The Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (CCTAP) is a program of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The project is administered by American University, in Washington, D.C., in partnership with the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the Pretrial Services Resource Center and the Justice Management Institute. The objective of the project is to provide BJA-funded technical assistance to state and local criminal courts, related justice system agencies and units of general government with the goal of improving the competence, fairness and efficiency of the criminal case adjudication process. This technical assistance is delivered by practitioner-experts from state and local courts and justice agencies, who serve as consultants to the project, and by senior staff of the partner organizations.

In addition to on-site operational reviews and training activities, off-site consultations with local officials by telephone, and the dissemination of technical assistance reports and other materials from its unique reference collection of judicial administration literature, the project conducts periodic technical assistance and training needs assessments, focusing on state courts and related agencies.

The results of needs assessments and requests for CCTAP assistance are analyzed periodically to determine service delivery priorities and to identify topics of broad interest among practitioners that can be addressed in "CCTAP Resource Documents" developed by the project’s partner organizations. The present document is one of an initial series of such resource documents, to be published between September and November 1999, that includes the following titles:

Hard copies of the resource documents are available at no cost to state and local officials from the CCTAP office and the offices of the project’s partner organizations while supplies last. The documents also can be downloaded from the CCTAP page of the American University Justice Programs Office web site at: <www.american.edu/justice>.

Suggestions for future topics in the CCTAP Resource Documents series are welcome.

This resource document is published by American University’s Bureau of Justice Assistance-sponsored Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (CCTAP) to assist judicial system officials in developing ideas for new and innovative Court-Community Relations Programs specifically designed to enhance the image of justice and public understanding of the judicial process. The document is based on a national sample of three hundred jurisdictions nationwide conducted by staff of the CCTAP and its sister project, the Courts Technical Assistance Project (CTAP) which is sponsored by the State Justice Institute. Descriptions of both projects appear in Appendix A.

Over the past twenty years, many courts have become more customer-oriented and have instituted a wide range of services for those who become involved with the judicial process. These services have included the development of numerous innovative court programs that have been specifically designed to: enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system; educate the public about the court system; improve public safety; provide job skills for offenders; and provide educational programs for juveniles in an effort to reduce juvenile crime.

In an effort to capture the diversity of "noteworthy" Court-Community Relations Programs (CCRP) that have been implemented, a survey was distributed to over three hundred (300) general and limited jurisdiction Court Administrators requesting them to identify and describe programs their courts had instituted to enhance the public image of the judicial system. A complementary survey was distributed to all State Court Administrators also asking them to identify CCRP programs in their states. Copies of these survey instruments are provided in Appendices B and C. Ninety-five (95) responses were received, identifying over 400 different programs.

Of the programs described in this document, 57% are from general jurisdiction courts, 22% are from limited jurisdiction courts, and the remaining 21% are programs described by the Administrative Offices of the Courts (see Chart 1).
 
 

This document represents phase one of a multi-phased research initiative for identifying both innovative and noteworthy Court-Community Relations Programs (CCRP). This report will be updated bi-annually in order to provide judicial system agencies with an up-to-date compilation of Court-Community Relations Programs nationwide. The goal of this document is to provide court systems with information and to foster networking among Court Administrators interested in enhancing the image of justice in their communities.

If your court has a CCRP program that you believe would be of interest to other jurisdictions please complete and return the yellow questionnaire located at the end of this document. Please feel free to contact the American University Bureau of Justice Assistance Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project if you would like any additional information on a specific court program.

On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University, we would like to thank everyone who responded to the survey and provided the information that has made this compilation possible.
 
 

A total of eighty-one (81) general and limited jurisdiction Court Administrators responded to our Court-Community Relations Programs Survey, while nineteen (19) State Court Administrators responded to our Noteworthy Court Programs Survey. Sixty-four (64) of these Trial Court Administrators identified "noteworthy" Court-Community Relations Programs in their states; twelve (12) listed programs but did not consider them as being noteworthy; and five (5) did not list any programs at all.

Below is a summary analysis of the survey responses received from both the Trial and State Court Administrators.

A. Background Information

The following information represents the findings under Section I of the CCTAP Court-Community Relations Survey.

Question #1

Please place a check mark next to the category and geographical setting of your court. (Category: general jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction, and special jurisdiction. Setting: urban, rural, suburban).

Response

57% of the participants were from general jurisdiction courts, 22% were from limited jurisdiction courts, and the remaining 21% were from the State Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC). The geographical settings for these jurisdictions consisted of: urban (40%); rural (38%); and suburban (22%).

The types of programs implemented in a urban setting included: Family Violence Coordinating Council, Information Brochures, Web-Site, Self-help Legal Access Center, First Appearance Center, Inside the Courts: A Pro Bono Education Program, Citizen Review Panel, Family Court, Domestic Violence Court, and Seminar for Divorcing Parents.

The types of programs implemented in a suburban setting included: Web-Site, Juvenile Justice Program, Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion Program, Prevail—Victim Advocacy Program, Videotape of Court System Overview, Law Related Classes for Children, Family Court, Court Organized Speakers Bureau, Mediation Achieving Results, Children’s Waiting Room, Court Docent Program, and Drug Court.

The types of programs implemented in a rural setting included: Parent Education Clinics for Divorcing Parents, Parenting Time Alternative Dispute Resolution, Law Related Classes, Juvenile Drug Court, Teen Court, Grade Court, Parent Project, Speakers Bureau, and Video Arraignment.

It appeared that the rural jurisdictions tended to focus more on juvenile and family programs whereas urban jurisdictions tended to focus on community- based programs and services for indigent clients. The suburban jurisdictions tended to include a wide range of programs.

Question #2

What is the population served by your court?

Response:

The populations of the jurisdictions, which participated in this survey ranged from 7,000 to 33 million. The median population was 973,790.

Interestingly, population size did not matter whether or not a jurisdiction had a Court-Community Relations Program in place. Even the smallest jurisdictions with populations of less then 7,500 had at least one CCRP program implemented in their courts. Examples included: Teen Court, Defensive Driving Classes, and Information Brochures.

Question #3

Please list the total number of personnel (in your court) for the following categories: Judges, Other Judicial Officers, and Court Staff.

Response:

Table 1: Total Number of Personnel in Responding Courts

Question #4

Please provide case filing statistics for FY 96/97; if readily available.

 Response:

Table 2: Annual Caseload Statistics for Reporting Courts

B. Identification of Program Areas

Question #5

What activities or programs has your court undertaken over the past several years, that are specifically intended to enhance the "image of justice" and the public understanding of the judicial process?

Response:

The total number of programs identified by this question was four hundred and nineteen. One-hundred and sixty-nine of these programs were designed specifically to enhance the image of justice and public understanding of the judicial process. Remarkably, all of these programs were based upon only seventy-six general and limited jurisdiction courts and nineteen AOC’s.

The responses for this question contained multiple selections. Examples of the types of programs designed specifically to enhance the image of justice and public understanding of the judicial process included: fifty-five (74%) of the survey participants conducting school tours of their court facilities for public/private schools; fifty-four (71%) responded under the other category; fifty-one (67%) provide informational brochures; forty-seven (62%) have youth/adult education programs; and thirty-one (41%) have on-line web-sites that provide information on the court and court processes. (See Chart 3 to view these and additional results).
 
 

Which of the above programs (if you had to choose only one) would you characterize as being the most noteworthy and most potentially beneficial for other courts interested in improving the image of justice in their communities? (Please describe this program and provide the date of implementation).

Response:

For this question, ninety-five responses were received. Forty-nine of the respondents provided one program, fifteen gave multiple responses, twelve provided programs but did not consider them as being noteworthy, and nineteen of the State Court Administrators suggested multiple programs as well. (To view these programs please refer to Part II of this report titled: Summary Listing of Noteworthy Court-Community Relations Programs Recommended by Survey Respondents).

Surprisingly, almost half (47%) of all the programs noted in this report were implemented between 1997-1999 (see Chart 4).
 
 

• Legal Constituent Services Program
• Family Court
• Drug Court
• Domestic Violence Court
• Web-Site
• Defensive Driving
• Publication of Annual Reports
• First Appearance Center
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Information Brochures
• Parent Education for Divorcing Parents
• Teen Court
• Self-help Legal Access Center
• Family Violence Coordinating Council
• Community Service Program
• Law Day
• Inside the Courts: A Pro Bono Education Program
• Video Arraignment
• Citizen Review Panel.

Is your court located near an Indian Reservation and if so, is there any sharing of resources or other form of cooperation between your court system and the tribal justice system?

