Category: News And Announcements

Coined by Michigan Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack (MI), the expression “not the disruption we wanted, but the disruption we needed” captures the ongoing impact the pandemic has had on America’s state courts.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators Rapid Response Team (RRT) and the NCSC have worked to identify and develop innovations and new practices in response to the pandemic.  To help spread innovation widely and to continue to learn from sites implementing new practices, the RRT and NCSC are launching the 2021 Implementation Lab.  Applications are welcome from courts that would like to participate. 

The goal of the Implementation Lab is to foster sustainable innovations across a large, diverse group of courts throughout the United States, to continue to learn about the impact of these innovations, and to share lessons learned throughout the process.

Applications are open to join the Lab in one of these areas of innovation:

1. Pre-Trial Practices
2. Remote and Virtual Hearings
3. Remote Workforce
4. Digital Divide
5. Online Dispute Resolution
6. Virtual Jury Selection and Jury Trials
7. Self-Represented Litigants
8. Language Access Technology
9. High-Volume Dockets
10. Eviction Diversion
11. Case Management

For the duration of the project, anticipated to run through 2021, NCSC and the RRT will provide resources and technical assistance to the selected sites as they develop and execute implementation plans, evaluate the impact of their innovations, and work to sustain best practices.  The Implementation Lab is made possible with SJI funding support.  Full details and an application package are available now. Applications are due Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. A first round of selections will be made in early February.

Also, in case you missed it, resources available at www.ncsc.org/pandemic continue to grow:

• With many states extending prohibitions on in-person jury trials, we have updated our map showing statewide jury restrictions (click on the “Statewide Jury Restrictions” tab).
• With large urban centers sometimes enacting tougher restrictions on jury trials, we have added a new tab called “Jury Trial Restrictions By County” that focuses on the nation’s largest urban centers.
• The “Virtual Hearings” tab now includes links to guides to remote hearings that have been published by state courts. Hover over a state, and if a guide is available, a link to that state’s guide will appear.

Finally, be sure to check out the many new resources published on the RRT Pandemic resources web page.

Through a Request for Applications (RFA) process launched in FY 2020, SJI funded multiple projects that will assist state courts in their response to, and recovery from, COVID-19, with a look towards the future of court operations. SJI gave priority consideration for RFA funding to projects that focused on institutionalizing and/or replicating practices that have been implemented during the pandemic.

SJI supported projects that planned a system change approach (as opposed to the replication of narrowly focused programs or projects), and emphasized the use of case triage to match cases and parties to appropriate resources and services both within and outside the courthouse. This also includes the use of technology for innovations such as online dispute resolution (ODR), portal development, virtual hearings, and other efforts to allow court business to be conducted outside of the courthouse. These projects will also take into account access and fairness, and costs/benefits, not only to the courts, but also to court users. 
 
A summary of these projects is available on the SJI website.

The SJI Board of Directors met virtually on December 7, 2020 to make decisions on quarterly grant applications, and approved a total of ten new grants. 

Two Strategic Initiatives Grants were approved in support of SJI’s Pandemic Response and Recovery Request for Applications (RFA); the Texas Office of Court Administration to assess the impact of remote hearings on judicial workload; and, the National Courts and Sciences Institute (NCSI) to provide sustainable case and evidentiary support for state court cases emanating from the pandemic.   Three Project Grants were approved: the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for an appellate e-filing project; the Franklin County, Ohio, Municipal Court for a self-help resource center project; and the National Association for Court Management (NACM) to support educational programming for court managers and judges, including the impact of the pandemic on court operations.  Three Technical Assistance Grants were approved: the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts for a translation implementation project; the 5^th Judicial District of Colorado for a mental health improvement initiative; and the District of Columbia Courts to assess high volume calendars.  Two Curriculum Adaptation and Training Grants were approved: Lubbock County, Texas, for an educational program on mental health for mediators; and, the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) for a National Justice and Fairness Training program. 

The next deadline for grant applications is February 1, 2021 (FY 2021, 2^nd Quarter). 

“A man who became comatose after a fall counted on his daughter, who was assigned to be his guardian, to oversee his finances. However, she withdrew $10,000 from her father’s savings account and made $20,000 in cash advances from another account. When questioned, she said that her father always gave her generous gifts and would wish to continue to do so.” As the population of older Americans grows, so does the risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of the elderly. Courts are charged with protecting the well-being and assets of persons who are placed under a guardianship or conservatorship.  Because many judges only see a few guardianship cases, special resources to help them prevent and address problems are necessary. With support from SJI, NCSC has recently developed several such tools.

