Category: News And Announcements

The Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic grant solicitation was designed to leverage the combined resources and expertise of the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the State Justice Institute (SJI), along with other federal partners, to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdoses among individuals who come in contact with law enforcement or are involved in the criminal justice system in high-risk rural communities and regions.

Twenty-one rural American communities substantially impacted by the opioid epidemic will receive $14.8 million in grants, up to $750,000 per community, to develop tailored and innovative responses to gaps in prevention, treatment and/or recovery services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system.  Communities awarded 18-month implementation phase grants at the end of 2019 represented sixteen states, including the following sites:

• Arkansas Rural Health Partnership (AR)
• County of Rio Arriba (NM)
• Ellenville Regional Hospital (NY)
• Franklin County Sheriff’s Department (MA)
• Grays Harbor Public Health & Social Services (WA)
• Marcum and Wallace Hospital (KY)
• Marshall University Research Corporation (WV)
• Memorial Regional Health (CO)
• Mohave Substance Treatment Education & Prevention Partnership (AZ)
• Northern Kentucky University (KY)
• Northumberland County (PA)
• Porter-Starke Services Inc. (IN)
• Portsmouth City Health Department (OH)
• Prisma Health–Upstate (SC)
• Project Lazarus (NC)
• Reno County Health Department (KS)
• SMA Healthcare, Inc. (FL)
• Mary’s Regional Health Center (MN)
• Upper Cumberland Human Resources Agency (TN)
• WestCare Tennessee, Inc. (TN)
• Whitley County Health Department (KY)

SJI funding ensures that state courts are a key component in these collaborative efforts to address the opioid epidemic in rural areas.  More information is available on the project website.  Site profiles are being be added to the website, along with new resources as the project moves forward.

The coronavirus may not have been labeled a pandemic yet, but the rapid spread of the virus is a good enough reason for court officials to plan for how they would deal with one. Fortunately, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has updated its public health emergency page, which offers many resources for court administrators and judges.  The page features Preparing for a Pandemic, a blueprint for developing a plan to combat a pandemic, as well as resources from last year’s SJI-funded National Pandemic Summit at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, home to the nation’s largest biocontainment unit.

The information on the page also applies to public health emergencies other than pandemics, which are relatively rare.  It applies, for example, to influenza, which has killed between 12,000 and 61,000 Americans per year since 2010.  The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed about 675,000 Americans and tens of millions worldwide, caused courts to close in the District of Columbia,  Tennessee and Kentucky, among other places, but fortunately public health emergencies rarely lead to court closings.

Despite that, public health emergencies sometimes impact the courts, and court officials need to know how to react to them.  Court administrators need to know how to keep their courts operating efficiently when some of their employees are sick and can’t work.  And judges must know what to do when they are called upon to order quarantines for individuals infected with contagious diseases.  A quarantine order related to a nurse in Maine who was exposed to the Ebola virus in Africa in 2014 made national headlines.

“Preparing for a Pandemic addresses the legal bases for actions the government may take and provides a ready-reference for a judge confronting issues that thankfully are extremely rare as they relate to things like a quarantine,” said William Raftery, senior NCSC Knowledge and Information Services analyst.

If you have questions about this or resources to share, email the NCSC.

Members of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) recently gathered for their midyear meeting where there was discussion on the variety of proposed innovations in the regulation of the delivery of legal services.  State supreme courts, after all, don’t just act as arbiters of legal disputes, but also hold ultimate authority for the regulation of the practice of law in their states.

The assembled members heard from the President of the American Bar Association (ABA), Judy Perry Martinez, who did not mince words about how critical innovation is in the effort to close the nation’s access to justice gap.  She also emphasized the vital role of both the ABA and state judicial leaders in fostering open discussion about potential reforms.

“We need and are beginning to see bold new ideas to address our nation’s unmet legal needs,” said Martinez. “Given the dire circumstances that the public faces when trying to protect their basic rights, doing nothing—having no dialogues and conversations among stakeholders; fearing to ask “what if” or “why not”—may pose an even greater risk.”