Response:

Based on a sample of seventy-six responses, twelve (16%) of the respondents stated that they are located near an Indian Reservation. Jurisdictions which reported interagency cooperation and sharing of resources included:

Table 3: Jurisdictions and Types of Cooperation
 

Jurisdiction	Interagency Cooperation/Sharing of Resources
2nd Judicial District Court, ID	Yes: Cooperative staffing for tribal juvenile offenders regarding probation.
6th Judicial District Court, OR	Yes: Local public safety coordinating council.
7th Judicial District Court, OR	Located near an Indian Reservation/No interagency cooperation.
Carlton County Court, MN	Yes: Planning and implementation phases of court programs.
11th Judicial District Court, NM	Yes: Education programs for court staff.
Justice Court of Nevada	Located near an Indian Reservation/No interagency cooperation.
Marysville Municipal Court, WA	Yes: Provision of weekly warrant information to the tribal police.
Polk County Court, OR	Located near an Indian Reservation/No interagency cooperation.
Administrative Office of the Courts, WI	Yes: Court outreach programs.
Sedro-Woolley Municipal Court	Yes: Community service
20th Judicial District Court, MT	Yes: Cross-deputization.
Administrative Office of the Court, UT	Yes: On a district-by-district basis.

 

C. Background Information for the Program Selected in Question #6

The following questions are geared to obtain additional information about a jurisdiction’s specific Court-Community Relations Program.

Question #8

How did you learn about the program you selected in question #6?

Response:

For this question, the sample included sixty-four general and limited jurisdiction courts. Multiple responses were acceptable. One-half (50%) of the Courts stated that their program was implemented without outside influence; eighteen (29%) of the respondents stated they learned about their program through observation in another jurisdiction; fourteen (22%) stated they learned about their program at a conference; eleven (17%) learned about their program through reference materials such as national newsletters/journals; eleven (17%) responses were categorized as "other"; ten (16%) were introduced to their program through the Administrative Office of the Courts; and five (8%) of the respondents stated that they learned about their Court-Community Relations Programs through justice system agencies (e.g., State Justice Institute and Bureau of Justice Assistance). (See Chart 5).
 
 
 
 

Programs developed within the court: Alcohol Tobacco Diversion Program, Web-Site, Inside the Courts, Video Tape Court System Overview, DART, School Tours, Grade Court, Information Brochures, Law Day and Law Related Classes, Video Juror Orientation, Juvenile Justice Program, Citizen Review Panel, Court with Class, and Court Organized Speakers Bureau.

Programs developed in partnership with other courts: Parents and Children’s Education Clinics, Self Help Legal Access Center, Seminar for Divorcing Parents, Meet Your Judges Night, Public Information Officer, Video Appearances, Law Day, Community Service Programs, and Drug Court.

Programs developed in coordination with the Administrative Office of the Courts: Information Brochures, Parent Education for Divorcing Parents, Sexual Offenders Program, Family Violence Coordinating Council, Truancy Review Board, Teen Court, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Drug Court, and Family Court.

Announcements in Professional journals/newsletters: Law Day, Victim Assistance and Public Awareness Programs, Community Service as a means in which to reduce the jail-overcrowding problem, and Drug Court.

Educational Programs at Conferences in the Community: Increasing access to the Justice System for Pro Se Litigants, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Drug Court, Family Court, Kiosk Service Centers, Jury Programs, Juvenile Justice Mediation, Parent Project, School Tours, and Community Service Programs.

Question #9

What are the goals of your court’s program?

Response:

For this question, the sample was based on seventy-three responses and multiple responses were acceptable. In evaluating the goals of all the programs cited in this report, thirty-nine (53%) of the courts identified enhancing public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process as the primary goal of their court’s programs. Additional program goals included: thirty-two (44%) educating the public about the court system; twenty-five (34%) other; twenty (27%) improving public safety; thirteen (18%) providing educational programs for juveniles in order to reduce juvenile delinquency; and five (7%) providing job skills for offenders (see Chart 6). Appendix D illustrates examples of jurisdictions and program types categorized under enhancing public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.
 
 
 
 

On a scale of one to five (one equals the least successful; five equals the most successful) how would you rate the success of your program in achieving its goals?

Response:

Table 4: Program Success Ratings

Examples of programs identified under the "four" and "five" categories consisted of:

• Domestic Violence Advocate
• Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion
• Drug Court
• Family Court
• Web-Site
• Self-help Legal Access Center
• First Appearance Center
• Inside the Courts: A Pro Bono Education Program
• Neighborhood Justice Center
• Video of Juror Orientation
• Grade Court
• Citizen Review Panel

• Information Brochures
• Web-Site
• Parent Project
• School Tours
• Law Day
• Defensive Driving.

Question #11

On which external factors are you basing your assessment for the program’s success?

Response:

In evaluating the success of their Court-Community Relations Programs, forty-eight (75%) of the survey participants stated that "positive community feedback" was an important characteristic associated to enhancing the public image of the court system. Additional factors associated with program successes consisted of favorable media coverage and receiving an award from a local, state or national organization. Responses that were elicited under the "other" category consisted of recidivism of offenders, positive feedback from the local bar association, actual feedback from defendants and the agencies that employ them, positive interaction with visitors and court personnel, other courts showing an interest in the program, and the program serving as a "Model" for other jurisdictions (see Chart 7).
 
 
 
 

What type of special training, if any, are provided for court employees who are involved in this program?

Response:

The responses for this question include sixty-four general and limited jurisdiction courts and nine AOC’s. The types of training required for program implementation consisted of seventeen (23%) respondents stating they utilize in-house training; twelve (16%) stated that training was not necessary for their specific program; ten (14%) use self training; nine (12%) responded under the "other" category; seven (9%) use a combination of in-house, and self training; six (8%) use a combination of AOC state training, in-house training, and self training; five (7%) use a combination of in-house training, self training, and "other" training methods; an additional four (5%) use a combination of AOC state training, in-house training, and other training methods; three (4%) use a combination of AOC state training, self training and other training methods; and two (1%) use in-house training and other training methods (see Chart 8).
 
 
 
 

What type of certification, if any, is provided for court employees who are directly involved in this program?

Response:

Based on sixty-four responses, only seven (16%) of the programs required certification from an outside agency in order to implement a specific Court-Community Relations Program. The types of programs that required certification were: Domestic Violence Court, Drug Court, Neighborhood Justice Center, Video Appearances, Juvenile Justice Program, and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Question #14

Who are the key officials involved in the planning/decision making process of your court’s program and was it necessary to obtain interagency approval?

Response:

This question includes both the responses from the State Court Administrators survey and the Trial Court Administrators survey. The range of key officials necessary in the planning/decision making process of a Court-Community Relations Program included: Administrative Office of the Courts, City Council, Court Administrator and Court Personnel, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Defense Counsel, Judges, Prosecutors, Public Defender, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, Mayor, and School Officials. (See Chart 9).
 
 

Programs that most frequently required support from core judicial staff (court administrator, court staff, and judges) consisted of: Information Brochures, Mediation Achieving Results for Children Program, Juvenile Drug Court, Court Web-Site, Video Arraignment, Alternative Dispute Resolution, One- Trial One-Day Jury System, Courthouse Tours, Speakers Bureau, Public Information Officer, Domestic Violence Court, Seminar for Divorcing Parents, and Victim Assistance Programs.

Question #15

What source of funding does your court receive for implementing your program and maintaining your program?

Response:

Table 5: Program Funding Sources

Funding Source	# of Responses: Implementing Program	# of Responses: Maintaining Program
State	21	18
Local	25	24
Federal	7	4
Other	20	14
Average Estimated Cost	$196,480.00	$297,482

 

 Question #16

What major issues or needs do you foresee affecting your courts ability to maintain your program during the next year?
 
 

Response:

34% of all the survey participants reported that they were concerned with various issues affecting the ability to maintain their courts programs during the next year. Examples of the responses included:

• Continued funding
• Unfunded state or federal mandates
• Staff resources to meet the growing needs of the program
• Judicial involvement
• Maintenance issues
• Expansion issues
• Staff training
• Continued operation
• Commitment of court staff and school officials
• Reading the target population
• How to use the input the court receives and how does the court measure success
• Continued support from the local bar association.

D. Training Needs Assessment

The following questions were asked in order to identify training needs in the field for program implementation.

Question #17

What additional Court-Community Relations Programs or activities would you like to see your court undertake?

Response:

63% of the courts surveyed stated that they would like their courts to undertake additional Court-Community Relations Programs or activities. Examples of the types of programs that these jurisdictions would like to implement consist of:

• Development of a Court Web-Site
• Increase interaction with the court and the community
• Jury service programs
• Improve assistance to pro se litigants
• Kiosk centers that provide information 24 hours a day 7 days a week
• Community forums
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Mock Trials
• Children’s Advocacy Room
• Expanded use of information brochures, suggestion box, and information booth
• Job shadowing for high school students
• Career/job development and self-improvement skills through the drug court

Question #18

Would you be interested in receiving training for your court staff on a specific type of court-community relations program?

