actively recruited to work for the Judicial Department and such language ability should be recognized as a valuable asset for employment.
5. Community colleges and other educational institutions should be encouraged to develop programs to train persons who provide court interpreting, legal translations, and bilingual and multicultural court support services.
6. The
7. The Chief Justice should recommend that the Director of the Iowa Department of Education designate two of the three state universities as centers for training court interpreters and legal translators, equipping persons studying in fields leading to employment in the support services internal or external to the Judiciary with cultural fluency and optional, ancillary interpreting and translating skills, and developing the requisite skills of court personnel who are presently employed. In this vein, the Supreme Court should recognize the need for ongoing training and provide for the continuing professional education of current and future personnel who provide court interpreting, legal translation, bilingual and bilingual/multicultural court support services.
8. The
9. The Supreme Court should recommend that the Legislature establish a comprehensive statutory basis providing adequate court interpretation and legal translation services for all linguistic minorities, modeled upon existing statutory provisions for the deaf and hearing impaired, as well as proposed legislative acts in other states with expressed interest in providing access to the court for linguistic minorities.
10. The Supreme Court should adopt uniform standards to govern all phases of all interpreted court proceedings and determine responsibilities for paying the related costs.
11. The Supreme Court should assure effective organizations and efficient administration of court interpreting, legal translating, bilingual and bilingual/multicultural court support services at the state and local levels, and should adopt policies which will attract, employ and retain sufficient numbers of qualified court interpreters, legal translators, bilingual and bilingual/multicultural court support personnel.
12. The Supreme Court should adopt a policy of requiring that all judicial forms and documents used by persons involved in court proceedings to be drafted in easily translatable English and be translated into such additional languages as the Administrative Director of the Courts approves, all such translations to be made by approved legal translators, and all such translations to be printed at levels of quality equal to that of the corresponding English versions.
13. The Supreme Court should adopt a program of informing linguistic minorities about the Judiciary and its services, and should establish a procedure to enable linguistic minorities to bring allegations of unprofessional performance or unequal access to the legal system and to seek resolution thereof.
14. The Supreme Court should adopt policies and programs to orient and sensitize all court personnel who deliver services to linguistic minorities with regard to the importance and complexities of communicating with persons of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, including instruction on techniques of working with a court interpreter. In this spirit, the Chief Justice should also recommend that the state’s law schools and other institutions for education the bar offer instruction to attorneys and other legal personnel on how best to provide effective services which are sensitive to the diverse background of linguistic and cultural minorities, as well as how to work with a court interpreter.
15. The Chief Justice should recommend that the office of the State
Attorney General,
16. The Supreme Court should prescribe a uniform
rate of compensation for interpreters and translators servicing in or for the
courts in
Economics
Findings
1. A majority of attorneys and judges and court employees believe that low income parties are somewhat or strongly disadvantaged. Women attorneys and judges and minority attorneys hold this view more strongly.
Juries
Findings
1. At the public hearings much of the testimony critical of the jury selection process focused on the scarcity of African Americans on jury panels and the composition of actual juries.
2. The very limited survey data collected by the Task Force, however, fails to demonstrate a discriminatory impact on African Americans in the jury selection process.
3. A
source list based on driver’s registration and voter registration showed 98%
inclusion of the population in a 1980 study conducted in the state of
4. Disparities in juror selection might develop as a result of discretionary judgments by jury commissioners.
5. Many prospective jurors ask to be excused because of economic and employment pressures. These pressures weigh more heavily on low income and/or self employed persons and are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minorities.
Recommendations
1. The consolidated source list anticipated in Iowa Code Section 607A.22 to be provided by applicable state and local governmental officials should be provided directly to the Clerks of Court.
2. Names to be used from the consolidated source list should be randomly chosen and consist of either a certain number of names or a certain percentage of all the names in the consolidated list.
3. All discretion in selection should be eliminated. To this end, the Task Force recommends the elimination of jury commissions.
4. Section 607A.22 of the Iowa Code should be amended to require monthly updating of the consolidated source list.
5. Jury questionnaires sent to potential jurors should request prospective jurors to voluntarily indicate their race, with an explanation of why the information in requested.
6. The Supreme Court should direct Clerks of Court to obtain census figures regarding the percentage of minorities over 18 for a given regional area. Those numbers should be used to determine whether or not minorities are being appropriately represented in a given jury panel.
7. Statistics on the race and gender of jurors should be obtained immediately to facilitate future studies and to assist in attaining representative jury pools in the future.
8. If, six months after the date of this Report, it is demonstrated that there is a racially disparate impact in jury selection, other selecting methodology including over sampling of minorities, should be used as a method to ensure that the representation of minorities in the jury panels approximates the percentage of minorities in the county’s population.
