|
2001
Civil Justice Survey of State Courts •
Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Pam Petrakis
The 2001 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts was the
third of a series of studies of civil litigation funded by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. In this round, the NCSC collected information about
general civil (tort, contract, and real property) trials adjudicated by judges
and juries in 2001 in 46 large urban courts. The purpose of the survey was to
accurately record current trends in civil litigation, to focus more
intensive attention on the characteristics of selected types of trials and
litigants, especially in medical malpractice and products liability cases,
and to expand the scope of analysis to include what happens to civil cases
on appeal. The creation of a
third database also permitted the extension of the longitudinal study of
civil litigation for the 75 largest counties.
The
Bureau of Justice Statistics' Report from this study is available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ctcvlc01.htm.
A
Return to Top
Across State Lines:
Collaborating to Keep Domestic Violence Victims Safe • Susan
Keilitz
Contact: Pam Petrakis
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges conducted a national
conference, Across State Lines: Collaborating to Keep Domestic Violence Victims Safe, in
October 1997. Supplemental funds from the Violence Against Women Grants Office
ensured
participation of representatives from the CCJ, COSCA, trial court administrators, and the
NCSC in the conference Planning Committee. NCSC staff participated in the conference
and assisted in developing the conference agenda and meeting materials, recruiting faculty,
and developing post-conference products.
Adoption
Data •
Victor
E.
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
Caliber
Associates, as part of its contract with the Children's Bureau, has
subcontracted with the National Center for State Courts to verify information
State agencies and courts report on adoptions completed in 2000.
Appellate
Court Performance Standards •
Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis
This
project produced a comprehensive and integrated set of standards that all
state appellate court systems can use in monitoring how well they meet their
basic functions in assessing alternative procedures, and in allocating staff
and other resources. The standards build on the NCSC's Trial Court Performance
Standards, the American Bar Associations' Time Standards for Appellate Courts,
and the National Probate Court Standards. The Appellate Court Performance
Standards have been widely disseminated and intensively promoted in NCSC and
other publications. A second phase to this project developed of a set of
measures that individual appellate courts can use in estimating how closely
they meet the standards. The draft measures have already been used by the
Florida appellate courts in developing the performance criteria against which
they will be measured for budgeting purposes.
Appellate
Court Procedures in State and Federal Courts • Carol
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
A
critical need exists for current information on appellate court practices and
procedures. This project updated and expanded the only source for such
information, A Comparative Outline of Basic Appellate Court Structures and Procedures
in the United States by Wilfried J. Kramer. Appellate court clerks
assisted in refining and updating the new volume, and a number of new
inquiries regarding technology, information on appellate policies and
procedures for the Federal appellate courts, and other changes were added. The
revised volume enables clerks, judges, legislators, and rule-making bodies of
each state to compare their own appellate policies and procedures with those
in other states.
Appellate
Court Procedures is now available on-line in PDF format (click
on the title). A hard copy
is available in the publications catalog.
Are
Hung Juries a Problem? •
G. Thomas Munsterman,
Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda
Otto
Recent
reports of hung jury rates in excess of 15 percent in some jurisdictions
have caused great concern among judicial and legislative policy makers.
The classic study The American Jury by Kalven and Zeisel of
estimated the average hung jury rate at approximately 5 percent — a rate
that has since become enshrined as the “normal” rate for all U.S.
courts.
In response to this apparent increase, policy makers are
considering an array of significant proposals to criminal jury trial
procedures.
Among these proposals are modifications to unanimity requirements
for criminal felony verdicts, disqualification of “nullifying” jurors,
and a host of less radical changes to amendments to jury trial procedures.
In
this study, The National Center for State Courts adopted a multifaceted approach to the examination of hung juries.
Its major components included background research; a broad-based
survey of hung jury rates in large, urban courts across the country; an
in-depth comparison of 372 criminal felony cases in 4 sites;
and a qualitative examination of the 46 trials that hung on one or more
charges. The study found three general factors that contribute to juror
deadlock: evidentiary factors, including police credibility problems at
trial; jurors' beliefs about the fairness of the law they are asked to apply;
and poor interpersonal dynamics during deliberation.