Response:

47% of the respondents stated that they would like to receive training on specific types of Court–Community Relations Program.
 
 

The following section of this report represents forty-four (44) Court-Community Relation Programs which were identified by representatives of the State Administrative Offices of the Courts and by general/limited jurisdiction Court Administrators. The responses collected from both the Trial Court Administrators and State Court Administrators in the course of our CCTAP project’s "Noteworthy Community-Court Relations Programs Surveys" have been categorized based upon the following survey questions:

· What are the goals of your court’s program?

· On a scale of one to five (with one being the least successful and five being the most successful) how would you rate the success of your program in achieving its goals?

· On which external factors are you basing your assessment of the programs success?

· What type of training, if any, is provided for court employees who are involved in this program?

· What type of certification, if any, is provided for court employees who are directly involved in this program?

· Who are the key officials in the planning/decision making process of your court’s program and was it necessary to obtain interagency approval?

· What source of funding does your court receive for implementing and maintaining your program?

The information which follows is only intended to provide a brief description of each of the court programs. To learn more about a specific program, we have included contact information.

Goal

To provide justice and fairness to all citizens in the community, to assist and educate the public about the court system, and to enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial process.

Program Description

Implemented in 1995, the Food for Fines Collection Program has been very successful in the Oro Valley Magistrate Court. The program collected $36,000.00 and donated over 7,000 cans of food to local food banks. Customers paid half of their overdue fines in cash and the balance could be paid via $5.00 credit per can of food. In order to generate publicity radio and newspaper ads were utilized. The local food bank also conducted advertisement for the program. The program is implemented during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, City Council/County Commission, Judges, Prosecutor, and Public Defender/Bar Association.

Training

State AOC training program, in-house training program, and self-training.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

None reported.

Contact Information

Diane T. Cotter

Court Administrator

Oro Valley Magistrate Court

100 North LaCanada Drive

Oro Valley, AZ 85737

Phone Number: 520/297-3205
 
 

Goal

To increase and enhance the parenting time of non-custodial parents.

Program Description

The Access to Visitation Program provides counseling services, parent education, visitation enforcement (monitored, supervised and therapeutic), mediation as well as neutral drop-off and pick–up sites for parents with their children. Funding for the program is provided under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2258). Title III, Subtitle I-Enhancing Responsibility and Opportunity of Non-residential parents, section 469bB of the Social Security Act. Through a competitive bidding process, fourteen multi-site programs were selected for the initial year of the program and eight for the second. Thirty-eight counties statewide are represented in this program. The main areas of focus for these programs are parent education, group counseling, and supervised visitation. The majority of these projects focus on the latter program area, fostering much needed safe exchange and contact opportunities between nonresidential parents and their children.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Judges, Family Court Staff on the State and Local Levels, and Community Based Organizations.

Desirable: Department of Social Services.

Training

The program develops a specific training curriculum and materials to train court staff, visitation monitors, therapists, and family service workers and disseminated the Uniform Standards of Practice for Providers of Supervised Visitation to the courts.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

The program is funded through collaborative efforts of the courts, law enforcement, community-based organizations, non-profits, bar associations, and family service agencies.

Contact Information

Timothy Gemelli

Administrative Office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone Number: 415/865-7564
 
 

Courts Web-Site

Goal

To educate the public about the court system and services offered through the court.

Program Description

Implemented in January 1996, the Orange County Superior Court’s Web-Site has the highest hit rate of any county site. There are over 100,000 hits per month. The Web-Site at WWW.OC.CA.GOV/SUPERIOR offers a wide range of services. Topics include: a list of the types of cases heard at each jurisdiction, cities within the courts jurisdiction, hours of operation, telephone directories, fee schedules, rules and procedures of the court, form lists and printable court forms, services available through the court, and web-links to other courts and government agencies.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator and Judges.

Desirable: Court Staff.

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource information.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback through webmaster email and volume of hits.

Cost

Costs are variable.

Community Focused Court Programs Booklet

Goals

To contribute to the quality of life in the community by providing community focused court programs designed to enhance public trust in the judicial system and to educate the public about the court system.

Program Description

Implemented in January 1999, the Orange County Community Focused Court Programs Booklet contains a variety of noteworthy court programs. Examples include: Aftercare Program for Drug Court Participants, Drug Court Speakers Bureau, Small Claims Advisor Program, Mock Trial Program, Shortstop/Program, Summer Youth and Employment and Training Program, Stay-in-School Program, Lawyer’s Auxiliary Courthouse Tours, Operation Santa Claus, Public Assistant Liaisons, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Family Court Mediation, Children’s Chambers, Peer Court, and much more.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Judges, and Community Planning/Input.

Desirable: Court Staff

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource information/materials.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy compilation of Court-Community Relations Programs designed to educate the public and to provide a wide range of services for those who have become involved in the judicial process.

Cost

Variable.

Contact Information

Mary Des Rochers

Assistant Executive Officer

PO Box 1994

Santa Ana, CA 92702

Phone Number: 714/834-6045
 
 

Goal

To help the community by providing public education and outreach programs.

Program Description

Implemented in January 1998, the Self-Help Legal Access ("SHLA") Center was established to augment the existing Family Law Self Help Center by providing informational assistance to self-represented litigants in matters other than family law. People are instructed how to complete and file form pleadings, appear in court on their own behalf, explore alternatives to litigation, and learn about the law. The SHLA Center provides information through a variety of mediums including books, Internet, videos, court computer access, and one-on-one consultations with staff attorneys, court clerks, and volunteer attorneys, legal assistants, paralegals, legal secretaries and law students.

In December 1998 the court opened a branch SHLA Center in La Colonia, a low-income, predominantly Spanish speaking community in Oxnard, California, approximately 8 miles from the court, The branch SHLA Center was opened to provide court access to those members of the community who were found to have the greatest difficulty coming to the courthouse, whether because of limited transportation, poverty or language barriers. The branch SHLA Center is staffed with a bilingual attorney and court clerk.

The newest addition to the court's self-help program is a Mobile Self-Help Center that takes the SHLA Center on the road to bring services to outlying communities in the county. Contained in a custom-built 35' motor home, the Mobile Self-Help Center is designed to reach those members of our population unable to utilize the other SHLA Centers. It is modeled after the public library "book mobiles", and is outfitted with computer and video stations, bookshelves, and material racks for displaying self-help materials. The SHLA Center staff, on a rotating basis, staffs the Mobile Self-Help Center, using volunteers, much as they are used in the two stationary centers. Recognizing that there will never be sufficient resources to locate permanent centers in all geographic areas of the county, the court's new mobile unit helps insure access to all members of the community.

The SHLA Center program is part of a creative public outreach project undertaken by the court to improve access to justice for all members of the community. The SHLA centers were established to provide the following:

• Help people representing themselves in court proceedings.
• Educate the public about the role and function of the court in a democratic society.
• Inform litigants and the public about alternatives to civil litigation in resolving conflict.
• Network with other community and public social service agencies to enhance the provision of services and help ensure access to justice.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, and Judges.

Desirable: Bar Association.

Training

In-house training program.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program created to improve the access of justice for all its members of the community.

Cost

Implementing the program: $175,000.00

Maintaining the program: $175,000.00

Contact Information

Tina Rasnow

Coordinator

Ventura County Superior Court

800 South Victoria Ave.

Ventura, CA 93009

Phone Number: 805/654-3879

Goal

To provide the public with a speedy and legally appropriate method to resolve misdemeanors or traffic cases requiring a minimum of appearances at the court.

Program Description

Implemented in January 1997, at the First Appearance Center, the defendant is given an advisement of his/her rights, a description of the offense, and an opportunity to resolve the matter without trial at the time of the first appearance summons. If a further meeting is required to resolve the case without a trial, then the subsequent appearance is held in the same location. If the case is to be tried or a serious offense is to be admitted, then the case is assigned to a judicial division for trial or sentencing. By increasing the opportunity for a negotiated disposition at the first appearance and by reducing the number of appearances, fewer trips to the courthouse are needed and the volume of people in the court is significantly reduced.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, Defense Counsel, Judges, Law Enforcement, and Prosecutor.

Desirable: Public Defender/Bar Association.

Training

In-house and self-training.

Reason for Selection

Recipient of an award and other courts have shown an interest in the First Appearance Center.

Cost

Implementing the program (State/ Local/County Funding): $30,000.00

Maintaining the program (Local): $5,000.00

Contact Information

Gregory Langham, District Administrator

Robert Bernard, District Administrator

El Paso County Combined Courts

Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Phone Number: 719/448-7599

Goal

To provide appropriate treatment for juveniles.