To guide judicial considerations when establishing a guardianship, the Pre-appointment Protocol provides examples and directs court staff to the next step at each stage in the process. The Guardianship/Conservatorship Judicial Response Protocol serves as an interactive tool to advise judges on steps to take and options to consider when allegations of wrong-doing have been made.

Courts cannot effectively monitor guardianship and conservatorship cases unless they have good information, yet the ability of state courts to provide basic data on these cases, let alone track those in which allegations of abuse or exploitation arise, is often inadequate. That is where the Guardianship/Conservatorship Monitoring: Recommended Data Elements come into play. They provide guidance on what data courts should collect and how to define it and use it to monitor cases. The need for judicial guardianship protocols, adequate data collection and tracking systems has become a priority for many state court leaders. NCSC’s newest resources contribute to reaching that goal. They can be found, along with other information and training resources, on the website for the Center for Elders and the Courts.

Before the coronavirus pandemic reduced court operations, state courts nationwide resolved 40 criminal felony cases and 100 criminal misdemeanor cases every minute of every day, but most courts failed to meet national time standards because of too many continuances and scheduled hearings.

These findings come from one of the most ambitious undertakings of its kind, the Effective Criminal Case Management project, a five-year examination of 1.2 million felony and misdemeanor cases from 136 courts in 21 states. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a report that details the project’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The researchers who worked on the project say the recommendations provide a roadmap for how courts can operate faster and more efficiently.  They recommend that courts:

• Limit continuances;
• Compile good data that help them figure out why some cases are resolved more quickly than others; and
• Schedule hearings on dates that maximize the likelihood that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be prepared.

Here are some of the project’s major findings:

• The project allowed researchers for the first time to estimate the number of criminal cases resolved each year in the nation’s state courts – more than 18 million, five million felony and 13 million misdemeanor.
• The average time to disposition is 256 days for felony cases and 193 days for misdemeanors, but no court in the study meets the current national time standards. Current time standards say that 98 percent of felony cases should be resolved within 365 days, and 98 percent of misdemeanor cases should be resolved within 180 days. On average, courts in the study resolved 83 percent of felony cases within 365 days and 77 percent of misdemeanors within 180 days.
• The courts that resolve cases faster are led by presiding judges who make it clear that they dislike continuances, which lead to additional hearings and delays.
• Timely courts dismiss fewer cases, and they are faster across all case types and all manners of disposition.
• Differences in court structure play a small but surprising role in overall average timeliness, with single-tiered courts being least timely and two-tiered courts being most timely.

“The report’s most important conclusions revolve around what faster courts do to be fast and what slower courts do that make them slow,” said lead researcher Brian Ostrom. “We know courts are always striving to be more efficient, so our hope is that court leaders read the report and implement its recommendations. What’s at stake is whether every person’s constitutional right to due process is honored in the process of seeking justice in individual cases.”

NCSC consultants Ostrom and Patti Tobias will provide as much as 60 minutes of free advice to courts that want to know how to operate faster and more efficiently, as part of the NCSC’s Dr. Is In program.  Go here to sign up.

For more information about this project, including an appendix that lists the courts involved, go here.

With SJI support, the National Association for Court Management (NACM) has made content from its 2020 NACM Annual Virtual Conference and Expo available online.  This year’s event went virtual for the first time due to the complexities of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Plenaries, workshops, the annual business meeting and much more have all been uploaded as videos that you can watch sequentially or by subject/session area.

NACM is also accepting proposals for its 2021 Conference, Justice for All: Courts at the Crossroads.  NACM is committed to providing innovative, engaging and emerging trends at the    Midyear and Annual conferences.  Conferenc`es are made up of plenary and concurrent breakout sessions.

Private Sector – please contact Stacey Smith about sponsorships with speaking opportunities.

Earlier this year, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a report-style guide.  The purpose of this report is to provide facilities and access to justice recommendations for how courts can continue to offer in-person self-help services while respecting the public health and social distancing provisions required under COVID-19.

As confirmed cases continue to rise in states across the country, this resource may help courts maintain their efficiency, especially those which have slowly reopened or reintegrated self-directed services.

