About the Publication

Edited by
Charles Campbell, John Holtzclaw & Joy Keller

Acknowledgments
Trends in State Courts 2024 was truly a team effort. Without the support and dedication of thecourt community this publication would not have been possible.
The editors would also like to thank NCSC’s Melissa Woods for infographics, layout, anddesign of Trends.
The Trends in State Courts 2024 editors also recognize Thomson Reuters for their ongoingprovision of online legal resources and research support.

This report is part of the National Center for State Courts’ “Report on Trends in the State Courts” series.
Opinions herein are those of the authors, not necessarily of the National Center for State Courts.
© 2024
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147
ncsc.org
ISBN: 978-0-89656-339-1
NCSC’s Trends in State Courts produces factual articles on new developments and innovations in courts
across the United States with the purpose of helping the courts anticipate and manage change to increase
public accountability, trust, and confidence in the judicial system. The NCSC does not endorse any
products or entities that may be mentioned in Trends articles.

Suggested Citation
C. Campbell, J. Holtzclaw, and J. Keller, eds. Trends in State Courts 2024.
(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2024).

2024 Review Board & Trends Committee
Trends in State Courts 2024 articles have been through a rigorous review process. The membersof the 2024 Review Board and Trends Committee have provided valuable feedback on thisedition. The patience and commitment of the Review Board and Trends Committee are greatly
appreciated.
Alexis Allen
Court Administrator, Tempe Municipal Court,
Arizona

Mary Quinlan
Chief Deputy Administrator,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida

Dawn Boulding
Chief Deputy Court Administrator, Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit of Florida

Liz Rambo
Trial Court Administrator,
Lane County Circuit Court, Oregon

Giuseppe M. Fazari
Professor, Monmouth University, New Jersey

Beth Riggert
Communications Counsel,
Supreme Court of Missouri

Madelynn M. Herman
Domestic Violence Programs and Services Manager,
Department of Judicial Services, Office of the
Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia

Jeff Schrade
Director, Education Services Division, Arizona

Aisha Ivey-Nixon
Deputy Director, Probate Division, Superior Courtof the District of Columbia

Katie SchurrerManager, Strategic Planning and Projects Office(SPPO), State Court Administrator’s Office,Minnesota Judicial Branch

Karen Kringlie
Director of Juvenile Court, Admin Unit 2,
Fargo, North Dakota

Suzanne H. Stinson
Court Administrator, 26th Judicial District Court(ret.), Louisiana

Paula Lang
Ninth District Deputy Administrator,
Minnesota Judicial Branch, Minnesota

Robert D. Wessels
County Court Manager (ret.),County Criminal Courts at Law, Houston, Texas

Tina Mattison
Deputy Court Administrator,
Pima County Juvenile Court, Arizona

Sharon Yates
Court Administrator at Superior Court,
Coconino County, Arizona

Ellen Procida-Fisher
Operations Manager, Superior Court of New Jersey,
Cape May County

Call for Article Submissions
Trends in State Courts is an annual, peer-reviewed publication that highlights innovative practices in critical areasthat are of interest to courts, and often serves as a guide for developing new initiatives and programs andinforming and supporting policy decisions. Trends in State Courts is the only publication of its kind and enjoys
a wide circulation among the state court community.
Submissions for the 2025 edition are now being accepted. Please email abstracts of no more than 500 words by
October 14, 2024 to John Holtzclaw at jholtzclaw@ncsc.org. Abstracts received after this date are welcome andwill be considered for later editions.
Visit the Trends in State Courts website at ncsc.org/trends for more information and detailed submission guidelines.

Table of Contents
Preface
Mary Campbell McQueen, President, National Center for State Courts

1

Artificial Intelligence: The Need for State Court Leadership
Laks Kattalai and Jessica Lewis Kelly

2

Data Governance and AI in State Courts
Diane Robinson, Shay Cleary, Sarah Gibson, and Andrea L. Miller

3

Court Navigation Programs: Providing Connections and Support
Across the Legal and Behavioral Health Systems

vii
1
8
20

Brandon Morrissey, Samantha A. Zottola, Isolynn A. Massey,
Elan C. Hope, and Sarah L. Desmarais

4

Litigant Empowerment Through Choice? Insights from an Ongoing
Study of Remote versus In-Person Family Court Hearings

30

Emily LaGratta, Renee Danser, and D. James Greiner

5

Customer-Centered Juvenile JusticeLogan Seacrest

6
7Multidisciplinary Representation for Parents in Dependency Cases

40

Teri Deal and Alicia Summers

50

Transforming Justice: Navigating Data Challenges in
Domestic Violence Courts

56

Alicia Davis, Diane Robinson, Rachel Buck, and Sarah Vandenberg Van Zee

89Action Planning to Advance Systemic Change
Glenn A. Grant and Jessica Lewis Kelly

64

From Classroom to Courtroom: Engaging Today’s Students
to Become Tomorrow’s Court Professionals

72

Giuseppe M. Fazari

10 PHASE: A Practical Approach to Implementation
Teri Deal, Conor Geiger, Wendy Schiller, and Mariarenee Contreras

84Preface
Mary Campbell McQueen
President, National Center for State Courts

Courts are cornerstones of their communities.
Most of the articles in the 2024 edition of Trends in State Courts are about how courts provide bothleadership in, and connections to, the communities they serve. For example, the first article calls
for increased state court leadership in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve accessto justice and fairness. Accurate, unbiased, and reliable data are also essential for improving court
performance, so another article stresses the need for strong data governance in the use of AI.
Data and research also play a key role in assessing how well courts connect families with vital
services. This group of Trends articles leads off with the findings of an environmental scan ofcourt navigation programs, focusing on connections to behavioral health and social services.
Another examines how the National Open Court Data Standards have improved data and casemanagement in domestic violence matters. Other articles examine the perception of fairness andthe quality of connections between the courts, families, and social services via remote hearings,
restorative justice, and multidisciplinary representation in the child welfare system.
Trends 2024 even shows how students can be connected to careers in the courts. There is a
discussion of a field visitation program in which university undergraduates learn about the roles,
responsibilities, and opportunities of a career in the justice system.
Trends 2024 also discusses the vital importance of action planning to improve access to justice andsuccessfully implement policies, practices, and programs. Courts must be proactive to ensure thatthese and other connections to their communities remain adaptable to user needs.

vii

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024x

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEED FOR STATE COURT LEADERSHIP

Artificial Intelligence:
THE NEED FOR STATE COURT LEADERSHIP
This article explores the importance of state court leadership in the era ofgenerative artificial intelligence. It advocates for proactive engagement andstrategic leadership from courts to shape this evolving landscape, support accessand fairness, and advance justice in a period of rapid technological change.
Laks Kattalai
Chief Information Officer, New Jersey Judiciary
Jessica Lewis Kelly
Special Assistant to the Administrative Director, New Jersey Courts

A Transformative Moment in Society
State courts stand at a significant moment in history. The rapid
growth of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) has thepotential to propel us into a new chapter in the practice of law andcourt operations, even while the capabilities and risks associatedwith Gen AI technologies are only partially understood. For state
courts, the question looms large: In the face of this technologicaltransformation, will we be bystanders or active participants?
The choice we make today will yield lasting effects on the legal
system and will shape the trust and confidence the public holds inthe judicial system. To uphold that public trust, this article sets out
a framework for state courts to provide guidance and guardrails
to support the ethical, safe, and secure use of AI and Gen AI by
judges and court staff, lawyers, and court systems.

State Court Users
State courts serve and shape several communities: internal
consumers, i.e., judges and court staff, including judicial
law clerks and assistants; lawyers; and self-represented or
unrepresented court users and members of the public. Gen AI
has the potential to fundamentally change relationships with eachof these groups, requiring recalibration of expectations, roles, andresponsibilities.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS

What is AI?
Artificial Intelligence, or
AI, refers to machinebased technologies
that make predictions,recommendations, ordecisions. AI technologies
use machine and humanbased inputs to perceive
environments, abstractsuch perceptions intomodels through automatedanalysis, and formulate
opinions through model
inference. Generative
artificial intelligence, or Gen
AI, is a subset of AI in whichmachine-based systems
create text, images, or othercontent based on predictivemodels derived fromtraining with large datasets.

1

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Judicial Officers and Court Staff

Lawyers

For judges and court staff, Gen AI
technologies offer the potential to expedite
routine processes, such as review ofpleadings for sufficiency and compliancewith court rules, preliminary research andorganization of information, and structuringof template documents. Automation ofthese daily functions, such as preliminarily
flagging court applications that appear to be
missing required content so that staff canreview those submissions before schedulinga hearing, can enable judges to reallocate
resources to more complex tasks. At thesame time, Gen AI also brings challenges,
including the need to evaluate the authenticity
of evidence and to differentiate real content
from deepfakes. To the extent that Gen AI isused without sufficient oversight by lawyers
and unrepresented litigants, judges andcourt staff also may be required to conduct
deeper review of legal pleadings and possibly
to manage an influx of AI-generated filings
by vexatious litigants. To address thesedevelopments, state courts should provide
comprehensive training for judges at all levels
and court staff about how to use Gen AI intheir work and how the availability of Gen AI to
the public affects their duties. Court systems
should also consider development of a visionstatement for their use of Gen AI.