The
final report, entitled Are
Hung Juries A Problem?, is available on-line (click on title).
Other publications based on this study include:
-
Valerie
P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Nicole L. Mott, & G. Thomas Munsterman,
The Hung Jury: The American Jury's Insights and Contemporary
Understanding, 39 Crim. L. Bull. 33 (2003).
-
Paula
Hannaford-Agor and Valerie P. Hans, Nullification at Work? A
Glimpse from the National Center for State Court's Study of Hung Juries, 78
Chi-Kent L. Rev. 1249 (2003).
-
Paula
Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans & G. Thomas Munsterman, How Much
Justice Hangs in the Balance? A New Look at Hung Jury Rates, 83
Judicature 59 (1999).
If you have any further questions, please contact
Brenda
Otto.
Assessing
Innovations in Jury System Management •
G.
Thomas Munsterman and Paula
Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda
Otto
Consumers
are well aware of how contemporary technology has changed their lives, usually
for the good. In this SJI-funded study, NCSC staff explored how many of
those technologies have been adapted for use in jury management systems.
These technologies offer tremendous opportunities to improve the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of the jury system and to make jury service a more pleasant
and convenient experience for the citizens who are summoned. But, like all
technological innovations, there are also some pitfalls.
The
project monograph describes how contemporary technologies can support core
functions of the jury system to ensure its integrity, can improve the
convenience of citizens, can protect jurors' reasonable expectations of privacy,
and can enhance the court's public education and outreach efforts. With
careful planning and conscious attention to the principle goals of the jury
system, court administrators can avoid the most common mistake - implementing
technology for technology's sake - and can make sound decisions about which
technologies offer the most promise for their courts and what policies and
practices must be developed to ensure that those technologies are implemented
and operate as intended. The project findings have also been incorporated
into a six-week online course by the Institute of Court Management.
The
monograph, The Promise and Challenges of Jury System Technology, was published with the generous support of the ACS Government Systems,
Inc. For a copy, contact AIDC 888-228-6272 or NCSC.orders@aidcvt.com
or Brenda
Otto.
Attaining
Justice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases •
Victor E.
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
The
purpose of this new funding is to continue to assist the nation’s courts
to improve their handling of child abuse and neglect, foster care, and
adoption cases.
Currently, the nation’s state court systems are in their second
year of four-year federally funded projects to improve court proceedings
in these cases. Funding from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation will
support continued work of the NCSC, the ABA’s Center on Children and the
Law, and the NCJFCJ.
The Foundation’s support will allow the three court organizations
to remain visible to the State Court Improvement staff who require
information.
The project objectives are:
to help state court systems strengthen their detailed plans for
self-improvement through realistic and achievable reforms; encourage wide
community involvement in the development of strong plans for improvement;
to improve the state of knowledge concerning court improvements; to
improve court reform efforts through improved communication among court
organizations and the federal government; and the final objective is to
expand the technical advice that project staff can provide to courts to
help them carry out their reforms.
In order to accomplish these goals, the project organizations will
plan a 1998 court improvement conference. The three organizations will
prepare a conference agenda, recruit faculty, and participate in the
Conference.
Project staff will also conduct two small invitational meetings to
focus on vital areas of court improvement.
The focus of the first meeting is to discuss how to generate
statistics and information on court performance that will make it clear
how different courts are performing in child abuse and neglect cases.
Among other things, indicators of court performance focus on the
speediness of court proceedings and timely appointment of advocates for
the parties.
This will include selecting the right data elements; for states
creating an information system for the whole court system, making sure
that the system services the needs of child abuse and neglect cases;
picking good computer programs and programmers; and setting up free
standing information systems for child abuse and neglect cases.