9. The Supreme Court should undertake further study in this area once statistics have been maintained.
10. Reimbursement should be made to low income jurors for day care and/or elderly care expenses incurred because of jury service.
Treatment/Verdicts
Findings
1. Jurors are currently paid only $10 per day for their services. While many, such as full time employees, lose no pay due to jury service, others, perhaps self-employed or part time employees suffer a significant financial disadvantage by serving on a jury.
Recommendations
1. The pay for jurors should be increased.
Courtroom Experience
Findings
3. Minority attorneys (56%) are more likely than white attorneys (12%) to say that judges appear to pay less attention or give less credibility to minority attorneys than to white attorneys.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Court
of
(8) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not in the performance of judicial duties by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon sex, race, national origin, or ethnicity, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
(9) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon sex, race, national origin, or ethnicity, against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others. This Section 3(A)(9) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when sex, race, national origin or ethnicity are issues in the proceeding.
2. The Supreme Court of
Court Staff
Findings
1. A high percentage of court employees (89%) characterized the work environment for minority court employees as having no serious problems. But 34% of the minority court employees, as compared to 2% of white court employees, think the environment is getting worse for minority court employees.
2. Twenty percent of minority lawyers report having been called by belittling terms of address by court staff.
3. At least 20% of court employees believed that minority civil and criminal defendants, low income parties, and non-English fluent parties were disadvantaged.
4. Although a majority of court employees give a favorable report of their work environment, a significant percentage of female and minority court employees report that inappropriate comments or jokes about their gender or race or ethnicity have been made in their presence, by either judges, attorneys, or other court personnel in the last five years.
Lawyers/Others
Findings
2. When
asked to characterize the current situation for women and minority attorneys in
the
3. A significant number of minorities (44%) say the situation for minorities has not changed in the past five years. In contrast 65% of white attorneys say the situation for minorities is changing for the better.
4. White and male attorneys generally see all attorneys as treated neutrally. Minority and female attorneys, on the other hand, tend to see themselves as disadvantaged and to see white and male attorneys as advantaged.
5. A large percentage of minority attorneys (83%) report that hey have been the target of or have personally witnessed racially or sexually biased behavior on at least one occasion.
6. Minority attorneys reported a high exposure to racially derogatory comments.
7. Most court users in the past ten years believed that they had been treated fairly. Seventy percent said they were treated fairly as compared to only 18% who reported unfair treatment. In this assessment, there were no statistically significant differences between male and female court users or between minority and white court users.
8. The percentages of people who witnessed (5%) or experienced (2%) racial or ethnic bias were low. However minority court users were considerably more likely than whites to report having witnessed or experienced racial or ethnic bias (20% versus 8%).
9. Both female and minority attorneys were less confident of neutral treatment for female and minority participants and more likely than either male or white attorneys to believe that women and minorities in various roles were treated with less respect than similarly situated whites.
Recommendations
1. The
Supreme Court of
2. The
Supreme Court of
3. The Supreme Court of
Legal profession
Recruitment/
Acceptance to law school
Findings
1. Approximately
1% of
2. Eighty-six
percent of attorneys admitted to practice in
3. Of the 701 students at the University of Iowa College of Law 154 are minorities. The Drake University School of Law student population is 11% minorities.
4. Of the 41 tenure-track faculty members at University of Iowa College of Law six are minorities. At Drake University School of Law there are no minority tenure-track faculty members.
5. Despite the success of the
Recommendations
1. Law schools should give priority to efforts to recruit and retain minority and female faculty members and law students.
2. Law schools should reinforce their commitments to train attorneys who will be sensitive to and aware of manifestations of discrimination and bias and their effects.
3. Studies related to different Bar Exam pass rates among men, women, and whites and minorities should be brought to the attention of the Board of Examiners for review, to determine whether further inquiry or action needs to be taken related to the Iowa Bar Examination.
Hiring and
Promotion
Findings
1. A larger percentage of minority attorneys are prosecutors and sole practitioners than white attorneys.
2. In
1992, of the 412 attorneys in the 12 largest
3. Minority and female attorneys are less optimistic than white attorneys, respectively, about their chances to become partners in law firms generally or senior partners specifically. Men and women and white and minorities tend to view their chances of achieving all other positions as approximately the same.
Recommendations
1. Law school placement offices and law firms should wok with professional associations, bar associations, and the courts to facilitate the entry of women and minority law students into summer clerkships, judicial clerkships, and other opportunities which lead to professional development and permanent employment opportunities in Iowa.
2. Law firms should adopt and implement policies to prohibit sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, or sex.