As the regulators of legal practice, statesupreme courts should promptly address
the questions and concerns of legal
practitioners who are using or may use
Gen AI. While this effort should involve
collaboration with state and local bar
associations and other stakeholders, court
leaders should exercise responsibility forensuring that the ethical practice of law
evolves appropriately in response to thecapabilities and limitations of Gen AI to theextent practicable in light of administrative
structures.1 Guidance to lawyers may involve
amendments or new comments to the rulesof professional conduct, advisory opinions
issued by designated committees, or new
procedural requirements, such as mandatory
certifications regarding the use of Gen AI
in legal submissions. State courts shouldtake the lead in developing and delivering
training to lawyers both independently and in
partnership with bar associations and othercontinuing legal education providers. Further,state courts should advise or remind lawyers
about who to contact with specific professional
responsibility and ethics questions. In light ofthe speed of Gen AI’s evolution, state courts
should be prepared to update preliminary
guidance to respond to new technologicaldevelopments and to specific questions raisedby lawyers.

12See, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, __ F.Supp.3d __ (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (2023 WL 4114965; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
108263), in which lawyers were sanctioned for reliance on cases generated by ChatGPT in legal submissions (https://perma.cc/PML3-582W).

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEED FOR STATE COURT LEADERSHIP

Public Court Users
Gen AI has the potential to democratize thelaw, offering tools that help self-represented
litigants navigate the court system. Yet Gen
AI cannot and will not solve the justice gap(which the National Center for State Courts
has described as “the chasm between legal
needs and available legal services in our state
courts”2), and it must not be misunderstoodas an equivalent substitute for legal
representation. In the best-case scenario,
Gen AI can narrow the justice gap by enabling
people who otherwise would navigate thecourts on their own to access and effectively
use higher-quality tools than currently
available through an internet search.
Courts should consider a multipart approachto support nonlawyer court users. First, courts

2should provide public-facing information about
how judges and court staff are and are notusing Gen AI to provide transparency andavoid misinformation. Second, courts should
provide plain-language information aboutpublic Gen AI options that court users may
find on their own, noting the limitations onsuch resources. Third, courts should engage
in ongoing communications with legal service
providers and community advocates toincorporate their input into the developmentof policies and practices related to Gen AI.
Through these strategies, state courts canharness the benefits of AI while minimizing
risks, ensuring that while access to justiceis broadened, the reliability and accuracyof legal information and processes are notcompromised.

“Justice for All: A Roadmap to 100% Civil Access to Justice,” p. 1 (https://perma.cc/Y8Y4-XD9S).

3

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

New Jersey’s Proactive Approach
Through the vision of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the New Jersey Judiciary has positioned itself
to learn as much as possible about AI and its implications for legal practice and court operations.
In summer 2023, two pivotal groups were established: the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee
on AI, which focuses on public-related issues including the practice of law, and a separate internalWorking Group on Judiciary Use of AI, which explores policies for ethical AI use by the courts.
New Jersey’s approach is notable for its coalition building. Administrative Director of the Courts
Glenn A. Grant chairs the 34-person committee, with retired federal judge and AI expert Katherine
Forrest as vice-chair. The committee includes individuals with expertise in technology, judicial
and administrative leaders, lawyers, educators, security specialists, legal service providers, andnonlawyer advocates. This inclusive model fosters buy-in and collaboration, ensuring that as AI
transforms the legal landscape, all segments of the legal community move forward together.
The supreme court committee and the internal working group quickly developed critical strategies
that set an example for how state court systems can and should approach Gen AI. These strategies
seek to balance the benefits available through AI technologies, including the potential to improvecourt access and legal resources for unrepresented court users with the very real risks that flowfrom biases associated with AI tools. They reflect the court’s ongoing promise to prioritize fairness,
inclusion, and neutrality over expediency.

Guidance to the Court Workforce
As a first step, the internal working group
drafted an initial message to judges andstaff, reminding all court employees thatexisting codes of conduct prohibit the sharingof confidential court information, which
includes inputting confidential information
into public Gen AI systems. As authorized
by the supreme court, the judiciary provided
that initial guidance to its entire workforce inAugust 2023, following up in October 2023
with a comprehensive, but still preliminary,
policy on how judges and court staff can andcannot use Gen AI in their work.
Ongoing reminders to the judiciary workforceemphasize that open AI tools consider large
amounts of data of unknown accuracy andwith the potential to yield unfair, incomplete,inaccurate, or biased results. Accordingly,

4

content generated in response to a query tosuch a generative AI tool must be presumed
to contain potential biases, and judges andcourt staff must exercise caution when using
such AI-generated content within approved
parameters.

Guidance for Lawyers and the Public
The committee submitted preliminary
recommendations to the supreme court inJanuary 2024. The court authorized initialdeliverables, including two public-facing
policies:• The “Preliminary Guidelines on the Useof Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey
Lawyers” focus on five main aspects ofprofessional conduct that may be implicatedby the use of AI: accuracy and truthfulness;honesty/candor and communication;
confidentiality; prevention of misconduct,

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEED FOR STATE COURT LEADERSHIP

including discrimination; and oversight.3
The New Jersey Supreme Court authorized
the preliminary guidelines to be effective
immediately while also providing directions
for lawyers to raise individual questions
about specific AI ethics issues and provide
comments and suggestions to inform thecommittee’s ongoing work.
• The “Statement of Principles for the New
Jersey Judiciary’s Ongoing Use of Artificial
Intelligence, Including Generative Artificial
Intelligence” explains to the public how
the courts will and will not use AI to alignwith and advance the core principles of
independence, integrity, fairness, and quality
service.4 In the statement, the judiciary
promises to “engage in ongoing oversight toensure that AI technologies are Transparent,
Explainable, Accurate, Reliable, andSecure.” In addition, it also affirms that AI
technologies will be used to support access,fairness, and equity for all parties.
In addition to public information, guidelines
for lawyers, and ongoing guidance to theworkforce, the committee also coordinatedand provided initial training on Gen AI andestablished a schedule for ongoing CLE
programs with the New Jersey State Bar
Association (NJSBA) and others. Further,members of the committee participated in the
judiciary’s annual Judicial College and Staff
College in November 2023, offering both
introductory and practical courses on Gen
AI for judges and court executives. Judges
and court leaders, including external experts,
continued and expanded on those introductory

AI trainings at statewide civil, criminal, family,
and municipal education conferences inspring 2024.
As authorized by the New Jersey Supreme
Court, the committee developed a survey that
was administered to around 75,000 registeredand active New Jersey lawyers regarding
their knowledge, perceptions, and use of Gen
AI. More than 6,400 attorneys completed thesurvey, sharing their views and offering morethan 1,800 narrative responses. The judiciary
published major takeaways from this largescale survey in a June 12, 2024 notice to thebar (see https://tinyurl.com/4rcjj278). Overall,survey respondents reported little knowledge
and understanding of how generative AI
technologies work and how they can be usedin legal practice. Informed by the survey
responses, the New Jersey Judiciary haslaunched a series of CLE programs at no costto attendees, which started with a program on
the Ethics of AI Use in July 2024.
The committee’s ongoing work continues tofocus on the multiple communities affectedby Gen AI. In anticipation of situations inwhich self-represented court users could
improperly rely on AI technologies5 without
yet understanding the capacity of thosetechnologies to generate inaccurate andfalse content, the judiciary has posted a
notice on the self-represented page of its
website to reinforce the distinction between AI
technologies and legal representation and tohelp court users find reputable legal services
as needed (see https://tinyurl.com/bdhbke33).

3

See https://perma.cc/36LL-AHL8.

4

See https://perma.cc/EQU2-AF5A.

5See, e.g., Kruse v. Karlen et al., case no. ED111172 (Feb. 13, 2024), in which the Missouri Court of Appeals
imposed sanctions on a self-represented litigant who submitted a slew of fabricated cases to the court(https://perma.cc/3N5T-73XN).

5

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Regulation of Uses of AI in State Courts
California, Florida, New York, and New
Jersey legal associations also provided earlyguidance to lawyers about the ethical uses
and limitations of Gen AI.

Intelligence released a report andrecommendations, focusing on the need for
guidelines, education, regulation, and the roleof the law (see https://perma.cc/EMF9-4ZMU).

In California, the Committee on Professional
Responsibility and Conduct submitted
recommendations to the state bar association,
which were approved and published in
November 2023. The committee’s “Practical
Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial
Intelligence in the Practice of Law”6 does
not carry the weight of an ethics opinion or
court rule but does assist lawyers in thinking
through the ethical issues associated withGen AI. The guidance also can be cited
if a lawyer is alleged to have engaged inwrongdoing through using AI.

The New Jersey State Bar Association Task
Force on AI and the Law issued its final reportand recommendations in May 2024, providing
practical guidance to lawyers and law firms as
to the assessment of AI tools and services, aswell as templates for organizational AI policies(see https://perma.cc/DGA2-ZRYJ).