The second meeting’s focus will deal with developing standards
for the caseload and workloads of judges and advocates before the court.
Each organization will provide ad hoc on-site technical assistance
regarding improving court performance in child abuse and neglect cases.
The guide, Building
a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and
Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, is available
online.
B
Return to Top
C
Return to Top
California
Judicial Workload Assessment •
Brian Ostrom
Contact: Shannon
Roth
The
NCSC worked with the Research and Planning (R&P) staff of the California
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to measure the workload of judicial
officers in the
California courts. This report is
based on a comprehensive workload assessment strategy that incorporates a
Delphi component, a two-month time study, and an approach to adjust workload
measures to improve the quality of justice. For a complete copy of the final
report, click here.
California
Statewide Staffing Standards •
Brian Ostrom
Contact: Shannon
Roth
The
NCSC collaborated with the Office of Court Research of the California
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to develop a staffing model for California
trial courts, based on the application of the NCSC's workload assessment
methodology to the California courts.
Civil
Trial Court Network II •
Brian Ostrom,
David Rottman
Contact Pam Petrakis
This
follow-up study of civil litigation and trial outcomes builds upon the
knowledge and experience gained from the Civil Trial Court Network I.
This project has collected data on tort and contract cases disposed
by jury and bench trial in the courts of general jurisdiction of 45
counties chosen to represent the 75 largest counties in the nation. The
project proposes an examination of the nature and outcome of all civil
trials and will reexamine the volume and nature of tort litigation by
obtaining basic data from each of the courts on a sample of disposed tort
cases in 1996. The data
collected focuses on the specific type of tort or contract case, plaintiff
and defendant types, compensatory damages awarded, punitive damages
awarded, number of days in the trial and case processing time.
The project will result in the first systematic compilation of data
on civil jury and bench trials in state courts.
Additionally, the jury trial data collected will begin to establish
trends into the nature, frequency and size of jury awards in state courts,
with the data on jury trials collected in Civil Trial Court Network
Project I providing the baseline indicators.
Community-Focused
Courts Development Initiative •
David
Rottman
Contact: Pam
Petrakis
In
order to respond more effectively to emergent public issues such as drug
and alcohol abuse, child and spousal abuse, gender and minority bias,
homelessness, and mental illness, courts increasingly form partnerships
with the communities they serve.
What are the structural, organizational, policy and procedural
considerations involved?
This project supports the identification and refinement of the
criteria and the strategies for devising and implementing policies,
practices and procedures that enhance court and community relations.
This effort will identify, assess and document existing court
programs that exemplify the proactive principles of community-focused
courts.
A goal of this initiative is the development of a set of principles
and guides for court officials that builds upon the Trial Court
Performance Standards.
Community-Focused
Courts Development Initiative: Implementation Phase •
David
Rottman
Contact: Pam
Petrakis
This
implementation phase builds directly on the work being carried out under
the Community-Focused Courts:
A Development Initiative Program (see above).
The Implementation Phase will continue to promote the
Community-Focused Court Development Initiative to national, state, and
local audiences.
It will accomplish three items:
(1) exchange information, educational materials, and ideas about
community-focused courts in a manner that complements ongoing BJA efforts
in the area of community prosecution; (2) provide support for existing and
emerging state and local partnerships between courts and communities; and
(3) develop and disseminate evaluation tools to assess and improve local
community-focused court programs.
Two
publications are now available on-line.
Conducting a Weighted
Caseload Study for the Michigan Court System • Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam Petrakis
This project was conducted in two phases. During the first
phase, NCSC staff designed and built a weighted caseload system for the circuit, district,
and probate courts in the state of Michigan. A second aspect of this phase was providing
the Michigan Trial Court Assessment Commission with several alternative funding formulae
to govern the annual disbursement of the Court Equity Fund based on the weighted caseload
model. The second phase of the project drew on the comprehensive database compiled during
phase one to develop a weighted caseload based system for allocating judge and judicial
officer resources throughout the circuit, district, and probate courts of Michigan.