In addition to the report, there is also Tiny Chat #13 from Danielle Hirsch and Zach Zarnow, who are joined by NCSC Senior Architect and Facilities Planner Allie McKenzie to discuss six tips from the report further exploring this topic.

On November 13, 2020, SJI Board Member Hernan D. Vera was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Vera has been a Principal at Bird Marella since 2015, where he focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and class action defense.  He also counsels and advises clients on risk management in public matters where a problem-solving, community approach is essential to the success of the litigation.  He previously served as President & Chief Executive Officer of Public Counsel, the nation’s largest pro bono, public interest law firm.  He was the first Latino leader of the 40-year-old civil rights organization, which is based in Los Angeles.  Mr. Vera was a commercial litigator with the international firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he specialized in class actions.  Mr. Vera has also worked as an Education Staff Attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and clerked for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California.  He was appointed to the SJI Board of Directors in 2010.  He received an A.B., with Distinction, from Stanford University, and his J.D. from the UCLA School of Law.

Each fiscal year, SJI allocates significant financial resources to support its Priority Investment Areas (PIAS). The PIAs are applicable to all grant types, and the categories within allow for greater flexibility to be responsive to current and emerging court trends.  These broad PIAs are closely aligned with SJI’s mission in both statute and policy.  SJI strongly encourages potential grant applicants to consider projects addressing one or more of these PIAs, and to integrate the following factors into each proposed project:

• Evidence based, data-driven decision making
• Cross sector collaboration
• Systemic approaches (as opposed to standalone programs)
• Ease of replication
• Sustainability

For FY 2021, the Priority Investment Areas are listed below in no specific order:
 
Opioids and Other Dangerous Drugs, and Behavioral Health Responses
Behavioral Health Disparities
Research indicates that justice involved persons have significantly greater proportions of mental, substance use, and co-occurring disorders than are found in the public. SJI supports cross-sector collaboration and information sharing that emphasizes policies and practices designed to improve court responses to justice-involved persons with behavioral health and other co-occurring needs.  
 
Promoting Access to Justice and Procedural Fairness
Self-Represented Litigation
SJI promotes court-based solutions to address increases in self-represented litigants; specifically making courts more user-friendly by simplifying court forms, providing one-on-one assistance, developing guides, handbooks, and instructions on how to proceed, develop­ing court-based self-help centers, and using Internet technologies to increase access. These projects are improv­ing outcomes for litigants and saving valuable court resources.

Language Access
SJI supports language access in the state courts through remote interpretation (outside the courtroom), interpreter training and certification, courtroom services (plain language forms, websites, etc.), and addressing the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
Procedural Fairness
A fundamental role of courts is to ensure fair processes and just outcomes for litigants.  SJI promotes the integration of research-based procedural fairness principles, policies, and practices into state court operations to increase public trust and confidence in the court system, reduce recidivism, and increase compliance with court orders.
 
Reducing Disparities and Protecting Victims, Underserved, and Vulnerable Populations
Human Trafficking
SJI addresses the impact of federal and state human trafficking laws on the state courts, and the challenges faced by state courts in dealing with cases involving trafficking victims and their families. These efforts are intended to empower state courts to identify victims, link them with vital services, and hold traffickers accountable.
Rural Justice
Rural areas and their justice systems routinely have fewer resources and more barriers than their urban counterparts, such as availability of services, lack of transportation, and smaller workforces.  Programs and practices that are effective in urban areas are often inappropriate and or lack supported research for implementation in rural areas.  SJI supports rural courts by identifying promising and best practices, and promoting resources, education, and training opportunities uniquely designed for rural courts and court users. 
Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues
SJI assists courts in improving court oversight of guardians and conservators for the elderly and incapacitated adults through visitor programs, electronic reporting, and training.
Disparities in Justice
SJI supports research and data-driven approaches that examine statutory requirements, policies, and practices that result in disparities for justice-involved persons.  These disparities can be because of inequities in socio-economic, racial, ethnic, gender, age, health, or other factors.  In addition to identifying disparities, SJI promotes systemic approaches to reducing disparities.