Program Description

The Dispositional Guidelines for Juveniles is a program that provides sentencing/Dispositional framework for balancing the juvenile offender’s treatment needs with community safety. Implemented statewide in 1998, the Dispositional Guidelines considers the seriousness of an adjudicated charge and the individual offender’s characteristics and needs in arriving at a presumptive level of security. The presumptiveness is adjusted according to applicable aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching a final disposition. This program has improved predictability of needed resources and has enhanced public trust and confidence in the community.

Interagency Support

Essential: Three Branches of Government, Public Defender, Prosecutor, Defense Counsel, Judicial Branch, Youth/Probation, Child Advocates, and State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice Issues.

Training

Outside professionals.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program that utilizes professionals in the field as a collaborative effort in helping to reduce juvenile delinquency.

Costs

Variable. No specific funding. Resources would, if needed, come out of the general court budget.

Contact Information

Michael W. Arrington

Family Court of the State of Delaware

704 King Street

First Federal Plaza

2^nd Floor

Wilmington, DE 18801

Phone Number: 302/577-2964

Goal

To interrupt the developing pattern of criminal behavior in juveniles by promoting self-esteem, motivation for self-improvement, and forming a healthy attitude toward authority.

Program Description

Implemented November 1992, Teen Court is a program run by teens for teens. Teen offenders, between the ages of 10 and 17, who have committed a misdemeanor crime, have their cases heard by a jury of their peers. The teens perform the roles of prosecuting and defense attorneys, bailiff, clerk, and jury. A local volunteer attorney presides as Judge and is the only adult directly involved in the court proceedings.

Cases heard in Teen Court are crimes such as shoplifting, possession of alcohol, criminal mischief and many other misdemeanor offenses. Sources of referral are law enforcement, Department of Juvenile Justice and the State Attorney's Office. The teen offender comes before Teen Court having acknowledged guilt. The offender and their parent/guardian meet with the Teen Court Coordinator for a pretrial interview to go over the rules and guidelines of the program. Once the teen has been accepted into the program, a Waiver of Speedy Trial is signed.

In the Court session, after the teen clerk calls the case the Judge explains the offense committed. The teen defense and prosecution attorneys then present the case to the teen jury through the testimony of the offender, the incident report and a pretrial information sheet compiled by the Coordinator. After carefully listening to the facts, the teen jury deliberates the case and decides a constructive sentence for the offender.

The offender and their parent/guardian then meet with the Coordinator to sign a contract to complete the sentence they have received from the teen jury. Once the offender completes their sentence, a successful completion report is sent to the State Attorney's Office, Department of Juvenile Justice, and the referring agency. If the offender does not complete their sentence or rejects the teen jury sentence, then their case is returned to the appropriate referral source for prosecution.

*Note: This program is in coordination with the Florida Association of Teen Courts, Inc. The organization is responsible for coordinating and fostering the development of this program.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges, Law Enforcement, Police Chief/Sheriff, Prosecutor, Public Defender/Bar Association, and Clerk of the Courts.

Training

In-house and self-training programs developed by the court.

Reason for Selection

Recipient of an award, Favorable media coverage, positive community feedback, featured on "Nick News" a program for the Nickelodeon network, and received seven national publications.

Cost

Variable. The Jurisdiction may apply for grant funding through the Department of Juvenile Justice. In addition, the State of Florida passed legislation whereby Teen Courts can collect a $3.00 assessment on all traffic and civil fines to be applied to the Court’s program.

Court Contact Information

Nancy A. Kaplan

Teen Court Coordinator

20 N. Main Street

Room 241

Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone Number: 352/754-4201

Florida Association Contact Information

Debbie Dye

Florida Association for Teen Courts

PO Box 48927

Sarasota, FL 34230

Phone Number: 941/951-4278

Web-Site Address: WWW. FLTEENCOURT.ORG

Goal

To provide alternative dispute resolution services to the community and to enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

Implemented in 1993, this program offers the use of mediation services as a commonsense method for resolving conflict with the guidance and support of a neutral third party, people are able to create their own solutions and cooperatively resolve their conflict. Types of conflicts which are addressed include: parent and child, friends, neighbors, student and teacher, landlord and tenant, co-workers, employer and employee, consumer and merchant, organizations, and roommates. Common issues mediated consist of: complaints about pets, harassment, property disputes, vandalism, complaints about noise, cross-cultural conflicts, breach of contract, and auto repair. The Neighborhood Justice Center is supported by a grant awarded to the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida, and by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, City Council/County Commission, Judges, Law Enforcement, Mayor, Police Chief, and Community Groups.

Desirable: Administrative Office of the Courts, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Prosecutor, Public Defender/Bar Association, School Officials, and Court Staff.

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource materials.

Certification

County Court Mediator by the Florida Supreme Court.

Reason for Selection

Recipient of an award, favorable media coverage, positive community feedback, and considered as a "Model" by the Florida Supreme Court.

Cost

Implementing the program(Local/Federal/State):$100,000.00

Maintaining the program (Local/Federal): $250,000.00

Contact Information

Tom Long, Court Administrator

Second Judicial Circuit of Florida

Room 342

Leon County Court House

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Phone Number: 850/488-1357

Goal

To educate the public about the court system and to enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

Implemented in October 1998, "Inside the Courts" is a pro bono education program sponsored by judges and staff of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. The Judges of the Ninth Judicial Circuit offers the public the opportunity to attend a presentation of Inside the Courts. Inside the Courts offers an up-close examination of the workings of the judicial branch of government. Participants will gain a greater understanding of the court system and the importance of the judicial process. Inside the Courts is one of the Court’s efforts to increase public access to the courts and provide the public with an opportunity to meet the Judges of the Ninth Circuit while focusing on the organization and structure of the court system, the judicial process, and other topics of interest. Participants who complete this four-part program will receive certificates recognizing that achievement. Judges participate in each session and are available for a question and answer segment. The local county cable company tapes the session for future broadcast.

*Note: A noteworthy and well documented Court-Community Relations Program. Audio-visual materials are available through the court.
 
 

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, and Judges.

Desirable: Administrative Office of the Courts.

Training

In-house training program and self-training program through the use of provided resource information/training manuals.

Certification

The court generated certification for court personnel who participated in three (3) of the four (4) sessions.

Reason for Selection

Favorable media coverage, positive community feedback and a high level of enrollment.

Cost

Negligible.

Contact Information

Matt Benefiel

Court Administrator

Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida

425 N Orange Ave

Orlando, FL 32801

Phone Number: 407/836-2051

Web-Site: www.ninja9.net

Goal

To educate the public about the court system and to enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

Implemented in December 1998, the Video for Court System Overview and Juror Service includes local court judicial officials addressing local/community topics of concern. The video is then broadcasted over a local government channel.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, City Council/County Commission, and Judges.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

None reported.

Contact Information

William H. Johnsa

Trial Court Administrator

Northeastern Judicial District

PO Box 1435

Gainesville, GA 30503

Phone Number: 770/531-6795
 
 

Court Improvement Process Initiative

Goal

To increase efficiency in the court system.

Program Description

Hawaii’s Chief Justice and Administrative Director of the Courts initiated a plan to systematically and thoroughly evaluate and review the Judiciary’s structure, procedures, and scope of functions. The process was intended to produce a "plan for the future" to increase efficiency, reduce duplication, produce cost savings, and generate revenue.

The improvement process included: a visit to each jurisdiction by the Chief Justice and Administrative Director of the Courts to inform employees about efforts and answer questions, distribution of surveys to all judiciary employees and court users for more feedback, appointment of a review committee to work with the consultants to develop recommendations for improving the Judiciary, and final distribution of the proposed recommendations to all Judiciary Employees to receive final feedback. From the information gathered, a package of recommendations and a proposed implementation plan will be delivered to the Chief Justice this year.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts.

Desirable: Court Administrator, Court Staff, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Defense Counsel, Judges, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, Prosecutor, and Public Defender.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy initiative to improve the court process for all of its citizens.

Cost

None reported.

 Jury Innovations for the 21^st Century

Goal

To enhance the jury system in Hawaii’s Courts.

Program Description

Hawaii’s Chief Justice convened the Hawaii Committee for Jury Innovations for the 21^st century to study alternatives for enhancing the functioning of the Jury System in Hawaii’s Courts. The Committee was authorized to implement a 15-month pilot project whereby six judges were permitted to modify certain jury trial procedures. Among the modifications tested were: allowing jurors in civil and criminal cases to ask questions of parties and witnesses, pre-instructing jurors on relevant points of law, allowing jurors to discuss the evidence in civil trials before the end of the presentation of evidence, and allowing jurors to take notes during the trial. The committee also received community input on the subject through three public meetings, written comments, a live call-in program on community-access television, and surveys of judges, attorneys, and jurors who participated in the pilot project. The Committee submitted its recommendations to the Chief Justice in January 1999.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, Defense Counsel, Judges, Prosecutor, and Public Defender.