Conference on Improving the
Quality of Civil Justice Reform • David
Rottman
Contact: Pam
Petrakis
An international conference on civil justice reform was organized
with the goal of understanding the similarities and differences in the paths that various
countries had followed. Did one path seem more common than others? Where exactly did this
country stand in relation to the others?
The intent of the conference was to increase understanding of the reform process. The
conference was designed to bring together a diverse group of participants from a set of
countries with somewhat similar legal contexts. As a result, we invited judges, lawyers,
and law professors from five major Anglo-American legal systems--Australia, Canada,
England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States. We applied to the Rockefeller
Foundation and graciously were awarded the opportunity to hold the meeting at the
foundation's Bellagio Conference Center in Italy on March 17-20, 1997. This location also
facilitated the participation of an Italian lawyer and scholar, who offered the
continental perspective on civil justice.
The conference accomplished three objectives consistent with the overall goal. First,
an informal network of reformers, both visionaries and implementers, was established.
Collaborations that began at the conference have continued to this day and have extended
to individuals not present at the conference.
Second, an enhanced understanding of civil justice reform was achieved, although some
problems remain unresolved in every country. The paths that civil justice reform took were
more striking in their similarities than in their differences. Where there were sharp
differences, there were understandable reasons. For example, the more extensive use of the
jury system in this country and the related topic of tort reform pulled American reformers
toward a less traveled path, as did other structural differences (e.g., nature of
pleadings, discovery). Yes, despite these differences, the five Anglo-American countries
are not going off in five different directions.
Third, the conference produced background papers, which circulated, along with seven
pounds of documents outlining actual reform proposals, in advance of the conference. The
papers have been published in the Justice System Journal (Vol. 20/2, 1999).
Court
Coordination of Family Cases: Model Action Plans •
Carol
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
This project addresses the crucial need for courts to improve how they manage and
adjudicate family cases. The need has grown more acute with the increase in the size and
complexity of family caseloads. Courts play a pivotal role at the crossroads of legal
processes and social service interventions, and effective case coordination systems are
essential to avoid fragmentation of services and waste of judicial resources.
The final publication, "How are Courts Coordinating Family
Cases?" is available on-line (click on title). A
hard copy is available through NCSC by contacting Pam
Petrakis.
Court
Interpreter Services in State and Federal Courts: Building A Framework for
Intersystem Coordination •
William Hewitt,
Paula
Hannaford-Agor
Contact
Amy
Spencer-Westerkamp
Working
with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO), the NCSC
developed a framework for intersystem coordination of court interpreter
services.
Court Telephone Interpretation
Service: Pilot Program • William
Hewitt
Contact Amy
Spencer-Westerkamp
This project explored one way to reduce
the need to use unqualified interpreters in court proceedings through the use of
telecommunications technology. Courts are able to secure the services of court certified
interpreters on short notice and at relatively low cost through over-the phone
interpreting. Following the conclusion of the pilot project, NCSC staff have prepared a
resource paper describing the options that are available to courts for using telephone
interpreting. The cooperating vendor for the project, Language Line Services,
LLC, now has
established a courts division of the service and offers a "priority seek"
capability for court subscribers. This feature provides certified interpreters in the
Spanish language to court subscribers.
Crossing
Borders: Regional Meetings to Facilitate Implementation of Full Faith and
Credit •
Hillery Efkeman
Contact Brenda Otto
One
of the most significant contributions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
to the safety of domestic violence victims arises from its provisions
requiring full faith and credit for protection orders across state and
tribal lines. However, courts and law enforcement face numerous obstacles
to achieving full faith and credit, including significant differences in
state laws governing protection orders, variation in the format and
content of the orders, and the lack of data systems to verify orders
originating in another state. A key theme emerging from the 1997 national
conference, “Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to Safety,” was the
need for significant coordination and cooperation among the states and
tribes to overcome these obstacles, and participants in the conference
recommended regional meetings as an effective way to promote cooperation
and improved practice in enforcing protection orders across state and
tribal boundaries. A regional meeting of nine northeastern states in the
fall of 1997 demonstrated the merits of bringing together key players to
overcome the barriers to full faith and credit implementation, and the
regional meeting model has received substantial support from the Attorney
General as one that should be replicated.