After seeking public comment on a proposal,
the Florida Bar Association issued guidance tolegal practitioners in Advisory Opinion 24-1 onJanuary 19, 2024.7
On April 6, 2024, the New York StateBar Association Task Force on Artificial

6

The core message from the California,
Florida, and New York bar associations aligns
with that adopted by the New Jersey Supreme
Court: that the advent and expanding use of
Gen AI technologies does not fundamentallychange lawyers’ responsibilities or theirstandards of professional conduct. Lawyers
remain responsible to oversee and ensure
the accuracy of their work, including
communications to the court and clients, tomaintain confidentiality, and to otherwise
comply with the rules of professional conduct.

6This is described as “a living document that is periodically updated as the technology evolves and matures, and as
new issues are presented” (https://perma.cc/TG7W-HKVY).

7

See https://perma.cc/3QE4-ASZK.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEED FOR STATE COURT LEADERSHIP

Conclusion
As society confronts the transformative potential of Gen AI, state courts face a choice that will define
our role in the future legal landscape. By embracing leadership in AI, courts can ensure they not only
adapt to but also shape the evolution of legal practice and administration. The courts’ response to
AI will determine the future direction of the practice of law and judicial management. The time for
us to decide is now. As we make this critical choice, we must remember that the public’s trust andconfidence are at stake. State courts have the opportunity to lead the way in ensuring that as thelegal landscape changes, justice remains fair, accessible, secure, and effective. The path forward isclear: to engage, lead, and shape the future.

7

DATA GOVERNANCE AND AI IN STATE COURTS

Data Governance and AI
in State Courts
Accurate and timely data are essential for managing cases, measuring court
performance, and administering courts. The rapid increase in the use of AI andadvanced data analytics increases the urgency and importance of having strong
data governance.

Diane Robinson
Principal Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts
Shay Cleary
Managing Director, Court Consulting Services, National Center for State Courts
Sarah Gibson
Data Scientist, National Center for State Courts
Andrea L. Miller
Senior Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts

Data Governance
Data governance is a framework encompassing the people, policies, processes, and technologythat ensure high-quality data, data management, and data security. Although strong data
governance has always been an essential component of high court performance, the increasinguse of artificial or augmented intelligence (AI) in court operations makes data governance evenmore critical. This article explores best practices for data governance and the intersection ofdata governance and AI. Data governance can be considered the “roots” of data use in the
courts, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities, an established data governance team,
documented policies to maintain consistent and high-quality data, and policies that cover the entire
data life cycle (see Figure 1, next page).

9

Figure 1

The Roots of Data Use

THE FIRST STEP FOR GROWTH: DATA GOVERNANCE
Successful Data Use Starts with Strong RootsDATA GOVERNANCE
3

2
1

1
2

3

4
5

4

ROOTS

TRUNK

BRANCHESLEAVES

Core Components ofData Governance

Growing a DataDriven Mindset
in the Courts

Ways that Data can be
Used within the Courts

The Information orInsights Gained
from Data

Clearly Defined Roles andResponsibilities for Data
Ownership

1

Case Flow Management

2

Court Operations

2

Established Data GovernanceTeam/Committee

3

Court Leader/JusticePartner Data Requests

3

Established Policies to
Maintain High Data Quality

4

Public Data Requests

5

AI/Predictive Analytics

1• Data Standards• Clear and Consistent Data
Definitions• Data Validation Rules

4 Established Policies Covering
the Entire Data Life Cycle• Deciding What Data to Collect• Data Creation and Acquisition• Data Storage• Data Archival• Data Disposal/Deletion

10

Just as soil is essential to tree growth,
IT also plays an integral role in supporting data
efforts by implementing and supporting thenecessary technologies, services, and tools.

1
3

2

2

4

1

5

3
4
5

FRUIT
The Outcomes ofEffective Data Use

EXTERNAL
FORCES (WIND)PRUNING AND
MAINTENANCE
Data Governance Needs to be
Maintained and Revised

1

Improved Case Processing

Strong Data Governance Roots
Mitigate Damage and Decrease
Impact from External Events

2

Effective Resource
Management

13Consistent and Timely
Response to Data
Requests

Inaccurate Narratives
about Courts/Court Data

2

Data Breaches

3

Misuse of Court Data

4

Increased Trust andConfidence in the
Judiciary

45

Improved Case Outcomes

Legislative or Rule
Changes that Impact
How Data are Shared/
Handled5

Advancements inTechnology

Note: Not all fruit will be viable.
Some will fall to the ground but
will break down and enrich thesoil (i.e., the lessons learned will
be invaluable).

Prune dead branches to makeroom for new areas of data usethat can also result in new root
growth (aka data governancepolicies).

Water soil with lessons
learned and feedback fromcourt staff and impacted
groups like court users,
stakeholders, and community
members to encouragecontinued growth.
Source: National Center for State Courts, 2023.

11

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Figure 2

Data Governance and AI

AI tools that are
relevant, highperforming & usefulDatagovernance

Figure 3

Effective
courtsLife Cycle of Data

Identifying
neededdata
Datadeletion &archival

Data use

Datacollection

Datastorage
Source: Robinson and Gibson, 2019.

The relationship between court data
governance and AI moves in both directions(see Figure 2). The quality of the courts’current data will determine what kinds of AI
innovations are possible and how successfully
new AI tools will be integrated into thecourts. Conversely, the introduction of AI
technologies can improve data governancewhile also creating new kinds of data andcorresponding data-governance-related
issues, considerations, and ethical concerns.

12

A hallmark of courts with strong data
governance is that everyone working withcourt data understands the importance ofdata to the court and to court customers.
This includes judicial officers, the court
administrator, the newest employee in theclerk’s office, and even the attorney efilinga case. Data governance requires attention
to data quality throughout the entire data life
cycle (see Figure 3).

DATA GOVERNANCE AND AI IN STATE COURTS

Data governance begins with identifying
needed data. No court has unlimited time orresources to collect data and ensure data
quality. “Nice to know” is not a sufficientjustification for collecting data. This means
looking with a critical eye at data collected toensure that they are being used effectively.
However, effective use of AI may make datacollection more efficient, expanding the scopeat little cost.
Data collection must be done in a waythat maximizes the data’s quality. Casemanagement systems and other court IT
systems should be configured to maximize
data quality. For example, entering a dateshould have validation to ensure the date isin the correct format and is plausible. Courts
should also streamline codes to encourage
selection of the most accurate choice. Data
collection is an area with real opportunity
for AI to improve the speed and accuracy ofdata entry from documents, while also being
able to learn patterns and provide alerts andpotentially automatically adjust incorrectly
entered data.
Data storage must ensure that the necessary
data are available to the right individuals at
the right time and in the right amount. For
example, having a production databaseseparate from that used for reports or
research helps manage traffic while keeping
data accessible. Data-use policies address
who has access to what information andwhat resources or information are used tocheck and improve data quality. Finally, data
governance policies should be consistent withstate law and court rules about how long data
are kept. For courts working on clean-slate
initiatives or other decriminalization steps,
careful consideration is needed of how toprotect individuals’ rights while maintaining
accurate information about caseloads.

AI
Merriam-Webster defines artificial intelligence
as “the capability of computer systems
or algorithms to imitate intelligent humanbehavior.” AI includes a wide variety oftechnologies that are built using machinelearning, such as natural language
processing, facial recognition, and generative
AI. Merriam-Webster defines generative AI
as “artificial intelligence . . . that is capable ofgenerating new content (such as images ortext) in response to a submitted prompt (suchas a query) by learning from a large reference
database of examples.” The promise of more
effective state courts through the use of AI is
no longer a characteristic of a hypothetical
future court—it is the work of state courts
today.
A core component of effective courts has
always been collecting and storing informationand data. Although the mechanisms have
evolved from physical papers and filing boxes
to digital documents, databases, and cloudstorage, information gathering has always
been central to the functioning of courts. What
has changed is both the widely acceptedview of data as a strategic asset, insteadof merely a byproduct of court operations,and the rapidly expanding capabilities ofAI-based tools and technologies to enhancedata-driven decision-making. As the paceof improvements in AI accelerates, effective
and responsible use of data is critical. Data
provide the foundation for the use of AI, andto successfully navigate and use these new
AI-based tools, strong and effective data
governance is an absolute necessity.
Early examples of AI applications in thestate courts illustrate the potential breadth ofroles that AI might play in this sector. Somecourts, such as Mohave County Superior

13

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Court, Maricopa County Superior Court, and MiamiDade County Courts, are using bots to help answer
court users’ questions and assist court users withwayfinding.1 Others, including Palm Beach County
and Orange County, are using AI to increase theirefficiency in processing new filings and managing
caseflow (see Joint Technology Committee, 2024, andReinkensmeyer and Billotte, 2019, for more examplesof early AI applications).2 As technologies improveover time, AI could be used for a wide variety of tasks
involved in case processing and caseflow management,
in interfacing with court users and helping them navigate
court systems, and in substantive legal decisionmaking that shapes case outcomes. If AI is integrated
thoughtfully and with care, these technologies could
improve access to the courts, promote equitable justiceoutcomes, improve equity in the workforce, increase
efficiency in case processing, and promote public trustand confidence in the courts.
Because AI technologies are built on data, data quality
must be addressed before implementing AI. When
inaccurate or biased data are used to design or train
a new AI tool, the AI will perpetuate and magnify
those inaccuracies and biases. Consider Amazon’s
recruiting tool that was created to screen résumés andidentify top talent. On its surface, the tool seemed likean efficient use of AI technologies to help automate atime-consuming process of screening applicants. The
tool was trained on data Amazon had collected frompreviously submitted job applications. What Amazon did
not consider is the quality and diversity of those data
and the inherent bias that was present. In the tech field,
most job applicants and eventual hires have historically
been men. The AI model noticed this pattern andpenalized résumés that had indicators that the applicant
was a woman. Now imagine a cyclical process of using

14

1

See Mohave County at https://perma.cc/2QEL-HZLT; Maricopa
County at https://perma.cc/S7SW-8BUA; and Miami-Dade
County at https://perma.cc/C5MP-UPU6.

