State Justice Institute

Judicial Task Force Releases Final Report on State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness

Funded by State Justice Insititute, the Judicial Task Force releases the final report from the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. Continued collaboration between the courts, government agencies, mental health providers and others is critical to affect the systemic change needed to improve how courts respond to individuals with serious mental illness. That was the message echoed during Tuesday’s release of the final report from the National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness. The virtual event drew about 900 participants, including court officials, behavioral health professionals, and members of the news media.

“We see how the justice system can become a never-ending highway of pain as it maneuvers people on a needless journey, with no off ramp, often to ineffective support and treatment,” said task force member Circuit Judge Nan Waller of Multnomah County, Oregon. “However, having had the privilege to serve on the task force has given me great optimism. The task force operated in a manner consistent with its recommendations, bringing together stakeholders from the behavioral health and justice systems, along with the important voices of those with lived experience, and then providing expert staff to help turn our thoughts and ideas into tools, bench cards, policy briefs, and research.”

Judge Waller joined task force co-chairs Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber of Vermont and New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks to offer insights on ways the task force recommendations can positively impact individuals with severe mental illness during Tuesday’s virtual launch and policy discussion.

Two national mental health experts – Miriam E. Delphin-Rittmon, Ph.D., the U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use and leader of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Dr. Sarah Y. Vinson, Interim Chair of the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Morehouse School of Medicine – elaborated on ways the behavioral health community can partner with the courts to improve outcomes for individuals with serious mental illness.

“We know that our country is facing a mental health crisis,” Dr. Delphin-Rittmon said. “… I am confident that these recommendations and examples of successful programs have the potential to make really meaningful impacts in communities across the country.”

Among the task force recommendations, state courts should:

Convene justice and behavioral health system partners to identify opportunities to collaboratively improve responses to individuals with behavioral health disorders.
Promote processes to identify and divert individuals with behavioral health disorders at every stage of system involvement towards treatment and away from further penetration into the criminal justice system.
Examine current case management and calendaring practices and implement strategies to more quickly and effectively address issues presented in cases involving individuals with behavioral health needs.

Watch the recording of the webinar and download a copy of the final report and recommendations.

New Toolkit Provides Guidance for Adopting Pandemic Era Procedural Improvements

During the pandemic, courts stepped out of their normal routine and comfort zones to find new ways of doing business. These new procedures benefitted both courts and court customers. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC)’s new Pandemic Era Procedural Improvements toolkit outlines tips and examples that your court can adopt to enhance operations in the post-pandemic era.

“The pandemic was a major disruptor. I think about other major disruptors that changed society—cars, TV, mobile phones. We didn’t stop at the Benz Patent Motor Car, black and white television, or car phones,” said Lonni Summers, an NCSC senior court management consultant. “We continued to innovate and evolve to make things better. Courts should do the same with pandemic-era procedural improvements.”

This toolkit contains a high-level summary of procedural improvements that courts implemented between 2020 and 2022 that courts should adopt permanently. Resources include examples, best practice recommendations, and references to publications and materials that provide information, models, and guidance for jurisdictions that want to adopt these improvements.

For more information, please read Pandemic-Improvements-10.31.2022.pdf (ncsc.org)

IAALS Launches New Report and Online Resource Center for Unbundled Legal Services, Offering New Tools that Lead to Access to Justice

IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, released Unbundled Legal Services in the New Normal—a new report highlighting key takeaways from the national 2021 conference—in partnership with The Chicago Bar Foundation, the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, and the Self-Represented Litigation Network. Accompanying the release is the launch of an unbundling resource center on IAALS’ website, which will help various stakeholders like consumers, lawyers, and courts get how-to information on promoting and utilizing unbundled legal services.

Unbundled legal services, or limited-scope representation, is one way that people who are unable to afford a lawyer—and would end up representing themselves in court—can still receive legal assistance in their case. While typically lawyers handle all aspects of a case from beginning to end, a lawyer providing unbundled legal services works on and charges for only certain legal tasks within the broader case, often based on what their clients can afford and need help with most. Unbundled legal services are becoming a more popular and less expensive way to help people get legal assistance, which usually leads to better legal outcomes than forgoing legal assistance altogether.

The three-day event highlighted that while there is increased use of technology and scalable unbundled services in this “new normal”—which makes starting an unbundled practice easier—important startup and ethical considerations remain for practitioners in this space, in addition to needed increased support by courts. The conference created a forum where an array of stakeholders shared their perspectives, gained better insights into collaborative roles, and learned about best practices to advocate for this service delivery model.

To read the full report, visit: IAALS Launches New Report and Online Resource Center for Unbundled Legal Services, Offering New Tools that Lead to Access to Justice | IAALS (du.edu)

Court Manager Magazine: Summer 2022 Edition Now Available

The National Association for Court Management (NACM) Summer 2022 edition of the Court Manager magazine is now available.

This edition features all things Annual Conference – a recap of sessions, social events, awards, CORE® sessions and the CORE® Champion Program, and a testimonial of the conference scholarship benefits. In addition, regular columns on Courtside Conversations, Management Musings, and a Question of Ethics.