D
Return to Top
Developing a National
Agenda for Reducing Litigation Cost and Delay • David
Steelman
This project assessed what has been learned about issues of court delay,
identify key problems and obstacles, define research priorities and develop a preliminary
agenda for future research, technical assistance and education. The project
was conducted by the Justice Management Institute (the primary grantee) in cooperation with
the NCSC, and in collaboration with the ABA’s Task Force on Reducing Litigation Cost
and Delay, and the National Judicial College.
Development of
Assessment Tools to Evaluate the DC's Domestic Violence Plan •
Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam
Petrakis
The District of Columbia’s Superior Court evaluated the District of
Columbia’s Domestic Violence Plan and the NCSC assisted in the evaluation by
developing assessment tools. Project staff identified information needed to evaluate
the Plan and the sources of the data. Staff developed and proposed sets of data elements
needed to capture information required for an evaluation; collaborated with the
Implementation Committee in developing the sets of data elements; and completed a
report for the Superior Court on recommended data elements, sources of data, and methods
for gathering and analyzing the data. Two reports are available, Implementing an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: Systemic Change in
the District of Columbia - Only
available
on-line (click on title)
• Martha
Wade Steketee, Lynn Levey, Susan Keilitz
and Lessons Learned in Implementing an Integrated
Domestic Violence Court: The District of Columbia Experience, Martha
Wade Steketee, Lynn Levey, Susan Keilitz
- Only available in hard copy.
Contact: Pam
Petrakis
Dispensing
Justice Locally: An Analysis of Impacts, Costs and Benefits of the Midtown
Community Court •
David Rottman, Brian Ostrom
Contact Pam
Petrakis
Opened
in the summer of 1993 as a three-year demonstration project, the Midtown
Community Court (MCC), adjudicated low-level cases that arise in the Times
Square area of Manhattan and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The Court and the NCSC jointly conducted the second phase
of a multi-method research project, examining the impacts and costs of the
MCC. Phase
I research examined the role of the community in the development and
operations of the MCC, explored changes in community attitudes and
conditions of disorder; and points to preliminary impacts on case
processing times, sentence outcomes, community service compliance rates,
community attitudes and community conditions.
Phase II research had several purposes.
First was to determine whether these early impacts can be
sustained, and will provide an expanded assessment of the Court’s
effects on community attitudes and on the concentration of quality-of-life
offenses.
Then it examined defendant recidivism and jail displacement;
explored the relationship between costs and benefits of community-based
justice; and finally identify prospects for replication.
Domestic Violence Courts:
Jurisdiction, Organization, Goals and Measures •
Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam
Petrakis
This was the first comprehensive catalogue of domestic violence courts in the
U.S. The project built a common understanding of the goals and operations of the
various models of domestic violence courts and developed measures these courts and
others could use to assess their performance. The catalogue, goals, and measures
were
designed for use by policy makers, practitioners, advocates, service providers, and
researchers addressing domestic violence through the criminal and civil justice systems.
These products provide the framework that is essential for understanding,
implementing, and evaluating domestic violence courts. The report, Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: A
National Survey - Available on-line through NCJRS (click on title -
click on Search Abstract Database - enter title of publication) •
Susan Keilitz, Rosalie Guerrero, Ann Jones, and Dawn Rubio.
E
Return to Top
Effective
Use of Legal Staff in State Appellate Courts • Carol
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
The National
Center for State Courts, in cooperation with the Appellate Judges
Conference, the Conference of Appellate Staff Attorneys, and the National
Conference of Appellate Court Clerks, conducted a comprehensive
review of the way in which appellate courts use legal staff to achieve
maximum court productivity and timeliness. Judges across the country wanted
to know how to employ staff most effectively. What work should staff do?