2

See Palm Beach County at https://perma.cc/83UG-SL4G and
Orange County at https://perma.cc/H87S-E8DU.

DATA GOVERNANCE AND AI IN STATE COURTS

the output from the screening tool as additional datato train the model, and it becomes clear how the initial
data-quality issues and bias are not only perpetuated,but made worse every time new data are supplied tothe model (Dastin, 2018).
Examples like Amazon’s recruiting tool provide apoignant reminder of the necessity for strong data
governance to ensure that questions of bias and overall
data quality are addressed. Because the potential
impacts of AI on society are so great, the European
Union and other governmental bodies have already
implemented AI regulation (“EU AI Act: First Regulation
on Artificial Intelligence,” 2023). Having establisheddefinitions and policies in place at every point in thedata life cycle ensures that there are accountability
and methods for identifying potential risks and issues.
Strong data governance creates transparency andaccountability that will enhance trust among court
customers, stakeholders, and the public.
To the extent that a court’s data measure the rightthings and are accurate, complete, and compatible
across jurisdictions, the court will be equipped to:• Understand where AI technologies are most needed,
will have the greatest benefits, and will do the leastharm;• Identify specific court operations and tasks toenhance with AI and which tasks to leave to humans;• Develop better-performing AI tools;• Measure the performance of AI tools to ensure theymeet the courts’ needs before launch and makeadjustments and improvements as needed;• Make sound, data-driven decisions about court
policies and practices; and• Share technology and knowledge acrossjurisdictions, coordinate with justice partners, andlearn from other courts.

15

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

AI Can Support Strong Data Governance
AI has the potential to support data governance by improving data entry and data quality. Byleveraging AI to automate and streamline data entry, AI can reduce human error, resulting in greater
accuracy and reliability of data. AI can also improve overall data quality by using machine learning
to analyze, categorize, and validate data against data governance policies and flag anomaliesor potentially incorrect information for further review. The following are examples of how AI may
improve data entry and data quality.

Contextual Understanding
and Validation
AI does not just read text; it can compare it to
its context. This means it can validate data as
they are entered. For instance, if an AI system
is processing an efiled or scanned judgment
or order, it can cross-reference elements tocheck for consistency and accuracy.

AI can intelligently fill in missing values basedon the patterns and relationships it discerns
in the data. For example, it might identify
missing values in a motion based on the
known values of similar records (or even thesame case) and alert the submitter/user tothe missing value, make suggestions, or input
what is missing.

Automated Data Categorization
and Tagging

Automated Data GovernanceAI can automatically categorize and tag
data as they are entered. For example, in an
efiled or scanned document, AI can identify
and categorize important elements such ascase numbers, dollar amounts, party names,
dates, and the type of document being filed,streamlining subsequent data entry. AI caneven identify a case type based on thecontent of the text.

Real-Time Correction
When incorporated into a workflow, AI
can provide real-time suggestions forerror correction during data entry, thereby
preventing errors from entering the system inthe first place.

16

Data Imputation

AI can enforce data governance policies
automatically, ensuring data quality standards
are consistently met across the organization.
Furthermore, AI can continuously learn fromnew data and feedback and improve its ability
to cleanse, correct, and augment data overtime.

Scalability
AI can manage large volumes of data
efficiently, a task that is not feasible
for manual processes, especially while
maintaining high data quality.

DATA GOVERNANCE AND AI IN STATE COURTSAI Will Complicate Data GovernanceAlthough new AI technologies have the potential to improve data quality and strengthen data
governance practices in the courts, AI may also complicate court data governance. AI will create newdata and new types of data, and it will require additions or revisions to data governance policies. The
following are a few examples of critical issues for courts to consider.

Court Leadership and Administration

Security and Privacy

AI will affect how courts engage in strategicplanning, goal setting, performance
evaluation, and data-driven decision-making.
AI tools will create new data and help the
courts draw new insights out of complex
data. If AI is implemented well, AI-produced
data might enable courts to continuously
and seamlessly assess effectivenessand efficiency and to update and improvepractices. However, the proliferation of data
may also make it more challenging for court
leaders to extract useful insights from what
may feel like an ocean of data—in otherwords, separating the signal from the noise.
Courts will need to increase their data literacy
to confront these new complexities.

AI will affect data security and privacy
concerns. As part of the creation, use, andmaintenance of AI technologies, court data
may be shared with more organizations
and entities outside of the court system.
For example, court data may be sharedwith technology vendors for building andmaintaining AI technologies or sharedwith justice partners for collaborative caseprocessing. While greater coordination withoutside entities may enable the court toprovide better and more efficient services, itwill also increase the need for strong security
practices that protect court users frominappropriate uses of their information.

Court Workforces and Job Design
AI will change how court personnel interact
with data. As AI technologies change howdata are created, stored, protected, andused, the types of court roles involved in data
governance may change. New court jobs may
emerge as new types of skills are needed
to develop, operate, and maintain AI tools.
Existing court roles may expand to have abigger role in data governance, requiring ahigher level of data literacy. Courts’ practices
relating to job design, recruitment and hiring,and continuing education will need to evolve
to meet these demands.

Technology Vendors
AI will change the courts’ relationships withprivate technology vendors. Courts will needto establish and monitor appropriate roles ofprivate for-profit entities in court operations.
They will need to make important decisions
surrounding who will control algorithms, data,
quality control, performance monitoring,and maintenance of AI technologies. Courts
should especially be wary of “black box” AI
tools, where the AI’s algorithms and decisionmaking processes are not transparent.

17

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Action Items for Courts
Strong data governance provides the guardrails needed to effectively use AI. AI has the potential
to improve data quality and data-driven decision-making, but rapid change also means thatpolicies need to be carefully considered before a court reaches a crisis point. Courts need to lay
the groundwork to meet the opportunities and challenges that new changes will bring before AI
technologies are integrated into the courts on a large scale. Strong data governance will be a vital
component of successfully adopting these technologies, and courts can begin to take important
steps now to build the foundation for these changes.

Improve Data Quality

Build Data Literacy

Currently, much of the court data that will be
used to build AI tools using machine learning
are rife with missing or inaccurate data or
are collected by another entity outside of thecourts. Addressing these issues will be crucial,
and NCSC’s Data Governance Policy Guide isa useful starting point.3

To meet the coming changes, court leadersand staff need a better understanding of thefundamental principles of data governanceand data-driven decision-making. Other
court stakeholders, including justice partnerorganizations, attorneys, and the public, alsoneed a better understanding of how courts
collect and use data. To this end, NCSC isdeveloping an online course on data literacy.

Standardize Across Jurisdictions
Software platforms and data standards
are often incompatible across jurisdictions.
The courts’ increased reliance on futuretechnologies will make it vital to reconcile
technology and data formats, increase
information sharing, and build systems
that can share and merge mismatchingdata. Adopting the National Open Court
Data Standards (NODS) is one step in thisdirection.4

18³

See Data Governance at https://perma.cc/2WXW-2R8N.

4

See NODS at https://perma.cc/8ND7-A4XR.

5

See Artificial Intelligence at https://perma.cc/6MF6-YE9M.

Develop New Principles andStandards Related to AI Governance
NCSC is gathering court leaders, experts,
and stakeholders to begin developing theseprinciples.5 We are providing guidance on
issues such as weighing the risks and benefitsof AI for specific court tasks, appropriate roles
for private vendors, defining and measuring
acceptable AI performance, transparency in
AI-assisted decision-making, data privacy andsecurity, using a human-centered approach
to integrate AI into the court workforce,
identifying and eliminating disparate impactsof AI-assisted decisions, and ensuring fulland equal access to the courts, among otherconsiderations.

DATA GOVERNANCE AND AI IN STATE COURTS

References
Dastin, J. (2018). “Insight—Amazon Scraps Secret AI Recruiting Tool that Showed Bias Against
Women.” Reuters, October 10.
“EU AI Act: First Regulation on Artificial Intelligence” (2023). Topics, European Parliament, December
19. https://perma.cc/D485-RX5H
Joint Technology Committee (2024). “Introduction to AI for Courts.” JTC Resource Bulletin, March 5.
https://perma.cc/6G5T-QT8D
National Center for State Courts (2023). “5 Things to Know about Data Governance.” Data Dives,
November. https://perma.cc/C3K3-KPBKReinkensmeyer, M., and R. Billotte (2019). “Artificial Intelligence (AI): Early Court Project
Implementations and Emerging Issues.” Court Manager, vol. 34, no. 3.
https://perma.cc/V9H7-H35K
Robinson, D., and S. Gibson (2019). “Data Governance Policy Guide.” National Center for State Courts.
https://perma.cc/U6AW-Z3DT

19

COURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMSCOURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMS:

Providing Connections
and Support Across theLegal and Behavioral
Health Systems*
This article reviews the findings from an environmental scan of court navigation
programs. It focuses on programs that provide connections to community-based
behavioral health and social services.