Desirable: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

A positive initiative aimed towards improving jury trial procedures.

Cost

None reported.

 Lunch "n" Learn the Law

Goal

To provide information services to the community.

Program Description

Sponsored by the Hawaii State Judiciary, Lunch "n" Learn the Law is a series of free information seminars about specific areas of the law and the courts. Volunteer presenters include judges, attorneys, and other experts. The one-hour "bring your own" lunch sessions are conducted once a month, from January to November, in the Hawaii’s

Supreme Court Courtroom. The topics include: When and How to Use a Lawyer and How to Find One, How to Obtain a Protective Order, Rights of People Over 50, An Overview of the Courts, Alternatives to Court, Marriage and Other Relationships, and Wills and Estate Planning.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts

Desirable: Court Administrator, Court Staff, Judges, and Public Defender.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

Implementing the Program (State): $275.00 per year.

Maintaining the Program (State): $275.00 per year.

Contact Information

Marsha Kitagawa

Hawaii State Judiciary

417 South King Street

Room 206-C

Honolulu, Hawaii 98613

Phone Number: 808/539-4910
 
 

Goal

To provide educational programs for juveniles and parents in an effort to help reduce juvenile delinquency.

Program Description

Implemented in 1998, Parent Project is a program to help parents of at-risk young people. The program is a series of ten to sixteen classes (minimum of 24 hours). Parents can refer or are required to attend by their child’s diversion/probation officer or the courts. The class is interactive (lecture/video/workbook/role play/discussion) and designed to teach effective skills to the parent whose child is participating in any self-destructive behavior. Examples of topics that are addressed include:

• The most effective way to motivate children.
• How to diffuse arguments.
• Steps in addressing problematic behavior.
• Managing conflicts in the home.
• Building self-esteem.
• Effective communication skills.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges.

Desirable: School Officials.

Training

In-house training program.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

The cost to the family is $35.00, which includes a parent’s manual.

Contact Information

Karen Carlson

Court and Clinical Services for Juvenile Offenders

7^th Judicial District

605 N. Capital Ave

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

Phone Number: 208/528-5600 ext. 3200
 
 

Goal

To provide a safe and nurturing environment for children.

Program Description

Implemented in November 1995, the K.C. Children’s Room is a service that is offered free of charge to parents/guardians that are burdened with legal problems. The parents/guardians can concentrate on their court business and know that their children are safe and happy in the Children’s Room. This past year there were 8,032 children who enjoyed the children’s room while their parent/guardian took care of court business.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, City Council, Judges, Police Chief, and Chief Judge.

Desirable: Court Staff, Defense Counsel, Law Enforcement, Prosecutor, Public Defender/Bar Association, and School Officials.

Training

In-house training, self-training, and periodic training by a professor of education at the local university. In addition, there have been a number of outstanding volunteers, many from the League of Women Voters, who donate their services.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost Per Year

Implementing the program (local/donations*): $150,000.00

Maintaining the program (local/donations): $75,000.00

Note: The Children’s Room is staffed by using funds from the Cook County Circuit Court. In addition, the room was built with funds provided by the Cook County Board.

Contact Information

Judge Robert Anderson

18^th Judicial Circuit Courthouse Room 3003

Wheaten, IL 60187

Phone Number: 708/210-4170
 
 

Goal

To reduce family violence in the community.

Program Description

Implemented in May 1998, the Family Violence Coordinating Council utilizes a wide spectrum of professionals that have come together to share ideas and work toward educating the public on the destructiveness of family violence. The court is also developing programs and strategies to deal with the offender and those they hurt.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Judges, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, Prosecutor, Public Defender/Bar Association, School Officials, Doctors, Clergy, and Counselors.

Desirable: Court Staff, Defense Counsel, and Mayor.

Training

State AOC training program and training from experts in the field covering related topics.

Reason for Selection

Positive Community Feedback.

Cost

Implementing the program (State): $19,500.00

Maintaining the program (State): Variable.

Contact Information

Gary W. Dodge

Seventh Judicial District

200 South Ninth Street

Room 522

Springfield, IL 62701

Phone Number: 217/753-6360

Goal

To assure victims equal access and equal assistance.

Program Description

Prevail, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit organization serving the needs of crime victims and their families in Hamilton County and surrounding areas through support and awareness. The role of Prevail is to advocate for the victim and try to relieve the suffering and fear that individuals are faced with after they have been through the trauma of victimization.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Defense Counsel, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, and Prosecutor.

Training

In-house and self-training through the use of provided resource information/training manuals.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

Implementing the program (State and Local): $36,000.00

Maintaining the program (State and Local) $145,000.00

Contact Information

Polly Pearce

Court Fellow

Hamilton County Court

One Hamilton County Square #313

Noblesville, IN 46060

Phone Number: 317/776-8589
 
 

Goal

To introduce audiences to the courts and legal system through a familiar medium of childhood classics.

Program Description

The Fairy Trial Project has been a joint effort of the Circuit Court and Northwestern University since 1995. The enduring success of the Fairy Trials Project, which enjoys tremendous popularity with audiences throughout Cook County, has been enhanced by the Circuit Court’s partnership with the university. In each of the five Fairy Trials productions, the well-known outline of the story is followed with a surprise twist, when the moral dilemma of each tale is cast in modern terms and set within legal context. In Rumpelstiltskin, Rumpelstiltskin sues the Queen for breach of contract; in Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack is charged with murder, kidnapping and theft; in Little Red Riding Hood, the title character faces a series of traffic violations; in Hansel and Gretel, the father is charged with abuse and neglect of the children: and the Prince in Sleeping Beauty petitions the kingdom for withdrawal of Sleeping Beauty’s life-support. After the conflict has been established, the setting of the plays changes to the courtroom. The familiar characters seek justice as a judge presides, witnesses are called, arguments are presented, and instructions given. With the audience serving as the jurors, a spirited debate is assured as they attempt to settle the moral and legal issues of the Fairy Trials.

Reason for Selection

An innovative approach for improving court community relations within a jurisdiction.

Cost

The project partners absorb the cost of hiring drama students enrolled in a work-study program to perform in the Fairy Trials productions. It should be noted that by utilizing drama students for professional actors, the Circuit Court has been able to reduce the annual operating cost of the project from approximately $500,000.00 to only $100,00.00, realizing a substantial savings for Cook County taxpayers.

Contact Information

Chief Judge Donald P. O’Connell

Circuit Court of Cook County

2600 Richard J. Daley Center

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Phone Number: 312/603-6000
 
 

Goal

To provide a more orderly school day for students and staff and to provide educational programs for juveniles in an effort to reduce juvenile delinquency.

Program Description

Implemented in April 1995, the DART program is conducted at the Taft Middle School. It was designed to help students in the Taft Alternative Middle School to control their behavior in school, to combat truancy, and improve grades. The children go to the DART program after school until they have achieved five successful days at school and at DART. The teacher decides each day whether the child will go to DART for homework and consequences, or go home. The decision is based on the child’s daily performance. If all the participants in the program have a good day, they have the option of doing a fun activity with the tracker.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, Judges, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, Prosecutor, School Officials and Human Services Agencies.

Desirable: City Council/County Commission, Defense Counsel, Mayor, and Public Defender/Bar Association.

Training

The program is ran by professionals in the field who posses a Bachelor’s Degree and who have related work experience.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program aimed towards helping students.

Costs

Variable.

Contact Information

Cindy Shireman

DART PO Box 1100

Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Phone Number: 319/398-3920

Goal

To educate the public about the court system and enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

Jurors are summonsed for one trial only. When the trial is over, jurors are dismissed and their names will not be activated on the prospective jury list anywhere from three (3) to five (5) years after service. All jurors receive orientation via video.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator and Judges.

Desirable: Administrative Office of the Courts and Court Staff.

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource information/training manuals.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback and favorable media coverage.

Cost

Costs are variable and are associated to the making of the video.

Contact Person

Tom Betts

7^th Judicial District Court

416 West 4^th Street

Davenport, IA 52801

Phone Number: 319/326-8783
 
 

 Courts Web-Site

Goal

To provide information to the public about the court system.

Program Description

Located at WWW.AOC.STATE.KY.US this web page is designed to answer some of the public’s questions about the Fayette Circuit Court. The web page is designed to give the public a better understanding of the state court system and will help unravel some of its mystery. This service is provided by the Court System with the support of the Fayette County Kentucky Bar Association.

Topics that may be accessed from this site consist of: information about the Circuit Court and District Court, Related Services, Court Notices, Email Links, Forms, Master Commissioner Sales, Quick Links, Addresses & Phone Numbers, and a letter from Chief Circuit Judge Mary C. Noble.

 Parents Education Clinic

Goal

To educate parents about the emotional disruptions that are associated to divorce.