Master Jury Lists Report

The master jury list is the first step in the complex process of assembling a pool of prospective jurors. To ensure that the process is efficient and that the resulting jury pool reflects the demographic composition of the community, the master jury list should be broadly inclusive of the adult population, geographically and demographically representative, and contain accurate address records. With funding from SJI, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Center for Jury Studies examined juror source lists and master jury lists in three states. The final report highlights the implications of using poor quality juror source lists and failing to identify duplicate records during process of merging multiple lists, which resulted in substantially over-inclusive source lists and master jury lists in all three states.

The NCSC concluded that over-inclusiveness can be as problematic as under-inclusiveness. The presence of unrecognized duplicate records and stale records undermines the efficiency of the jury system by incurring printing, postage, and staffing costs for duplicative jury summonses or summonses that do not reach the intended recipients. It also distorts demographic representation in different ways. In some states, it may mask underrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups; in others, it may cause concerns about underrepresentation that does not really exist. The NCSC recommended that state courts use only as many juror source lists as necessary to achieve inclusiveness at or near 100 percent. The choice of which source lists to use should be based on assessments of list quality, especially concerning record accuracy, which may differ from state to state. The report includes detailed recommendations for courts to assess the quality of juror source lists in their respective states and maximize the accuracy of their master jury lists.

Court Voices Project: New Report

With support from State Justice Institute, LaGratta Consulting, LLC, in collaboration with Rulo Strategies, LLC and the Center for Behavioral Health and Justice at the Wayne State University School of Social Work is assisting twelve pilot criminal courts by collecting and analyzing court user and court staff feedback to assess the value of COVID-19 pandemic-response practices. Through coordination and lesson-mining of these pilot sites, and the creation of web-based practitioner tools, the project is offering guidance to state courts on how court users and staff have experienced new practices, bringing valuable insights into court leaders’ decision-making process. This new publication documents user feedback in the pilot sites.

New Resource! Engaging Parents and Youth with Lived Experience

The National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW), the Children’s Bureau (CB) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have collaborated to create: Engaging Parents and Youth with Lived Experience: Strengthening Collaborative Policy and Practice Initiatives for Families with Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders. This resource provides key considerations for recruiting and engaging those with lived experience who were involved with child welfare associated with a substance use disorder or other mental health challenge. It also highlights considerations for engaging youth who have spent time in the foster care system.

Parents and youth can offer valuable insight, based on first-hand experience, that helps agencies implement strategies to improve outcomes for those served.

To access this new resource: Final_LiveExperience (hhs.gov)

New IAALS Report: Strides in Legal Innovation, Oregon Greenlights Licensed Paralegal Program

The Oregon Supreme Court approved the Licensed Paralegal (LP) Program, a program that will license individuals who aren’t lawyers to provide limited legal services in family law and landlord/tenant issues, two areas with the greatest unmet need for legal assistance in the state. This makes Oregon the fifth state in the country to enlist a new tier of legal professionals in the effort to provide more access to legal help. The LP program will train paralegals to assist with a variety of legal issues, including divorce and separation, custody and parenting time, child and spousal support, and forced entry and wrongful detainer.

Some of their duties include:

Meeting with potential clients to evaluate and determine needs and goals, as well as provide advice
Filing documents and pleadings with the court
Preparing for, participating in, and representing a party in settlement discussions, including mediation
Attending court appearances and depositions with clients to provide support and assistance in procedural matters

Fortunately, states like Utah, Arizona, and Minnesota have also embraced new tiers of legal professionals. As IAALS Manager Michael Houlberg, “There’s a big push. Since 2020, there have been more than 10 states that have developed proposals.” Building on this momentum, IAALS’ newly launched Allied Legal Professionals project aims to help standardize these legal professional programs nationally, in order to expand the options for accessible and affordable legal help for the public. Programs like Oregon’s are exemplary of what we hope to eventually see spread even further across the country.

To read the full article, please visit: Oregon Joins Growing List of States Empowering Legal Professionals to Help More People | IAALS (du.edu)

Rural Justice Collaborative: New Video Released

In 2021, with support from State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts, in partnership with Rulo Strategies LLC, launched the Rural Justice Collaborative (RJC) to showcase the strengths of rural communities and highlight the cross-sector collaboration that is a hallmark of rural justice systems. These strengths include strong professional networks, deep ties to the communities they serve, resiliency, and ingenuity. The video below highlights the mission of the RJC: https://vimeo.com/735789228

NCSC Publishes Best Practices for Court Building Security 2022 Edition

Now in its fourth edition, Steps to Best Practices for Court Building Security delivers updated guidance on a diverse array of court security topics. Examples include recommendations for implementing remote hearings for in-custody defendants and recommendations for security technology. The new release highlights how courts can integrate technology into building infrastructure—including security control centers, alarms, access control technology, and cameras. The updated guidance also incorporates greater attention to how architectural design can create safe separation and circulation for all court participants. The 2022 update also reinforces fundamental security concepts for courts of all shapes and sizes.

To help courts achieve these fundamental practices, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) evaluates the effectiveness of court building security programs through responses to questions, such as:

Is there a Court Security Committee in place? How does it function?
Who is “in charge” of security in the courthouse? How do you know who’s in charge?
What policies and procedures are in place? How are they developed?
What training and exercise programs are in place? Who participates and how often are they conducted?
Who gets screened for weapons?
Who has access after hours?
What is your role and responsibilities with respect to security?

To learn more about NCSC’s court security services, please visit the Court Security and Emergency Preparedness web page.

Best-Practices-for-Court-Building-Security-NCSC-1 (9 kB)