Brandon Morrissey
Policy Research Associates and North Carolina State University
Samantha A. Zottola
Policy Research Associates
Isolynn A. Massey
Policy Research Associates
Elan C. Hope
Policy Research Associates
Sarah L. Desmarais
Policy Research Associates*

The research reported in this article was conducted under grant number SJI-22-P-004 from the State JusticeInstitute. The points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positionor policies of the State Justice Institute.

21

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Courts face significant challenges whenpeople involved in legal proceedings lackthe knowledge and support to navigate
complex legal processes. People maylack knowledge of how the legal system
operates, the expectations placed on themby the court, or the resources and support
needed to move through the legal process(Hagan, 2018). These challenges may beparticularly pronounced for those navigatingcomplex court procedures while also
experiencing unmet needs related to mental
health, substance use, housing instability, or
unemployment (Couloute and Kopf, 2018;
Desmond and Gershenson, 2017). Behavioral
health and economic needs often lead tocourt involvement, and when not addressed,
people risk cycling through the court systemrepeatedly (Zottola et al., 2023). Failure toaddress the behavioral health and economic
needs of people who cycle through the courts
not only takes a toll on their well-being but
also places an undue burden on the courts(Dollar et al., 2018; Menendez and Eisen,2019; Redlich and Han, 2014). In recognitionof these challenges, many jurisdictions areseeking comprehensive and innovative
solutions for enhancing the efficiency ofcourt administration to improve both caseprocessing and individual well-being.
One solution that courts have begun to
explore are nonlawyer court navigation
programs. These programs assist people
through the intricacies of the court process,while also facilitating access to behavioral
health, social, and human services. By
facilitating connections to communitybased services, court navigation programs
can holistically respond to factors that
may lead to court involvement while also
supporting people through complex legal

22

processes. Court navigation programs
are popping up across the United States;
however, little research has documented
how these programs function. To provide acomprehensive picture of court navigation
programs, we completed a national scan anddeveloped an accompanying compendiumof programs that emphasize connecting
people to community-based behavioral health,social, and human services while also helping
them navigate the court process. Our work
complements that of McClymont (2019), who
conducted a foundational scan of nonlawyer
navigator programs that help provide legal aid,primarily to self-represented litigants in thecivil system.

How Do Court Navigation
Programs Help Connect
People to Resources?
Court navigation programs guide people
through the legal process and play a crucialrole in establishing connections to a varietyof community-based behavioral health,social, and human services. While people
involved in both civil and criminal court canlack the necessary knowledge and support for
navigating legal processes, access to legal
navigation services is not a universal solution(Sandefur, 2019). For some people, theircourt involvement may be at least partiallyattributable to mental health concerns,
substance-use issues, housing instability, andunemployment. Court navigation programs
help by offering invaluable assistance inclarifying legal procedures, directing people toresources, and ultimately empowering people
to navigate the court system with greater
confidence and understanding.

COURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMS

Figure 1

Diagram of Court Navigation Programs

Court
Resource
Centers

Courthouse

Court
Navigators

Unmet Resource
Needs

FERRALS

Diversion
Programs

Unmet
Behavioral
HealthNeeds

LegalAssistance
Programs

RE

Pretrial
Services

Legal Navigation
Problems

SocialService
Programs

Community
Behavioral
HealthProvidersCommunity
Organizations

Court navigation programs can function as centralized hubs for facilitating voluntary connections toneeded resources, with navigators identifying unmet needs and providing warm hand-off connections
to the appropriate community-based services. Participation in a court navigation program starts
with a referral (see Figure 1). These referrals come from a variety of courtroom actors and courtaffiliated organizations, such as pretrial services. Additionally, many court navigation programs allow
self-referral. Once a person has been connected to a court navigation program, the court navigatorspeaks with the person to assess their needs and identifies appropriate services and support. Court
navigators often call ahead to schedule appointments, provide or arrange for transportation, or
directly connect the person with service providers. In this way, court navigators aim to have relatively
brief, informal interactions with people intended to identify needs, answer questions, and connect
people to resources all within a typical visit to the courthouse.

23

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

MethodWe conducted an environmental scan of active court navigation programs across the UnitedStates. We developed our inclusion criteria based on a thorough review of the existing literature on
nonlawyer court navigation programs and on discussions with a broad group of experts, including
legal professionals, court personnel, court navigators, clinicians, community-based service
providers, and researchers (see Figure 2). Our scan consisted of four steps. First, we reviewed
the existing literature on court navigator programs to identify potential programs for inclusion.
Second, we conducted internet searches for additional programs. We identified 107 programs forpotential inclusion in our environmental scan. Third, we attempted to schedule brief interviews
with each program to determine if programs met our inclusion criteria. We excluded 82 programs
because we could not reach them or they did not meet our inclusion criteria, resulting in a list of 25
potential programs. Fourth, we created and distributed a detailed survey that queried the program
development, funding, organizational structure, and service delivery. In total, 18 court navigation
programs that met inclusion criteria responded to the survey.

Figure 2

24

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

CRITERIA CATEGORYINCLUSION

EXCLUSION

Context of service
provision

Navigators offer services through a court,
court-based office (e.g. office of the publicdefender), court-affiilated resource (e.g. law
library, resource center), or pretrial service
agency. Services may also be offered in jail.

Navigators offer services exclusively
through jail or prison.

Nature of services
provided

Navigators provide guidance related tocourt processes and legal matters andconnect people to behavioral health,economic, and social services in thecommunity.

Navigators provide legal aid or provide
guidance exclusively related to the court
process and legal matters.

Population being
servedNavigators provide services to people withactive court cases (may provide services toothers including the public, court personnel,family members of people involved with thecourt).

Navigators provide services exclusively inthe context of a comprehensive program(e.g. assertive community treatment,
community court, jail diversion programs.)

Process of providing
services and making
referrals

Navigators offer services person to person
and include a warm handoff to communitybased service providers when possible.

Navigators offer services through a self-help
stand or kiosk and only connect people toservices by providing information about theservice provider.

Participation inservices

Navigator services are intended to beoffered on a voluntary basis.

Navigator services are offered exclusively
as a part of an alternative to incarceration
program, a specialty court program, acondition of release or exclusively by pretrial
services officers.

Jurisdictions served

Navigators offer services within the UnitedStates in the context of state or lower-level
courts (criminal, civil, juvenile, and family).

Navigators offer services outside the UnitedStates or exclusively under tribal or federal
jurisdiction.

COURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMS

Based on our conversations with program personnel and survey results, we compiled a compendiumof programs. All programs provided feedback to confirm accuracy in our representation of the
program. In our summary of findings below, we refer to all programs as court navigation programsfor clarity although several programs use different terminology. More complete descriptions of eachprogram are available in the Court Navigator Compendium (https://perma.cc/X29R-9DET).

Findings
Geography
The programs we surveyed were
geographically diverse. The 18 programs arelocated across 21 different states. Fourteen
programs are local and operate in a single
jurisdiction. Four programs operate in multiple
jurisdictions. Of those four, three operate
in courthouses across entire states. For
example, the Criminal Justice Behavioral
Health Liaison program provides services
across all 95 counties in Tennessee, while
another program, Partners for Justice,provides navigation services in multiple
counties across the United States. Twelve
programs operate in urban or suburban areas,
five in mixed suburban-rural areas, and one in
an entirely rural jurisdiction.

Program Development
The personnel providing navigation services
are employed by an array of organizations.
Some positions are directly employed by
the court in which they work. Other positions
are in the court but employed through local
government agencies. For example, the court
navigator in Phoenix, Arizona works withpeople in a municipal court and is employedby the city’s human services department.
Others are employed by local behavioral
health agencies that have partnerships
with county governments, as seen with theCriminal Justice Behavioral Health Liaison

program in Tennessee. Additionally, certain
court navigation programs, like Partners
for Justice or the program in Kalamazoo,
Michigan, are embedded within publicdefender’s offices.
Programs were typically developed throughpartnerships across various agencies,a common trend in their creation andsustainability. For instance, the Recovery
Support Navigator program in Massachusetts
is a product of collaborative efforts, stemmingfrom Sequential Intercept Mapping workshops(https://smtc.prainc.com/). During theseworkshops, representatives from different
parts of the criminal-legal continuum came
together to identify gaps in services within
their communities. As a result, a consortium
comprising the Executive Office of the
Trial Court, District Court, Probation, State
Medicaid Office, Massachusetts Alliancefor Sober Housing, Department of Public
Health-Bureau of Substance Addiction
Services, and the Department of Mental
Health collaborated to create the court
navigator position. Similarly, the navigator
position in Columbus, Ohio also resulted
from a collaboration between the court
administration, the Columbus Mayor’s Office,judicial leadership, and the Columbus Bar
Foundation, demonstrating the importance ofcross-agency cooperation in the developmentof these support roles.