Program Description

The parents education clinics, are designed to educate divorcing parents about the emotional disruptions associated to divorce. The program is offered on a weekly/county basis. Topics addressed during the sessions include: identifying potential pitfalls, conflict resolution, stress management, and guidance/support tips. Attendees have the opportunity to share experiences, ideas and goals through a small group discussion. The program is directed by trained professionals and the clinics last approximately two hours. The clinics are open to individuals who have filed for divorce, as well as to individuals, who have not yet filed.

Kids’ Time

Goal

To assist children whose parents are going through the divorce process.

Program Description

Kids’ Time is a mandatory workshop for children in the first through fifth grades. It seeks to minimize the negative impacts associated to divorce. The session is designed to help children begin to understand their own feelings and to seek out people who can help them cope during this stressful time. In addition, the workshop provides children with the understanding of the emotional consequences associated to separation and divorce.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Judge, Bar Association, and Data Processing (specifically for the court’s web-site).

Training

Parents Education Clinic and Kids’ Time are directed by trained professionals.

Costs

Variable.

Reason for Selection

Positive Community Feedback.

Contact Information

Donald Taylor

Court Administrator

Fayette Circuit Court

215 West Main Street

Lexington, KY

Phone Number: 606/246-2133
 
 

Campaign for the Children

Goal

To involve and educate the general public about the seriousness of foster care drift.

Program Description

Campaign for the Children is a public awareness program sponsored by the Louisiana Supreme Court as part of the Louisiana Court Improvement Program, a federally funded initiative to improve the adjudication of child abuse and neglect cases in Louisiana. Recognizing that systemic reform requires total community involvement, the Campaign for the Children serves as a call to action (1) to increase public understanding and support for the needs of children and families in the foster care system (2) to make legislators, community leaders and the general public more aware of the problem of "foster care drift" and its serious consequences; and (3) to encourage lawyers and judges to become primary gatekeepers of the foster care system as a means of ensuring the expeditious processing of child neglect and abuse while, at the same time, maintaining due process and respecting the rights of the parents. The Campaign for the Children was kicked off in February 1998 with eleven-area tours of the state during which the Supreme Court Justices and staff spoke to 250 leaders around the state about the problems in the foster care system in Louisiana.

Interagency Support

Essential: Core Judicial Staff, Volunteer Child Attorney, and Videotape Conference Committee.

Training

In house training if needed.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program aimed towards improving the foster care system statewide.

Cost

Variable. The Dave Thomas Foundation provides support towards the program. Other costs are associated to mailings.

 Judge Advocate Network

Goal

To focus on juvenile justice issues such as child abuse and neglect and develop strategies for improvement.

Program Description

The Louisiana Supreme Court has recently established the Judge Advocate Network as a regional approach to providing equal justice and resources to Louisiana’s rural an urban areas. Under this program, the state has been divided into seven juvenile justice regions, each having a volunteer judge whose role is to gather information on regional issues and problems. The judges advocated, together with representatives of the executive and legislative branches, will meet quarterly to address regional needs and to develop both short-term and long-term strategies for improvement. The primary focus of the Judge Advocate Network is on juvenile justice issues—child abuse and neglect, delinquency, and status offenders. However, domestic court issues, such as child support and domestic abuse, will also be considered.

Interagency Support

Essential: Core judicial staff, Supreme Court, FINS (Families in need of services), and Deputy Judicial Administrator.

Training

Participants of the program are volunteer judges from seven regions within Louisiana.

Reason for Selection

An exceptional program that focuses on addressing the issues of child abuse, neglect, and delinquency and providing strategies to meet the needs of the child.

Cost

Small budget of approximately $7,000.00 to cover travel and expenses.

Contact Information

Judges Advocate Network

Karen Hallstrom

Juvenile Justice Program Director

1555 Poydras St. Suite 1540

New Orleans, LA

Phone Number: 504/568-5747
 
 

Goal

To educate the public about the court system, enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process, and provide educational programs for juveniles in an effort to help reduce juvenile delinquency.

Program Description (for future implementation)

Victims are given the most consideration in all cases. They are given brochures on the court process and are offered the opportunity to receive restitution or victim—offender mediation. In this respect, the victim is handled with the most care. In addition, the public awareness program educates the public about the court process and lets offenders know what could be expected of them when a crime is committed.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, City Council/County Commission, Defense Counsel, Judges, Law Enforcement, Mayor, Police Chief, Prosecutor, and Public Defender/Bar Association.

Desirable: Court Staff and School Officials.

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource information/training manuals.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

Implementing the program: Approximately $12,000.00 per year.

Maintaining the program: Unknown at this time.

Contact Information

Mia M. Lamotte

EBRP Juvenile Court

8333 Veterans Memorial Blvd.

Baton Rouge, LA 70807

Phone Number: 225/354-1250
 
 

Office of Mediation Services Alternative Dispute Resolution Referrals

Goal

To provide mediation services of custody/visitation disputes as well as the mediation or arbitration of marital property issues.

Program Description

An orientation to mediation and parenting seminar is required for all parties before beginning custody mediation. This seminar was designed to assist parents to use mediation as effectively as possible. In 1996, the seminar was expanded to include a two hour segment on Communication Skills for Separated Parents. In 1997, a new ADR program was initiated. The ADR processes used are: mediation, arbitration, or med/arb. Disputed marital property cases are referred to ADR. The referral takes place at the pretrial conference.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges, Court Administration, Courthouse Staff, and Masters.

Training

Mediators of program: Twenty-four mediators serve the court by doing custody/visitation mediation. Fifty-eight ADR professionals are on the approved list for the marital property disputes.

Reason for Selection

The program has served as a model for other Circuit Courts in the State of Maryland. Evaluations from participants have been very positive.

Cost

Costs are variable and there are administrative costs for a staff person to oversee the program.

Contact Information

Ramona Buck, Director

4735 Main Street

Room 267M

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Phone Number: 301/952-4533
 
 

The Prince George’s Pro Se Project

Goal

To provide public access to legal information and assistance for pro se and pro bono litigants before the courts of Prince George’s County and to enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

Implemented in 1997, a cooperative effort between the court, the Law Foundation for Prince George’s County, and members of the Prince George’s County Bar Association to create free access to legal advice and information for the citizens of Prince George’s County. Members of the general public now have access to attorneys and legal information and advice four mornings a week. Pro Se Litigants come to the courthouse and are screened by a representative of the Law Foundation of Prince George’s County. This representative interviews the client, and usually issues brief advice as to how to file a motion or fill out a form, or lay-out the groundwork for how the litigant should proceed with their matter before the court.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, and Court Staff.

Desirable: City Council/County Commission, Defense Counsel, and Judges.

Training

In-house training program.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback.

Cost

Implementing the program (local): $20,000.00

Maintaining the program (local): $20,000.00

Contact Information

Pamela J. Gregory

Prince George’s County Law Library

14735 Main Street

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Phone Number: 301/952-3438
 
 

Goal

To address the issues of domestic violence and coordinate a response to the problem.

Program Description

In Oakland County for the past several years, an alliance of governmental and private groups have worked together to address the issue of domestic assault. The 52-1 District Court, HAVEN (a domestic violence prevention organization), Catholic Social Services men’s program, police, prosecutors, and the Oakland County Pretrial Services worked together to develop a coordinated response to the problem of domestic violence. From the inception, the members of the alliance agreed that domestic assault is a crime, not a private family matter. This decision is the foundation of the program. By treating domestic assault as a crime, the defendant’s opportunity to obstruct justice is sharply reduced. The victim is simply a witness and can no longer be pressured or enticed into requesting that the case be dismissed.

As part of the new approach, HAVEN agreed to train local police officers about the dynamics of domestic violence. The police agreed to: arrest individuals when there is probable cause to believe an assault has occurred; to hold the defendant for up to twenty hours; to give the victim information about HAVEN; and to fax the police report to HAVEN and the court. A representative from HAVEN then contacts the victim and may appear with them in court. Oakland Pretrial Services agreed to prepare a pre-bond report prior to the arraignment. The court agreed to conduct the arraignment within the twenty–hour period and to schedule the case on a special fast-track docket. The court and prosecutors agreed not to dismiss any cases even if requested to do so by the victim, but to resolve these matters either through a plea or trial. HAVEN and Catholic Social Services agreed to provide long term domestic violence treatment for convicted defendants. Regular reports of the Alliance project are issued to the media and presented to community groups to raise awareness of goals and progress.

Interagency Support

Essential: Law Enforcement, Core Judicial Staff, Prosecutor, Pretrial Services, and Local Domestic Violence Shelter.

Desirable: Alcohol and Treatment Providers, Domestic Violence Counseling Services, County Prosecutor, and Public Defender/Bar Association.