At its business meeting, CCJ adopted a policy resolution Urging Consideration of Regulatory Innovations Regarding the Delivery of Legal Services, which was proposed by its committee on Professionalism and Competence of the Bar.  The resolution “urges its members to consider regulatory innovations that have the potential to improve the accessibility, affordability and quality of civil legal services, while ensuring necessary and appropriate protections for the public.”

As ABA President Martinez noted: “The ultimate purpose of regulation is not to protect the livelihood of lawyers but to advance the administration of justice.”

The Justice Programs Office (JPO), a center in the School of Public Affairs at American University, in partnership with Right to Counsel (R2C) National Campaign consortium member the National Association for Court Management (NACM) partnered on a project which recently released its final report titled, Enhancing Caseflow Management to Ensure Effective Assistance of Counsel.

With SJI support, the report and archived webinar available through NACM, explore the tension between ensuring the right to counsel and caseflow management, what causes it and what alleviates it, and what judges and court administrators can do both separately and as a team to ease it.

Caseflow management is defined as the coordination of court processes to ensure court proceedings progress in a timely and efficient manner.  This can sometimes result in courts’ feeling pressure to process cases quickly in order to clear a docket and avoid case delay. This pressure may also result in the scheduling of case events without consideration for whether a defense attorney has been assigned to the case, and if so, whether one has had time to sufficiently prepare for these events.  In some instances, competing interests may emerge—those supporting prompt resolution of cases against those supporting effective assistance of counsel, which at times may slow down case proceedings.  When these interests are not adequately addressed, a tension emerges for judges and court administrators: the right to counsel tension.

The report is the culmination of several activities that involved face-to-face meetings with court professionals, industry expert analysis, and a focus on two courts in Spokane, Washington, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The National Initiative on Mental Illness and the Courts Advisory Committee is committed to improving both court and community responses to those with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders.

Supported by State Justice Institute (SJI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Committee publishes a bi-monthly Behavioral Health Alert and has compiled a series of selected readings and resources.

With the continued interest and the leadership of the state courts, this effort is well-positioned to address the revolving door of jails, involuntary commitments, court cases, emergency rooms, state hospitals, and homelessness of those with serious mental illness.

Sign up to receive these Behavioral Health Alerts.  The Alerts will include updates from the National Initiative, Research and Resources, and News from around the nation.

Also, remember the Advisory Committee wants to hear from you.  Please send news and developments, and/or concerns and challenges by emailing Patti Tobias, NCSC Project Coordinator, at ptobias@ncsc.org.

With grant support from SJI, technical assistance from the NCSC, and use of the podcast studio at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, the Georgia Superior Courts have established a thriving podcast.

Centered on Georgia law and issues relevant statewide, judges J. Wade Padgett (Augusta Circuit) and Tain Kell (Cobb Circuit), enlist guests, experts, and knowledge from their combined judicial careers to provide continuing education and dialogue on matters of interest to Georgia judges and the legal community.

At more than 20 episodes, the Good Judge-ment Podcast has found an audience interested in exploring substantive law and procedure for superior courts.  The show also has had a three-episode foray into the realm of probate courts with special guest Judge Keith Wood of the Cherokee County Probate Court.  First Lady of Georgia, Marty Kemp, even paid a visit to the studio (pictured above) to discuss her initiative to curb human trafficking in Georgia.

The hosts welcome feedback and ideas for future podcasts at goodjudgepod@gmail.com.

The Superior Court in Pima County, Arizona implemented the FASTAR Pilot Program in November 2017.  The program was designed to address case management complaints concerning cases valued at $50,000 or less, which were automatically assigned to compulsory arbitration.  Under the pilot program rules, cases eligible for compulsory arbitration could be assigned to expedited case management tracks in which the parties could choose to resolve the case by bench or jury trial (Fast Trial) or by arbitration (Alternative Resolution).  Plaintiffs that failed to choose defaulted to the Alternative Resolution track.  With generous financial support from the State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts evaluated the FASTAR Pilot Program as a technical assistance project through its Civil Justice Initiative Implementation Plan.