25

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Population Served
While all programs provide services forpeople with ongoing court cases, theprograms surveyed report differences in theother populations that they serve. Half ofthe programs surveyed provide navigation
services exclusively for people involved incriminal cases, while half work with people
involved in civil court. For example, the court
navigator in Columbus mostly works withpeople who have open eviction cases. In
addition to serving people with open cases,
many programs provide services to those
who are adjacent to the court process. Elevenprograms also provide services for family
members of people who are facing criminal
charges. Nine programs are open to the
public, meaning they will provide services topeople even if they do not have open court
cases. The Community Resource Center inKing County, Washington is in a courthouse,
and anyone in the community can go to beconnected to resources. Some programs
emphasize vulnerable populations. For
instance, the court navigator in Englewood,
Colorado can provide services to anyone with
an open case but was specifically designed
to provide services to those experiencing
homelessness.

Referral Process
The court navigation programs we surveyed
all reported receiving referrals from a range of
personnel within the courthouse community,
such as judges, attorneys, and non-navigator
courthouse staff. Some programs also
reported referrals from community partners
outside of the courthouse. For example, thecourt navigator in Englewood, Colorado hasreceived referrals from employees of thecity’s public library. Several programs were
designed to facilitate self-referrals. Both26

the court navigator at the Justice Resource
Center in Buncombe County, North Carolina
and the court clinician in Chesterfield, Virginia
have desks strategically located in or near
the courthouse lobby, easily accessible toanyone entering. Similarly, some programs
operate as resource centers in courthouses.
The Resource Hub in Thurston County,
Washington, and the Community Resource
Center in Seattle are spaces within the
courthouse complex where people receiving
services can walk in at their convenience,
have quick intake appointments, and bereferred to appropriate services.

Services Provided
Sixteen of the court navigation programs
surveyed conduct rapid screenings todetermine a person’s needs and to connect
them with the appropriate resources forbehavioral health, economic and social
services, and legal aid. These assessments
are typically conducted during initial intake
meetings. Some programs are intentionallydesigned to streamline the referral process.
For instance, the social work navigator in
Columbus, Ohio streamlines the process with
five-to-ten-minute appointments, wherein
the navigator provides immediate referrals
based on assessed needs. Eleven programs
reported they conducted mental-health or
substance-use screening or both. Programs
often indicated that screening results alone
do not determine connection to services. If
a person expresses that they are seeking
behavioral health services, the navigator willrefer them to a community-based provider
for a more comprehensive assessment,
regardless of their screening results. Further,several programs indicated that they do not
conduct a formal screening. Instead, they
simply ask people if they would like to beconnected to behavioral health services.

COURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMS

Court navigation programs provide a variety
of direct services with the goal of meeting
economic and social needs. Eleven programs
offer transportation assistance to either
court proceedings or community-service
providers. This commitment ensures thatlogistical challenges do not hinder people
from seeking the help they need, while also
assisting in maintaining progress throughthe court process. Similarly, court navigation
programs offer direct services that can reduce
the administrative burden of accessing public
services. Eleven programs assist people withcompleting applications for Social Security
benefits or insurance enrollment, allowing
quicker access to needed resources. For
example, employees of the Community
Resource Center in King County, Washington
provide direct assistance to the people theywork with in applying for Social Security

benefits. Half of the programs directly provide
aid with essentials such as food, clothing, andshelter, which helps address resource-based
barriers to participation in the court process.
Sixteen programs assist court-involved
persons in navigating the physical courthouse,
and thirteen programs answered questions
about what steps were next in the court
process. In addition to these services, somecourt navigation programs offer assistance
related to legal tasks, though all programs
were clear that they do not provide legal
advice. Eleven programs assist people withlegal paperwork, either in locating the correct
documents or helping to ensure documents
are completed. Navigators in ten programs
were available to attend court hearings or
meetings with attorneys to provide support if
requested by the people receiving services.

27

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Conclusion
Across the United States, court navigation programs assist people in civil and criminal courts byproviding the knowledge and support necessary to navigate the complex procedural steps that
constitute court involvement. Court navigators also facilitate access to services needed to address
the underlying behavioral health or other needs that often drive court involvement. Providing aid tothose with behavioral health needs is especially critical during a time when courts have become oneof the primary sources of referral to both substance use and mental health treatment (Marks andTurner, 2014). Indeed, a National Judicial Task Force convened to examine state courts’ response
to mental illness and acknowledged the role courts must play in addressing the needs of people
with serious mental illness. Suggestions included connecting people with community services andsupports, bringing behavioral health specialists and social workers into court flow, and expanding
the use of behavioral health screening and assessment (Reiber and Marks, 2022). Court navigation
programs are one strategy to incorporate these suggestions.
Our compendium offers a starting point to explore examples of court navigator programs that could
be adopted and adapted to fit local needs. The court navigator position is flexible by design andthe programs to which we spoke emphasized their deliberate focus on addressing the needs mostprevalent within their communities by connecting people to locally developed resource networks.
Courts interested in developing a navigation program may benefit from assembling a team ofcommunity partners to discuss unique ways a court navigation program can help their community.
In doing so, they can create a program that meets the specific needs of the people they serve within
the bounds of the resources available in their community.
There is still much that is unknown about court navigation programs. While several of the
programs we spoke with are collecting data on potential outcome measures, there has not been
a comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness. Anecdotal evidence supports the value ofcourt navigators. As part of our ongoing work exploring court navigator programs, we have begun
conducting interviews and site visits with several programs. One person in Tennessee described
the navigators as glue that pulls the system together toward the goal of getting a person access toservices. Navigators communicate with the people in the courtroom, the jail, the family, the service
provider, and the persons seeking services themselves: “[T]hat really takes a lot of pressure off ofthese other individuals that have their own jobs and responsibilities and speeds up the process of
individuals getting [to services].” This observation was echoed by a person who was connected toa transitional living facility by the navigator: “I couldn’t tell you how much I appreciate the work that[the navigator has done, they] went over and beyond what [their] job title is . . . every state ought tohave this.” Once interviews and site visits have been completed, we hope to conduct formal outcome
evaluations examining the effectiveness of these programs in enhancing outcomes for courts andindividuals.

28

COURT NAVIGATION PROGRAMS

References
Couloute, L., and D. Kopf (2018). “Out of Prison and Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly
Incarcerated People.” Report, Prison Policy Initiative.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27307
Desmond, M., and C. Gershenson (2017). “Who Gets Evicted? Assessing Individual, Neighborhood, andNetwork Factors.” 62 Social Science Research 362.
https://perma.cc/JSF8-SGZR
Dollar, C. B., B. Ray, M. K. Hudson, and B. J. Hood (2018). “Examining Changes in Procedural Justice andTheir Influence on Problem-Solving Court Outcomes.” 36 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 32.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2329
Hagan, M. (2018). “A Human-Centered Design Approach to Access to Justice: Generating New
Prototypes and Hypotheses for Interventions to Make Courts User-Friendly.” 6 Indiana Journal of Law andSocial Equality 199.
Marks, J. S., and N. Turner (2014). “The Critical Link Between Health Care and Jails.” 33 Health Affairs 443.
https://perma.cc/2W75-N96B
McClymont, M. E. (2019). “Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus.” Report,
Justice Lab, Georgetown Law Center.
https://perma.cc/333E-LWRF
Menendez, M., and L. B. Eisen (2019). “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines.” Report,
Brennan Center for Justice, November 21.
https://perma.cc/7NAK-HB93
Redlich, A. D., and W. Han (2014). “Examining the Links Between Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mental
Health Court Completion.” 38 Law and Human Behavior 109.
https://perma.cc/VQS5-MPS2
Reiber, P., and L. Marks (2022). “State Courts Leading Change: Reports and Recommendations.” Report,
National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts’ Response to Mental Illness.
https://perma.cc/SW2E-JS8D
Sandefur, R. L. (2019). “Access to What?” 148 Daedalus 49.
Zottola, S. A., B. Morrissey, S. L. Desmarais, E. C. Hope, L. Callahan, I. A. Massey, A. J. Fortuna, and R. A.
Van Dorn (2023). “Understanding and Preventing Frequent Jail Contact.” In D. Rudes, G. Armstrong, K.
Kras, and T. Carter, eds., Handbook on Prisons and Jails. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

29

STUDY: REMOTE VS IN-PERSON FAMILY COURT HEARINGSLITIGANT EMPOWERMENTTHROUGH CHOICE?

Insights from an
Ongoing Study ofRemote versus
In-Person Family
Court Hearings
There is little credible evidence to help inform policy and practice for remote courts. In
this study of self-represented family law litigants, preliminary information suggests that
remote court may not affect appearance rates or case timelines but may come at a cost interms of litigants’ perceptions of fairness.