Training

Training is provided for court staff and law enforcement officers through HAVEN.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program aimed towards raising domestic violence awareness, providing long term treatment for convicted defendants, and supporting the victim through this difficult time.

Cost

Costs are absorbed into the court’s budget.

Contact Information:

Judge Brian MacKenzie

52-1 District Court

48150 Grand River Avenue

Novi, MI 48372

Phone Number: 248/305-6066
 
 

 Goal

To enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process and to train court staff on the types of information they can provide to the public without giving legal advice.

Program Description

The Michigan Judicial Institute (MJI) developed an interactive training program to help court staff determine what information they can provide to the public. This training helps resolve the conflicting goals of making the courts more accessible to the public without violating due process or the prohibition against legal advice.

This program addresses the roles and responsibilities of court support staff, explains the reasons why legal advice cannot be given by court employees, suggests practical guidelines on how to provide information and access without giving legal advice, and provides examples of questions and problems that face court support staff on a daily basis.

The program is self-paced and allows the learners to respond to specific situations and apply what they have learned.

Note: This program was identified for our report by the 46^th District Court, MI

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, and Judges.

Training

In-house training program and compact disk (interactive) training.

Reason for Selection

A noteworthy program that received the 1998 Justice Achievement Award presented by the National Association for Court Management.

Cost:

Initial costs for implementing the program is $50,000.00.

Contact Information

Susan Whittington

Michigan Judicial Institute

PO Box 30205

222 North Washington Square, 2^nd Floor

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone Number: 517/334-8985
 
 

Goal

To enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process, provide adult offenders with job skills and employment opportunities, improve public safety, and to utilize the program as a communication vehicle with the community.

Program Description

Implemented in January 1999, the Community Crimes Impact Calendar is a special calendar that will address livability crimes within the city of St. Paul. The Calendar will incorporate community work service and restitution with chemical dependency treatment and social service resources for the defendant.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, Defense Counsel, Judges, Law Enforcement, Police Chief, Prosecutor, and Public Defender/Bar Association.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback and recidivism of the offender.

Cost

Implementing the program (state): $200,000.00

Maintaining the program: Unknown at this time.

Contact Information

Sue Alliegro

District Court Administrator

2^nd Judicial District

St. Paul, MN 53702

Phone Number: 651/266-8276
 
 

Goal

To provide educational programs for juveniles in an effort to help reduce juvenile delinquency.

Program Description

GRADE COURT is designed for at-risk juveniles who have admitted delinquent acts. It is a "treatment court" which seeks to mandate the success of the juvenile in school. The program seeks to ensure positive educational results by requiring that children stay in school, complete their homework, focus on academics, and move toward graduation. In order to do so the program imposes immediate negative sanctions for those students who do not complete assignments and positive reinforcement for those students who show improvement. The target group consists of medium to high-risk youths ages 10-18 who have been disenrolled or earned less than a "C" in any class. They are children you have admitted to a delinquent act in the District Court.

Note: Program also identified as being both noteworthy and innovative by the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges, Mayor, School Officials, and Juvenile Probation Officer.

Desirable: Court Administrator, Court Staff, and City Council/County Commission.

Training

In-house training program.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback, favorable media coverage, recipient of an award, and juveniles who participated in GRADE COURT are now in scholarship programs at local universities.

Cost

Implementing the program (state and local): $110,000.00

Maintaining the program (state and local): $110,000.00

Contact Information

Gregg Ireland

Court Administrator

11^th District Court

103 South Oliver Dr.

Aztec, NM 87401

Phone Number: 505/334-6151

Center for Court Innovation

Program Description

The Center for Court Innovation is a unique public-private partnership created by the Unified Court System to foster innovation within its ranks. The Center is the only one of its kind in the country; an independent unit, broken out from the day-to-day court administration, that works to find new ways to improve how courts do business. In effect, the Center functions like the research and development arm of a corporation, investigating chronic (and emerging) problems and incubating new court prototypes in response. Often, this means conceiving and building a model court from scratch, including architectural design, technology development and staffing. On other occasions, the Center’s role is to recognize and nurture the good ideas of others, facilitating the planning efforts of judges, attorneys and court administrators across the state.

Contact Information

John Feinblatt

Center for Court Innovation

351 West 54^th Street

New York, NY 10019

Phone Number: 212/373-8080

Midtown Community Court

Program Description

The Manhattan’s Midtown Community Court—the nation’s first community court—brings persons charged with low-level crimes to justice in the neighborhood in which the incidents occur, producing greater efficiency, visibility and accountability. Building on the example of community policing, the court mobilizes local residents, business and social service providers to collaborate with the criminal justice system by developing and supervising community service projects and by providing drug treatment, health care, education and other services for defendants. Supported by 32 corporations and foundations, along with public funds, the Midtown Community Court began operation in October 1993. Development is currently underway for New York’s second community-based court to be located in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn. The Red Hook Justice Center will handle criminal, family and housing court matters and is scheduled to open in the fall of 1999.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Defense Counsel, Judges, Mayor, Police Chief/Sheriff, Public Defender, and Community Leaders.

Desirable: Law Enforcement and Prosecutor.

Training

In-house training program.

Reason for Selection

A model program which has been recognized nationally.

Cost

The cost is 1.2 million annually.

Contact Information

Julias Lang

Midtown Community Court

314 West 54^th Street

New York, NY 10019

Phone Number: 212/484-2700

Web-Site Address: www.communitycourts.org
 
 

Goal

To promote timely dispositions, establish logical procedures for case processing, ensure reliable pleas, produce realistic and reliable trial calendars, and minimize in-court wait time for victims, law enforcement officers, and defense attorneys.

Program Description

This superior court criminal case management program features an early and automatic provision of discovery, extension of written plea offers early in cases, active pre-trial negotiation sessions conducted by CDM judges, arrangement of CDM calendars in order by defense attorney, and scheduling of trial dates by CDM judges (in consultation with the district attorney and with defense attorney involvement). The CDM program results include timely dispositions, logical procedures, reliable pleas, more realistic calendars, and less in-court wait time.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges, Prosecutors, Court Staff, Law Enforcement, and Defense Attorneys.

Training

In-house training or visiting jurisdictions which have the program already in place.
 

Reason for Selection

The program has resulted in positive impacts from CDM, including a decrease in the average number of calendar settings per defendant, accompanied by an increased disposition rate within a limited follow-up period.

Costs

Under Chapter 507, Section 21.10, North Carolina Session Laws, 1995:

"Of the funds appropriated to the Judicial Department for the 1995-97 biennium, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall use the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for the 1995-96 fiscal year and the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for the 1996-97 fiscal year to establish a criminal case management pilot program in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to help reduce the backlog of court cases and resolve new court cases quicker."

Contact Information

Dr. Laura Donelly

Administrative Office of the Courts

Division of Legal Services

PO Box 2448

Raleigh, NC 27602

Phone Number:919/715-5696
 
 

Goal

To enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process, to improve public safety, and to deter potential juvenile offenders.

Program Description

Implemented in April 1995, the juvenile justice program assumes jurisdiction of cases involving youthful offenders under 18 years of age who have violated City ordinances. This unique program was designed to require youthful offenders to be held accountable for their actions which impact the quality of life of the community. The program informs the community of the existence of juvenile crime and the impact on the citizens, demonstrates to the community that the problems of juvenile crime are being addressed by invoking accountability-based sanctions, and pledges to the community that the juvenile justice program of Edmond can make a difference in the protection of the public and the rehabilitation of youthful offenders. The program also includes, counseling, community service, restrictive curfew, JADE alcohol and drug education, substance abuse: detection, random testing, and diversion, weekly tracking, and much more.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, City Council/County Commission, Judges, Mayor, Police Chief, and Prosecutor.

Training

In-house training and self-training through the use of provided resource information/training manuals.

Reason for selection

Positive community feedback with favorable media coverage.

Cost

Implementing the program(local): $40,000.00

Maintaining the program(local):$200,000.00

Contact Information

Joyce Dedek

Court Administrator

PO Box 2970

Edmond, OK 73083

Phone Number: 405/359-4360
 
 

Goal

To keep the family together (although divorce is for the betterment of the child).

Program Description

Implemented in July 1997, Parenting Time Alternative Dispute Resolution assists parents working with an assigned mediator, to come up with a "parenting plan" that involves all the children and both parents as well as the extended family.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Court Staff, Defense Counsel, and Judges.

Desirable: Administrative Office of the Courts and City Council/County Commission.

Training

State AOC training program and self-training.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback from parent surveys at the end of the process and favorable medial coverage.

Cost

Filing fees are used for implementing and maintaining the program.

Contact Information

Charles Wall

Court Administrator

7^th Judicial District

309 State Street

Hood River, OR 97031

Phone Number: 541/386-3535
 
 

Goal

To promote interest in the criminal justice system along with a discussion about the interaction between teenagers and the juvenile justice system.