Advancing Justice Reform
Criminal Justice Reform
SJI assists state courts in taking a leadership role in reviewing fines, fees, and bail practices to ensure processes are fair and access to justice is assured; implementing alternative forms of sanction; developing processes for indigency review; promoting transparency, gover­nance, and structural reforms that promote access to justice, accountability, and oversight; and implementing innovative diversion and re-entry programs that serve to improve outcomes for justice-involved persons and the justice system. 
Juvenile Justice Reform
SJI supports innovative projects that advance best practices in handling dependency and delinquency cases; promote effective court oversight of juveniles in the justice system; address the impact of trauma on juvenile behavior; assist the courts in identification of appropriate provision of services for juveniles; and address juvenile re-entry.
Family and Civil Justice Reform
SJI promotes court-based solutions for the myriad of civil case types, such as domestic relations, housing, employment, debt collection, which are overwhelming court dockets. 

Transforming Courts
Emergency Response and Recovery
Courts must be prepared for natural disasters and public health emergencies, such as pandemics.  SJI supports projects that look to the future of judicial service delivery by identifying and replicating innovations and alternate means of conducting court business because of pandemics and natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires.
Cybersecurity
Courts must also be prepared for cyberattacks on court systems, such as denial of service and ransomware attacks on court case management systems, websites, and other critical information technology infrastructure.  SJI supports projects that assist courts in preparing for, and responding to, these attacks, and share lessons-learned to courts across the United States.
Technology
SJI promotes and supports innovative technology projects that will improve court processes and procedures, including technology projects that: streamline case filing and management processes, thereby reducing time and costs to litigants and the courts; provide online access to courts to litigants so that disputes can be resolved more efficiently; make structural changes to court services that enable them to evolve into an online environment. 
Training, Education, and Workforce Development
State courts require a workforce that is adaptable to public demands for services.  SJI supports projects that focus on the tools needed to enable judges, court managers, and staff to lead their courts in future reform efforts.

On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an order to halt most evictions through December 31, 2020, in order to curb the spread of COVID-19 by keeping evicted people from becoming homeless, or crowding into apartments with friends and relatives.

Under the order, “a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory action, shall not evict any covered person from any residential property in any jurisdiction to which the order applies.”  The Order does not apply to an area with a moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of public health protections, and does not preclude jurisdictions from imposing additional requirements that provide greater public-health protections.  The order does not relieve the individual of the obligation to pay rent, make housing payments, or comply with other obligations under the housing contract, nor does the order preclude fees, penalties, or interest as a result to pay on time under the applicable contract.

To halt an eviction the tenant, and each adult listed on the lease or housing contract, must provide an executed Declaration Attachment A of the Order, to the person or entity with the right to have them evicted or removed from the property.

The tenants are required to pay rent and abide by the rest of the terms of the lease or housing contract, and can be evicted for reasons other than not paying rent or making a housing payment, including:

(1) engaging in criminal activity while on the premises;

(2) threatening the health or safety of other residents;

(3) damaging or posing an immediate and significant risk of damage to property;

(4) violating any applicable building code, health ordinance, or similar regulation relating to health and safety;

(5) violating any other contractual obligation, other than the timely payment of rent or similar housing-related payment (including non-payment or late payment of fees, penalties, or interest).

Across the country, judges and court administrators are responding differently, and state court leaders have been asked to provide guidance on how best to apply the order.

NCSC Principal Court Management Consultant Danielle Hirsch who is monitoring how states are implementing the CDC order, said courts must strive to ensure consistent and uniform application of the law.

“Given the pressing and serious nature of the eviction crisis facing the country,” Hirsch said, “court systems should promulgate court orders, education and training, self-help resources, and procedures to assist with handling eviction filings in accordance with the CDC order.”

NCSC recommends the following steps for implementing the order:

• Supplement the CDC order with a state or local order. The order can include changes to pleading and summons requirements, amendments to eviction forms, and instructions regarding the declaration forms that the CDC order requires tenants to submit. Orders that may be considered models come from theTexas Supreme Court and Rhode Island District Court.
• Devise a plan to educate judges and other court employees about the CDC order. 
• Communicate with landlords and tenants about the order. Alaska and Utah, for example, have done a good job of providing information to tenants who are not represented by lawyers.
• Reach out to lawyers and other stakeholders. Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Texas have held large stakeholder meetings to address this issue.
• Set up eviction diversion programs. This is happening in many places nationwide, such as Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Washington, and Kentucky.

For more resources on navigating the novel coronavirus visit the NCSC Pandemic Resource Center.