What should be the workload performance standards and the corresponding
compensation? What is the best division of labor among law clerks, central
staff attorneys, and clerks of court? The project was designed to produce
clear and comprehensible answers for judges and court administrators.
A new publication has
recently been released entitled The Work of Appellate Court Legal Staff.
To obtain a hard copy of this publication, please contact Pam Petrakis at
(757) 259-1822 or by emailing her at ppetrakis@ncsc.dni.us.
It is also available on-line in PDF format (click on title).
Ensuring
Participation of Victims of Crime in the Criminal Justice System •
Susan Keilitz
Contact Pam Petrakis
This
project will assist courts in providing for crime victims access to
justice, fairness and integrity throughout and following the judicial
process, and trust and confidence that their participation in the judicial
system is beneficial to them and to the community.
There currently is no central source of information on activities
courts have undertaken to ensure that crime victims have full and fair
access to the judicial process or that the rights that the majority of
states have established for crime victims are enforced.
There also is a lack of understanding of what judges and court
administrators know and think about crime victims’ rights and interests
in the judicial process.
This basic information must be gathered in order to develop
relevant and useful products that meet the educational and programmatic
needs of judges and court administrators.
The proposed project will create the foundation needed to prepare
an agenda for developing and disseminating appropriate educational
materials and management tools for judges and court administrators.
Establishing and
Facilitating Interstate Compacts and Cooperation in Guardianship •
Paula Hannaford-Agor
Contact Brenda
Otto
NCSC assisted the National College of Probate Judges in establishing and
facilitating interstate compacts and cooperation in guardianship cases where wards,
guardians and other parties with legitimate interests are located in jurisdictions other
than the one that issued the original guardianship. The project identified strategic
issues likely to affect the establishment and use of interstate compacts and agreements;
developed model interstate compacts and agreements that adequately address the identified
strategic issues; formulated specific strategies to disseminate the models and encourage
their use; and implemented the model agreements and compacts. The Carstensen and ACTEC
foundations have contributed $12,000 towards this initiative with $50,359 coming from
SJI.
Evaluating
Blended Sentencing of Juveniles in Minnesota: Satisfying a National Need
for Information •
Fred Cheesman
Contact Pam Petrakis
The
project produced information on juvenile sentencing critically needed
in Minnesota and nationally. Because blended juvenile sentencing is a
sentencing innovation which attempts to bridge the gap between the adult
and juvenile justice systems, it has generated a lot of interest as a
prime example is of the “reform” movement in juvenile sentencing.
However, it is such a recent innovation that no objective process or
impact evaluations have ever been conducted to examine its efficiency and
effectiveness. The research and evaluation project provides objective
information about this innovation for Minnesota and nationally by
accomplishing the following objectives: (1) Examine the decision-making
processes that results in dispositions of Adult Certification, EJJ, or
strictly juvenile processing for juvenile offenders by determining the
influence of legal and extralegal variables on decisions made at critical
stages of processing; (2) Examine whether EJJ cases are punished
differently than Adult Certified cases and strictly juvenile cases;(3)
Take the first steps to assess the effectiveness of the three
dispositional alternatives (Adult Certification, EJJ, or strictly
juvenile) in deterring subsequent delinquent/criminal behavior; (4) Use
the information resulting from the accomplishment of the first three
objectives to develop a “best practices guide” to assist judges,
prosecutors, and public defenders with decisions about the most effective
and efficient application of the three dispositional options; and (5)
Build the foundation for cost comparisons between the dispositional
alternatives by identifying cost centers, collecting data on processing
times, and collecting available cost data.