Program Description

In 1995, the court administrator’s office organized a speaker’s team comprised of criminal justice professionals to speak with middle and high school students about the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. The program has reached many different schools with students ranging in age from 7–12. During the presentations, major issues affecting teenagers in today’s society are addressed.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Administrator, Judges, Prosecutor, Public Defender/Bar Association, Probation, and Drug Alcohol/Safe Driving Program Director.

Training

Presentations/speakers team is made up of the Court Administrator, District Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, Director of Adult Probation, Caseworker Supervisor of Juvenile Probation, and the Director of Chester County Council on Addictive Diseases.

Reason for Selection

Positive feedback from the schools involved.

Cost

None reported.

Contact Information

Margaret M. Yokemmick

Court Administrator

Chester County Court

2 North High Street

Suite 320

PO Box 2748

West Chester, PA 19380

Phone Number: 610/344-6170
 
 

Goal

Restoration to the victim and the community as the core elements of justice.

Program Description

Restorative Justice emphasizes the ways in which crime harms relationships in the context of community. Crime is viewed as a violation of the victim and the community, not a violation of the state. As a result, the offender becomes accountable to the victim and the community.

Restorative Justice defines accountability for offenders in terms of taking responsibility for actions, and taking action to repair the harm caused to the victim and the community. It provides for active participation by the victim, the community, and the offender in the process of repairing the fabric of community peace.

The Court Services’ mission is to serve the citizens of South Dakota by preventing crime and repairing the harm caused by crime through public safety and crime prevention in the community, accountability and opportunity for positive change of the offender, justice for the victim, and respectful treatment for all involved.

For Court Services Restorative Justice is:

• Safety and Crime Prevention in our Community.
• Accountability enforcing Court-ordered sanctions.
• Assisting Offenders to Change.
• Restoring Crime Victims.

• Community Protection.
• Offender Accountability.
• Competency Development.
• Individualization.
• Balance.

 Interagency Support

Variable.

Training

Variable.

Reason for Selection

The Unified Justice System has been invited twice to participate in a national competition to present its program at a national symposium, and to attend restorative justice programs at the National Corrections Academy.

Cost

Variable.

Contact Information

Jay Neuberger

Administrative Office of the Courts

South Dakota Unified Judicial System

500 E Capitol

Piere, SD 57501

Phone Number: 605/773-3474

Goal

To educate the public about the court system, enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial process, improve public safety, and provide adequate housing and a safe—healthy environment for all citizens, and to promote cooperation among citizens and governmental agencies.

Program Description

Implemented in February 1999, the Citizen Review Panel is a panel of ten ordinary citizens who review environmental complaints brought to the court by neighborhood groups. If the complaint meets the necessary requirements then the panel will submit it to the judge. The neighborhood representative will swear to the information contained in the affidavit and a summons will issue from the clerk’s office. The normal course of events is for the complaint to go through a code enforcement agency, be investigated, and then brought to the court. This is very time consuming and almost impossible for inspectors to accomplish as the city of Memphis receives over 100,000 environmental complaints per year. This program encourages citizens to help citizens. Citizens assist governmental agencies, and most importantly, citizens help themselves and address problems in their own communities.

Interagency Support

Essential: City Council, Core Judicial Staff, and Mayor.

Training

In-house training.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback, favorable media coverage, there are now 68 other courts of the kind across the country, and the court is being considered as the "Model" for the program.

Cost

Implementing the program: Minimal start-up costs.

Maintaining the program: None-program utilizes volunteers throughout the community.

Contact Information

Judge Larry E. Potter

General Sessions Criminal Court

201 Poplar Ave

Memphis, TN 38103

Phone Number: 901/545-3456
 
 

Goal

To enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system/process.

Program Description

To examine and address the existence and extent of racial and ethnic bias in the criminal justice system in Utah. It is composed of 30 leaders of the criminal justice system, including judges, law enforcement, prosecution and defense attorneys, corrections officials, and juvenile corrections officers. The task force works with local community groups to hold over 20 public hearings across the state with the goal of listening to the perceptions and experiences of people in Utah regarding racial and ethnic fairness. The task force began its efforts in 1997. The first year was dedicated to an initial look at data, organizing its examination of the criminal justice system, and beginning to plan and hold public hearings. The second year focused on research efforts and beginning to implement some pilot projects and needed changes that have become evident through the initial public hearing process. The task force is funded through public-private partnerships. Initial funding was provided by the State Justice Institute. Matching support and the funding of an intern position are provided by the Utah Judicial Council.

Interagency Support

Essential: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Administrator, Court Staff, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Defense Counsel, Law Enforcement, Public Defender/Bar Association, and Ethnic and Racial Special Interest Groups.

Training

Racial and Ethnic Fairness Task Forces, AOC training, and self-training.

Reason for Selection

Positive community feedback and favorable media coverage.

Cost

Implementing the program (Federal): $75,000.00

Note: The task force is funded through public/private partnerships. Initial funding was provided by the State Justice Institute. Funding was supplemented by local/private foundations and businesses. Matching support and the funding of an intern position are provided by the Utah Judicial Council. Research funding comes from a variety of state/private resources, including foundations, such as the Utah Bar Foundation, Law Firms, the Utah State Bar, and the Utah Governor’s Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.

Contact Information

Mark Jones

Utah State Courts

450 South State

PO Box 140241

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Phone Number: 801/578-3800

Goal

To educate the public about the court system, enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial system process, and provide educational programs for juveniles in an effort to help reduce juvenile delinquency.

Program Description

High School government class students visit the court on Tuesdays and Wednesdays each week accompanied by a local attorney. The class is introduced to the Judge and the Judge addresses the students by giving them a brief overview of the court process. The students are then given the opportunity to ask questions of the Judge. The court provides brochures about the Virginia Courts and General District Courts specifically. The attorneys volunteer to sponsor a day of their time on a rotating basis. There are no costs to the court except in providing the pamphlets and brochures.

Interagency Support

Essential: Judges, Public Defender/Bar Association, and School Officials.

Training

None reported.

Reason for Selection

Public service to the community.

Cost

Minimal/ only for providing the brochures.

Contact Person

Barbara J. Stuedebaker

Clerk of the Court

York County General District Court

PO Box 316

Yorktown, VA 23690

Phone Number: 757/890-3451

Goal

To enhance public understanding of and confidence in the courts.

Justice on Wheels

Offers people in other parts of the state a chance to watch an oral argument of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Since 1993, more than 4,900 people have participated in the program. The proceedings are sometimes aired on cable-access television to make the proceedings available to a larger audience. Local schools join in the event and attorneys travel to schools to talk about the cases and the court.

*Court with Class

Implemented in 1996, Court with Class is a joint undertaking of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the State Bar of Wisconsin. The program brings high school students to the state supreme court to hear oral arguments and meet with a justice over lunch. Court with Class brought 780 students to the Supreme Court during the 1996-1997 term and approximately the same during the 1997-1998 term. Court with Class has been expanded to the Court of Appeals and recently won two national public service awards.

*Note: Court with Class Program identified by jurisdiction as one of their most noteworthy programs and most potentially beneficial for other courts interested in enhancing the image of justice in the court system.

Law Day Kit

The Law Day Kit is a low cost publication that assists the circuit courts in building good relationships with the community. Local judges and court staff use the kit year round to help with speeches, tours, essay contests, media events, publications, plaques and other public outreach activities.

Measuring Customer Satisfaction

In an effort to be more responsive to people using the judicial system, mail, exit and telephone surveys were conducted by randomly selecting individuals who had participated in civil, family, small claims and traffic cases in 10 counties.

Volunteers in the Courts: A Partnership in Justice

Implemented in February of 1996, the Volunteers in the Courts Program is a series of workshops under the direction of Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and then-Chief Justice Roland B. Day to explore citizen volunteers in court-related work and the practical implications of expanding the role of volunteers in the Wisconsin court system.

 Court Information in Cyberspace

Implemented in March 1998, the court's web-site located at www.courts.state.wi.us contains up to the minute opinion releases from both the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Also posted are calendars for both courts hearings, information on a wide variety of court system initiatives and 68 different forms that may be downloaded and completed for filing.

Interagency Support

Essential: Court Staff (Marshal, Clerk and Public Information Officer), Supreme Court Judges and Public/Defender Bar Association.

Desirable: Administrative Office of the Courts and Court Administrator.

Training

Self-training through the use of provided resource information/training manuals (for teachers).

Reason for Selection

Recipient of two awards from a national organization, positive community feedback, and favorable media coverage.

Cost

Cost per year is $700.00 which is utilized for publications and mailings.

Contact information for all of the above programs

Amanda K. Todd

Public Information Officer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

PO Box 1688

Madison, Wisconsin 53701

Phone Number: 608/264-6256