Education
Judges
Recommendations
1. The
Supreme Court of
2. The Supreme Court of Iowa should provide each Chief District Court Judge, all judges and those person in quasi-judicial positions, including court-related boards and commissions, training regarding their role and significance in ensuring an environment of equal opportunity and fairness.
3. The
Supreme Court of
4. Sensitivity training should be provided for judges, attorneys and court personnel regarding racial, ethnic and cultural differences, including the dynamics of domestic violence and sexual assault and the overt and subtle ways bias may manifest itself. (See also Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #5; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #4)
Court Staff
Recommendations
1. The
Supreme Court of
2. Educational programs and standards/procedures should be developed regarding how court personnel can be of assistance to the pro se plaintiff.
3. Education for clerks of court should include training in the following topics:
a. Sex, racial, national origin and ethnic bias; training regarding racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity; training regarding the stereotypes which may affect their treatment of litigants.
b. Equal opportunity within the work force.
c. Procedures available for court users to make complaints regarding judges, attorneys, and court personnel.
4. The
Supreme Court of
5. Sensitivity training should be provided for judges, attorneys and court personnel regarding racial, ethnic and cultural differences, including the dynamics of domestic violence and sexual assault and the overt and subtle ways bias may manifest itself. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #4; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #4)
Lawyers
Recommendations
1. The
Supreme Court of
2. The
Supreme Court of
3. The
Supreme Court of
4. Sensitivity training should be provided for judges, attorneys and court personnel regarding racial, ethnic and cultural differences, including the dynamics of domestic violence and sexual assault and the overt and subtle ways bias may manifest itself. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #4, Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #5)
Public
Recommendations
1. The Judicial Department should develop a brochure to explain the criminal process generally, what participants in the court process might expect to happen, where participants can go to receive answers to questions, and what additional help is available.
2. The
3. The
Supreme Court of
Civil and Family
Civil
Findings
1. 70% of minority attorneys, compared with 37% of whites, believe that minority plaintiffs receive smaller awards than white plaintiffs would in similar cases.
2. The one study on racial equity in damage awards analyzed asbestos cases involving minority plaintiffs. The study compared settlement amounts for minority and non-minority plaintiffs by type of disease, general occupation, and age. Minorities received statistically significant lower average settlements than non-minorities overall.
3. The use of race-specific or sex-specific economic data or expert testimony premised on such data in inequitable. Because minorities and women often have earned less than white men for doing the same or equivalent work, the use of race- or sex-specific economic data to predict future earnings tends to perpetuate past discrimination. As a result, the lives and health of minorities and women are undervalued.
4. Because of the scarcity of studies on the effect of race on damage awards, we lack a basis even for speculation about the specific factors which may possibly reduce awards for minority plaintiffs.
Recommendations
1. The Task Force recommends that only race neutral and gender neutral economic data be used to evaluate damages in civil cases.
2. An
empirical study of decided cases in
3. Little is known about the specific content of
jury instructions on damages in civil cases in
Family
Findings
1. The Task Force found that white defendants were more likely than minorities to be charged with domestic assaults.
2. Myths and biases about race, ethnicity, religion and economic status also may affect the court’s response to domestic violence, even though domestic violence is a phenomenon that crosses all racial, ethnic, religious, and economic lines.
Criminal Justice
Arrests
Findings
1. Minorities are more likely than whites to be charged with serious crimes, even when the level of violence is the same. This disparity is partially explained since defendants charged with domestic violence (who tend to be white) are treated more leniently.
2. Minorities,
particularly African Americans, appear in
3. Minorities tend to be charged with more serious drug offenses; this is largely because they are more likely to be charged with selling rather than simple possession, and more likely to be charged with possession or sale of cocaine, rather than marijuana.
4. Race is not a significant factor in property offenses. The monetary value of the property stolen, the commission of burglary, and the defendant’s prior record are the variable most strongly associated with charge severity in these cases.
Recommendations
1. County attorney offices should be required to keep records of the charges on initial arrest, the charges ultimately filed, the arrests they chose not to prosecute, the reasons they chose not to prosecute, and the race and gender of the alleged perpetrators.
Findings
1. Minorities are about 10% less likely than whites to obtain pretrial release. About half of this is explained by the combined facts that minorities are charged with more serious crimes, are required to post higher bond amounts, have less stable employment and residential histories, and are more likely to have concurrent charges or warrants. However the association between race and this group of control variables is not statistically strong. With the control variables taken into account, there remains a significant tendency for minorities to be denied pretrial release more often than whites.
2. Minorities are, on the average, required to post higher bond amounts. The effect is slightly reduced, but remains significant, when charge severity, prior convictions, and the other relevant factors are controlled.