The NCSC found that, in more than one-quarter of FASTAR cases disposed between November 1, 2017 and September 30, 2019, plaintiffs choose the Fast Trial track.  These cases were less likely to settle than cases in which the plaintiffs choose Alternative Resolution.  A total of 14 cases were ultimately disposed by bench trial (6 cases) or jury trial (8 cases), thus fulfilling the program expectations that attorneys would gain valuable trial experience.  The NCSC also surveyed attorneys who were listed as counsel of record in FASTAR cases.  The survey response rate was 11.9 percent, and differences between case and respondent characteristics suggest that self-selection bias may have prompted lawyers with more negative opinions about the FASTAR Pilot Program to respond.  For example, there was a consistent and strong consensus that the FASTAR Rules were unfair to plaintiffs.  Moreover, attorneys that affirmatively selected the Fast Trial track indicated that they did so to avoid prohibitions on appeals from arbitration rather than to take advantage of the opportunity to resolve the case by trial.  The evaluation report concludes with recommendations, including aligning case management rules for FASTAR cases with those for cases assigned to Tier 1 under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

The full report is available here.

Last month, SJI featured the culmination of a two-year project by the National Judicial Opioid Task Force (NJOTF).  The report provided state courts nationwide with further information regarding the treatment of opioid-addicted defendants.

Housed withing the National Center for State Court Library’s eCollection is the final report and several special-subject bench cards or bulletins, which draw attention to general areas of the law and processes related to defendants in populations that may require special services.

• Understanding the Basics of Addiction
• The Fundamentals of Screening and Assessment
• Sample Court Transfer Agreement – State and Tribal Courts
• Parent Partner Programs – Promising Practice to Keep Families Struggling with Substance Use Disorder Together
• Prenatal Substance Exposure: Improving Outcomes for Women and Infants
• Tribal State Court Forums

The NJOTF received grant support from SJI for this content, and other elements of the project.

With grant support from SJI, the Fulton County Magistrate Court (FCMC), located in Atlanta, Georgia, received funding in 2017 through the National Center for State Courts’ (NCSC) Civil Justice Initiative for a demonstration pilot project to implement and test reforms on high-volume civil dockets.  The FCMC caseload consists primarily of small claims (up to $15,000), dispossessory (landlord/tenant evictions), and garnishment cases.

The reforms were originally promulgated as recommendations endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of civil cases in state courts.  Specific improvements implemented by the FCMC as part of the pilot project included the development and promulgation of informational resources, including brochures and web-based materials, for FCMC litigants; adjustments to court calendars to relieve case backlogs in dispossessory cases; and the development of checklists and training for judges and court staff to ensure consistent and accurate case processing.  The reforms were implemented over an 18-month period beginning in March 2017 through October 2018.

At the end of the pilot project, the NCSC conducted a process evaluation to assess the immediate impact of the reforms and to glean lessons about effective implementation.  The evaluation found that the reforms led to significantly reduced backlogs in dispossessory cases and reduced the time from filing to disposition for both small claims and garnishments; it did not find a significant reduction in time to disposition for dispossessory cases, likely because the timeframe was already so short that meaningful reductions would be very difficult to achieve.  The evaluation also reported positive assessments of the informational resources developed for FCMC litigants, who found them very useful.

Conclusions about the pilot project highlighted challenges related to implementing reforms on high-volume dockets, especially the importance of stakeholder engagement and communication about how stakeholder input is integrated in program design; the need to allocate time, staff, and attention as key resources to ensure the success of pilot projects; and the value of soliciting litigant feedback both in the design and the assessment of pilot projects.  The report closed with recommendations for ongoing reform efforts.