Emily LaGratta
LaGratta Consulting
Renee Danser
Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School
D. James Greiner
Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School

31

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Why This Research? Why Now?
Most courts used some version of remote appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many
chose to continue doing so afterward, at least to some extent. Yet little credible research exists to
help guide court leaders in setting policy and practice. Thus far, the most useful thing the researchfinds is “it depends.”
In this article we describe an ongoing study exploring the interplay among remote versus in-person
appearances, case timelines, access, and perceived fairness. The Access to Justice Lab at Harvard
Law School (A2J Lab) and LaGratta Consulting LLC, with funding from the State Justice Institute andin partnership with the commissioners and court staff of the Third District Court in Salt Lake County,
recently embarked on an investigation of the experiences of the most vulnerable, and common, classof litigants: self-represented litigants (SRLs) in family law matters. The rise in remote-proceeding
offerings brought on initially by the COVID-19 pandemic makes understanding this interplay
critical. This article summarizes the progress at the study’s halfway point to inform ongoing policy
discussions in advance of the publication of the full report in 2025.

State of the Research: What Do We Already Know?
Research to understand the effect of widespread remote justice is scant, particularly in family law
where 80 percent of litigants are SRLs (California Judicial Council, 2005; Engler, 1999). What weknow thus far from a mere two articles, both with severe methodological limits, is that litigants in thispopulation perceived that online hearings, as compared to in-person proceedings, hindered fairness(i.e., procedural justice) but improved their ability to attend (Thornburg, 2020; Munro and Riel, 2020).
That said, the methodologies of both studies limited their definitiveness.
Some scholars posit that remote proceedings help equalize inequities by reducing the opportunity
cost of attending in-person proceedings.1 Others suggest that remote participation may replicate theaccessibility problems of in-person appearances (Morris, 2021).
There is no clear guidance regarding whether sustaining remote appearances necessitated by the
pandemic facilitates or inhibits justice system access or fairness, let alone case timelines. Some
recent research is helping the field to get closer to understanding how best to proceed. Quintanilla
et al. (2023) found a preference for remote proceedings among SRLs in large-scale civil dockets. In
this study, judicial officers chose to conduct some hearings remotely and adapted their processes
to accommodate remote users, rather than merely replicating the in-person process, such as using
breakout rooms for mediation. It seems that the court improved the remote court process—andlitigant satisfaction was correspondingly higher. In contrast, in rural settings, Statz (2022) foundthat litigants overwhelmingly prefer to appear in person, a preference perhaps attributable to aprevalence of “active judging,” where judges actively assist SRLs to navigate the system. Similarly,

1

32

Thornburg, 2020: 188; Munro and Riel, 2020; 259. See also Sela, 2016, for a broader discussion, extending beyond
family law, of how online courts can help SRLs better obtain justice.

STUDY: REMOTE VS IN-PERSON FAMILY COURT HEARINGSLaGratta Consulting’s (2022) prior Court
Voices Project found that litigants from rural
pilot courts preferred attending court inperson, which was not consistent with thepreferences of litigants in the urban pilot
courts.

Study Design
This study tests three hypotheses using arandomized control trial (RCT) design tocollect quantitative data, litigant surveys, andother qualitative data. The three hypothesesare 1) online proceedings do not change casetimelines; 2) online proceedings increase
participation; and 3) online proceedings
decrease litigant perceptions of fairness. We
test these hypotheses using an RCT that
randomly assigns litigants to in-person or
remote participation. Random assignment
ensures to the extent feasible that groups
are statistically identical except for whether
participation occurred remotely or in-person,
allowing us to know with as much certainty
as we can that the intervention caused
any observed differences in timelines orexperiences.2

The RCT and Quantitative
Data Collection
We randomly assign custody and divorce
matters scheduled to appear on the pro secalendar docket. Commissioner Joanna
Sagers designed the pro se calendar as amechanism to allow SRLs to engage with
their cases in an environment with system
supports, including lawyers-for-the-day
who can assist litigants if so desired. Somelitigants in the study have private or consistent
legal counsel, but most do not. Once a2case enters the study, we follow it throughcourt orders, docket entries, and minutes ofproceedings. Data collection continues until
September 2024.
Random assignment must occur upon
the appearance of the case on the pro secalendar to allow clerks to schedule hearings
quickly. Therefore, we assign cases basedon their case number, with the understandingthat case numbers themselves are as goodas randomly assigned because neither parties
nor court staff can manipulate the casenumber. The court divides pro se calendar
dockets into days for remote cases and inperson cases. The court provides litigants
either a notice to appear in person or one toappear remotely.
For the quantitative portion of the evaluation,
we evaluate case-processing timelines andfailure-to-appear (FTA) rates. We study
whether the medium is the cause of 1) longer
periods of time to disposition; 2) less durabilityof that disposition, measured by length oftime to a modification or enforcement request
with shorter periods of time indicating lessdurability; and 3) a difference in FTA rates.

Litigant Surveys and Observations
To gauge litigants’ experience, we use a brief
survey asking a few questions about litigants’experience as they leave their court hearing
and structured court observations. Thissection describes those activities.
We administer surveys to litigants appearing
in person via an iPad kiosk at the back of
the courtroom and to litigants appearing
remotely for whom email addresses were

See Angrist, 2006: 24, arguing that randomized studies are considered the gold standard for scientific evidence.

33

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

known (the vast majority) via a follow-up email. Simple signs were posted at the courtroom entrance
or inside the courtroom, inviting participation in the survey, including via QR code (see Figure 1).
Approximately 20 percent of all litigants responded in both surveying contexts, which is a relatively
high response rate for an unmanned and uncompensated effort. The questions asked are outlined
below.

Figure 1

iPad Kiosk Signage and Placement

We conduct court observations periodically during the study through attendance at some remote andin-person proceedings. We look for visible indicators of litigants’ experience with the key dimensionsof procedural justice (e.g., confusion or misunderstanding of aspects of the process or judicial
rulings), conflict or safety concerns among opposing parties, technological challenges, and otherfactors that may influence access or fairness.

34

STUDY: REMOTE VS IN-PERSON FAMILY COURT HEARINGS

Early Insights
Using these methodologies and the data collected so far, we engage in preliminary data analysis tounderstand trends and offer early insights although we cannot opine on causation until we collectand analyze all data. Within this preliminary context, we can explore case-processing trends andlitigant experience metrics obtained thus far.

Case-Processing-Timeline Trends
Initial data offer insights into trends related to time to disposition and durability metrics. We see little
effect in the current data set on time to disposition and durability between each medium. Figure 2
shows the mean number of weeks for time to disposition and durability metrics. We can calculate
time to disposition only when the metric exists. We do not include data for cases with no disposition
or no modification or enforcement request. At the conclusion of data collection, more advanced
statistical methods can be used to account for cases which never get to those data points.

Figure 2

Average Number of Weeks to Case Event for Remote and In-Person Cases
158.02150.93153.5 154150
138.01117.31

123.4

106.18Mean Weeks

100

50

43.44

49.13

0
Initiation to
Disposition

Disposition to
Modification

Disposition to
Enforcement

Modification or
Enforcement to
Disposition

Initiation to Final
Recorded Event

Case Event
In-Person Hearing

Virtual Hearing

35

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Based on the court minutes, we can determine petitioner and respondent presence at each hearing.
We are forced to assume that all absences are considered FTA. We display the proportion ofhearings for which the individual failed to appear below in Figure 3.
Both parties appear at most of their hearings, with little variation between each medium. Thissuggests medium may not affect FTA, contrary to our initial hypothesis that remote proceedings
would facilitate increased participation.

Figure 3

Mean Proportion of FTA by Study Condition

0.4

Mean Proportion of FTAs

0.3

0.38

0.3

0.37

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Petitioner

Respondent

PersonIn-Person Hearing

36

Virtual Hearing

STUDY: REMOTE VS IN-PERSON FAMILY COURT HEARINGS

Litigant Experience
As with administrative data, the litigant
survey data received as of September 2023
gave a preview of potential trends in litigant
experiences.
Of all responding litigants, most rate theirexperience as fair when asked, “Did thecourt treat you fairly today?” However, therates vary by medium. Approximately 84
percent of in-person litigants answered thisquestion favorably, while only 65 percent of
remote litigants did so. Figure 4 depicts thisquestion as viewed by remote-medium study
participants. Response numbers and rates
to date are similar across both contexts,
with approximately 60 litigants responding inremote and in-person settings, respectively (a20 percent response rate as noted above).
As to litigants’ appearance-medium
preferences, only a slight majority prefer theirrandomly assigned medium. Specifically,
44 percent of remote litigants indicate apreference for in-person appearance, and41 percent of in-person litigants indicate a

Figure 4

Fairness Survey Question 		for Remote Litigantspreference for remote appearance. Statedanother way, approximately half of litigantsprefer appearing remotely and half preferappearing in person.
In response to the third and final question,“How could the court better serve you?,”
several litigants offer constructive feedback
about some procedural aspects of remoteappearances, and several comments centeron the procedural justice dimension of voice,more so in the remote context than in person.
Examples of each are presented in Figures 5
and 6.

Figure 5

Fairness Survey Responses
About Remote Court
Procedures• The connection failed and froze several times
during my hearing.
• I would just check in with everyone at the start andmaybe in between cases. I was on the line for over
1.5 hours and wasn’t sure what was going on.
• I wish things ran on time. I also wish that thecommissioner had given me the chance to talk.

Figure 6

Fairness Survey Questions
for Remote Litigants• To actually have a (volunteer) attorney torepresent me would have been nice, that way,
maybe my concerns would have actually been
heard.
• [The Commissioner] asks open questions notdirected at a specific person and if I answer acts
like I spoke out of turn.
• The court could have improved my experience byletting me explain my side of the issue• Let me be heard.