Recommendations
1. Statutory guidelines in Iowa Code section 81.2(2) (1991) regarding the appropriate criteria to use for determining the conditions of pretrial release should be used uniformly.
2. Pre-sentence investigation officers, parole officers, juvenile court personnel, and others employed within the criminal justice system should receive cultural sensitivity training, and training regarding racial/ethnic and gender bias.
3. Criminal defendants should be advised that court-appointed attorneys will be paid by the state regardless of whether they win or lose the case. They also should be advised that, at the disposition of their case they may be required later to reimburse any court-appointed attorney fees.
Outcomes
Findings
1. Most of
the racial disparity that accounts for the overrepresentation of minorities in
Recommendations
1. Statutory guidelines in Iowa Code Chapter 907 (1991) regarding the appropriate criteria to use for determining sentencing should be used uniformly.
Incarceration
Findings
1. 22% of
2. For
every 1000 whites in
3. The disparity in actual sentences cannot be attributed to the objective variables of charge severity and number of prior convictions. The data strongly suggests that defendant race either directly or indirectly influences the decision to incarcerate.
Court as
employer/appointer
Hiring/promotion
Findings
1. Minority employees in the court system are dramatically underrepresented. Of the 1569 totally employees, 28 are minorities (1.8%). None holds a position above pay grade 34 (Salary between $28,000 to $40,000). Twelve of the 602 employees in pay grades above 25—the administrative/profession pay grades (salary above $23,000)—are minorities.
2. In their attempts to advance their careers—and in their records of success—the survey disclosed no statistically significant differences between white and minority employees.
4. When positions in their courthouses are open, sixty percent of District Court Administrators say reasonable efforts are made to ensure minorities know about the jobs and are considered. 27% say no real effort is made.
Recommendations
1. Court administrators and others responsible for hiring should practice equal opportunity. Court administrators should take necessary steps to ensure that all court employees and minority groups within appropriate communities are made aware of position openings as they occur.
2. Employment levels within each county of the Judicial Department should more accurately reflect the minority populations within each county.
3. Minorities should have more representation within the administrative and supervisory positions
4. Supreme Court should maintain and report in its annual report data regarding minority distribution by pay grades and applicant flow.
5. In accordance with Iowa Code section 602.1204, the legislature should fund and the Supreme Court should adopt, fund, review, update, and implement the Affirmative Action plan.
6. The Criminal Justice system should strive to increase employment opportunities for minorities and women at critical points in the criminal justice system, including county attorney staff, pretrial release staff, public defenders and pre-sentence investigators.
Judicial
Selection and Discipline
Findings
1. Three
of the 343 judicial positions are filled by African Americans, or less than
.87%. Only one of the 191 full-time judicial positions (.52%) is filled by an
African American. No other minorities are represented. Minorities make up 2.82%
of
2. The number of full-time minority judges has not increased in the last ten years, when there was one District Court Judge who was African American.
3. There is no statistically significant difference between minority and white attorneys’ interest in or expectations about holding judicial positions.
Recommendations
1. Minorities should be nominated and appointed to increase their presence in judicial and quasi-judicial positions and to progress toward a representational bench.
2. Judicial nominating commissions and appointive authorities should nominate and appoint persons to the bench on a non-discriminatory basis.
3. The
Findings
1. Nine of the 41 minorities responding to the survey have taken informal action to situations they deemed inappropriate. Of these, six were very or fairly satisfied with the result. No minorities reported filing a formal complaint.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Court of Iowa should crate an informal, confidential dispute resolution process with respect to racial, ethnic, and gender biased misconduct for judicial and attorney complainants to utilize, if they choose to do so, prior to or in lieu of filing formal complaints.
2. The Supreme Court of
Measurement and
Evaluation
Recommendations
1. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning should access information, and make it easily retrievable on a uniform statewide basis regarding the trends and patterns evolving related to the various stages of the criminal process as regards to the race and sex of defendant and crime reporters or crime victims. The court system, including the Department of Corrections Division of Community-Based Corrections, should keep data similar to that used in the Criminal Case Study, as it relates to pretrial release to be made available to the division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This same organization should be furnished additional data, all data to be included in their annual report, including:
a. Data regarding whether a defendant used a privately retained attorney, a court appointed attorney, a public defender, or appeared pro se.
b. Data regarding charge reduction and plea-bargaining by race and sex of defendant (this could then be compared to charging).
c. Data regarding the makeup by race and sex of jury pools and ultimate jury members selected.
d. Data regarding the ultimate court disposition of each case, with the race and sex of the defendant.
e. Data regarding pre-sentence investigation recommendations by race and sex.
f. Data regarding prior adult commitments, prior juvenile commitments, education and age of defendants.
g. Data regarding probation revocation.
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.