The
project’s objectives were achieved through accomplishment of seven
distinct, though inter-related tasks. From the initiation of the project,
an advisory committee of juvenile court professionals, policy-makers and
academics and a project consultant provided guidance and assistance at
critical stages of project work. Data on the decision-making processes
leading to selection of one of the three dispositional alternatives was obtained from automated and original source data, as well as interviews
with key staff, and subjected to multivariate analyses to determine major
decisional influences. A preliminary comparison of cases assigned to the
three dispositional alternatives with regard to a variety of recidivism
measures (including whether recidivism occurred, seriousness of new
offenses, and time-to recidivism) was conducted. Multivariate analysis
procedures was used to discern the relative importance of the type of
disposition versus other variables known to affect recidivism. Finally,
models were developed to permit later cost comparisons among the three
dispositional alternatives. The final report, Blended
Sentencing in Minnesota: On Target for Justice and Public Safety?
is now available online (click on title.)
Evaluating
Justice: Civil Case Adjudication in Massachusetts •
William Hewitt
Contact Amy
Spencer-Westerkamp
The project is designed to
examine, and to provide bar-sponsored assistance in resolving, three of
the most durable and frustrating problems in civil trial practice: (1) the
expense and difficulty of obtaining appropriate discovery, (2) the
difficulty of obtaining firm trial dates and (3) the difficulty in
determining the appropriate length of time it should take to resolve
various kinds of civil cases. Those problems impact all litigants in one
way or another but the force of that impact tends to increase in inverse
proportion to the litigant’s economic resources. Although many programs
have been instituted in many different states to deal with those problems,
virtually all of those programs have been court-generated. Their success
or failure has turned on the degree to which the sponsoring court was able
to adhere to the requirements of its own program and the degree to which
it was able to enlist, persuasively or coercively, the bar's cooperation.
Massachusetts has not addressed problems (1) and (2) in any systematic
way. Although the Supreme Judicial Court has instituted time standards to
deal with problem (3), although those time standards are in place in the
Superior Court, the Boston Municipal Court and the District Court and
although the time-standards programs have reduced the overall caseload in
both courts, Massachusetts, like most other states, did not engage in any
empirical research or analysis before promulgating its time-standard
deadlines. To our knowledge, this project would be the first bar-sponsored
project designed to look at those three issues, to engage in research
designed to reveal the primary problem areas and to propose measures the
bar could take to assist the courts in resolving the problems.
Evaluation
of Court-Based Aggressive Driving Programs for Virginia •
Victor E.
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
The
proposed evaluation will determine if aggressive drivers can benefit from
behavioral modification techniques to manage their competitive and hostile
impulses while on the road.
More likely, a program will help determine which types of drivers can
best be reached by such a court-based, anger reduction program.
The program will provide aggressive drivers with emotional management
techniques, such as “inner power tools” for safe driving.
The
goal of the program is to help traffic offenders avoid aggressive driving
tactics by managing their own anger behind the wheel.
The project will evaluate
the pilot anger management program in Fairfax and Richmond, Virginia
for effectiveness in preventing and reducing the incidence of aggressive
driving. If
the anger management program is successful in Virginia, a process will be
developed for replicating it throughout Maryland and Virginia, and perhaps the
nation.
Evaluation of Effectiveness of
Anger Management Education for Aggressive Driving • Victor
E.
Flango
Contact Pam Petrakis
The
premise of the evaluation is based on the assumption that behavior
modification techniques can help aggressive drivers manage their competitive
and hostile impulses while driving on the road. The Arlington County General
District Court served as a pilot site that assigned drivers convicted
of misdemeanor driving offenses to an eight-hour anger management program.
Successful anger management programs should result in a decrease in the
number of persons arrested for aggressive driving and less recidivism among
offenders who have completed the program.
Records from the Department of Motor Vehicles were used to determine
recidivism rates for those who have completed anger management education
compared to drivers who were not assigned to the program.
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:
-
Showcase
the changes made in the jury systems in U.S. courts and the methods of
implementation through which these changes were made;
-
Describe
the rationale for these changes;
-
Develop
a national focus on jury system innovations and provide a means to keep
that focus alive; and
-
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 d | 