37

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

How Can We Use This Information Now?
While we still have additional data to collect and analyze, and thus cannot say for certain that
preliminary trends will hold up, it is valuable to take notice at this stage what factors and measures
all court leaders should be monitoring closely. Namely, dimensions of litigant choice, access,appearance rates, and perceptions of fairness all seem to be key pieces for understanding what
is happening in these cases, alongside more traditional administrative case data. And it seems we
may be approaching a new paradigm: that court timelines and attendance are not impacted muchin either appearance context, yet litigants have preferences for how they handle their court matters.
Perhaps courts do not need to prescribe the medium by which hearings must occur to maximize thebenefits for courts or court users.
In this vein, the early insights for this project reveal a couple of broad takeaways:
1. At least in the short-term, medium may not affect case timelines. But it is not enough to lookonly at case timelines without considering the impact on the litigant experience.
2. When read alongside other recent research, these insights caution against generalizing thepolicy question to a binary “to Zoom or not.”If the trends hold up, it may be that there is no difference on key court case-processing metrics,
at least in the studied contexts, and litigant preferences seem split. Adapting remote processes
to maximize the experience in ways with which judicial officers feel comfortable, which seems
necessary for fairness, we may find that more litigants prefer remote appearances, as happened in
the Quintanilla et al. (2023) study. If the perceived benefits of in-person appearances are important
to a litigant and cannot be achieved in a remote setting, as observed in the Statz (2022) work, we
may find more litigants appearing in person.
It is worth noting that there are also downstream benefits to approaches that generate improved
perceptions of fairness. Litigants who perceive their experience in court to be fair are more likely tocomply voluntarily with court orders and appear in court next time (Tyler, 2007).
Considering the infrastructure now exists for both in most courts, albeit by necessity, and there
may be no outsized case processing harm done to either SRLs or the courts, perhaps the power
to choose should rest with the individuals that are in the best position to know what works best forthemselves and who have the most at stake.

38

STUDY: REMOTE VS IN-PERSON FAMILY COURT HEARINGS

References
Angrist, J. D. (2006). “Instrumental Variables Methods in Experimental Criminological Research: What,
Why and How.” 2 Journal of Experimental Criminology 23.
Engler, R. (1999). “And Justice for All—Including the Unrepresented Poor: Revisiting the Roles of theJudges, Mediators, and Clerks.” 67 Fordham Law Review 1987.
Judicial Council of California (2005). “Model Self-Help Pilot Program: A Report to the Legislature.”Prepared by the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, March.
LaGratta Consulting (2022). “Using Court User Feedback to Guide Courts’ Pandemic Responses.”
Report prepared as part of the Court Voices Project, August.
https://perma.cc/U8U9-QAKE
Morris, E. K. (2021). “Custody Quagmire: Covid-19 Has Forced Family Law Attorneys to Adjust.” Oregon
State Bar Bulletin, June, p. 20.
Munro, L. B., and N. M. Riel (2020). “Our Virtual Reality: Facing the Constitutional Dimensions ofVirtual Family Court.” 54 Family Law Quarterly 245.
Quintanilla, V. D., K. Hugenberg, R. Hutchings, and N. Yel (2023). “Accessing Justice with Zoom:
Experiences and Outcomes in Online Civil Courts.” Report prepared for the Indiana University Mauer
School of Law.
https://perma.cc/E7HM-H7A6
Sela, A. (2016). “Streamlining Justice: How Online Courts Can Resolve the Challenges of Pro Se
Litigation.” 26 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 331.
Statz, M. (2022). “‘It Is Here We Are Loved’”: Rural Place Attachment in Active Judging and Access toJustice.” 49 Law and Social Inquiry 247.
Thornburg, E. G. (2020). “Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic.” 54 Family Law
Quarterly 181.
Tyler, T. R. (2007). “Procedural Justice and the Courts.” 44 Court Review 26.
https://perma.cc/3MVU-7C6C

39

CUSTOMER-CENTERED JUVENILE JUSTICE

Customer-Centered
Juvenile Justice
Juvenile offenders and their victims can benefit from a restorative justice approach.
This article highlights the latest evidence on restorative justice, evaluates innovative
programs, and offers practical recommendations for effective implementation.

Logan Seacrest
R Street Institute, Resident Fellow
Society has debated how to respond when a young person breaks the law since before the juvenile
court was introduced in 1899 (Shepherd, 1999). Restorative justice unites timeworn wisdom with afirst-principles focus on the justice system’s “customers”—namely, victims and young people whohave caused harm—recognizing that those most affected by crime are best equipped to determine
a just outcome. This approach has proven effective in a variety of contexts from international
peace tribunals to the school playground. While juvenile courts across the country have been
experimenting with restorative practices for over 40 years, new research and innovative programs
continue to push the field forward.

41

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Customer-Centered Justice
Similar to successful companies that start with the customer and work backward, restorative justiceseeks to understand and prioritize the needs of people who come into contact with the justicesystem. By listening to key stakeholders, including community members, victims, and young people
who have caused harm, restorative justice puts the justice system’s core customers at the center ofthe process.
A customer-centered, restorative model of juvenile justice elevates the role of victims, holds young
people accountable, and heals—to the extent possible—the emotional scars and material losses ofboth. This recontextualizes delinquency as a breach of human relationships rather than primarily aviolation of the law. Crimes are not transgressions against an impersonal, monolithic state; they areacts against specific human beings. Instead of owing a debt to society, young people owe a debt
to their victims. This approach contrasts with the adversarial nature of the state-centered system,
which inhibits victims and young people from engaging in meaningful communication (see Table
1). Sometimes, victims and offenders are even explicitly forbidden from interacting by court order.
While separation can be important in some cases, unnecessary barriers can postpone healing andhinder efforts to ascertain the deeper causes of crime. The winner-take-all nature of the traditional,
state-centered system replaces the search for truth and reconciliation with the desire for victory over
the opposing side. This zero-sum incentive structure deters taking personal responsibility, which
psychologists suggest is an important step in rehabilitation (Bibas and Bierschbach, 2004).

Table 1

Restorative Justice vs. State-Centered Justice

RESTORATIVE JUSTICESTATE-CENTERED JUSTICE

Crime violates people and relationships

Crime violates the state and its laws

The central parties are the victim and the person
who caused harm

The central parties are the state and thedefendant

Justice focuses on individual needs andobligations so that things can be made rightJustice focuses on establishing guilt so thatblame can be assigned

Justice is sought through dialogue and mutual
agreement

Justice is sought through a conflict between
adversaries

Accountability is achieved by making amends andrepairing harm

Accountability is achieved by punishing
offendersAdapted from Zehr, 2015.

42

CUSTOMER-CENTERED JUVENILE JUSTICE

Even though the modern incarnation came to prominence in the 1970s, restorative justice is an
old idea rooted in ancient cultures from around the globe (Zehr, 2015). For millennia, indigenous
populations in New Zealand, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere have relied on restorative
principles to deal with wrongdoing. Rather than focusing solely on the fault of a single individual,
these traditions are based on the interconnectedness of all within the community. As one restorative
justice practitioner explains, “indigenous people in the Pacific Northwest call it ‘breathing the smokeof the same fire.’ The idea is we are connected, not just through the fact we are all human, but
intimately linked by breathing the same air at the same time” (Logan Seacrest interview with KimikoLighty, Zoom, March 14, 2023).
So far, 45 states have enacted laws supporting the use of restorative justice or similar models, and35 have codified the use of restorative justice in juvenile justice processes (see Figure 1; González,2020; OPPAGA, 2020). These interventions can occur at various contact points in the juvenile justiceprocess. Some deflect or divert youth from formal system involvement, whereas others happen postadjudication as part of a juvenile disposition (OJJDP, 2021). Regardless of where in the process it
occurs, the goal of a restorative justice conference is always to bring together victims, young people,
and their families to come up with a collective plan to repair the harm caused by wrongdoing.

Figure 1

Juvenile Restorative Justice Laws in the United States

LegendIdeological or Funding,
No Structure
Discretionary
with Structure
Mandatory
with Structure
Source: NCSL, 2022.

43

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Innovations in Juvenile Restorative Justice
Most innovations to make the criminal justice system more customer centric have occurred within
juvenile justice (OJJDP, 2021). As less cognitively developed than adults, children are more
malleable to restorative interventions, particularly those involving family and peers (Suzuki andWood, 2017). Over the last 30 years, an enormous amount of research on these programs has
been published. Until recently, much of this research has been limited by methodological issues,
such as small sample sizes, lack of random assignments, nonequivalent control groups, and varieddefinitions of re-offense (Umbreit and Coates, 1993). Due to the voluntary nature of restorative
justice programs and their restriction to mostly minor and nonviolent offenses, older studies havealso suffered from threats to validity, such as self-selection bias (Pointer, 2021).
With these technical limitations in mind, in 2022 the California Policy Lab conducted a randomized
controlled trial—the gold standard for social science research—to empirically determine the impactof restorative justice. They selected a program called Make-It-Right (MIR), which differs from otherrestorative justice programs because it prioritizes more serious cases, such as robberies, assaults,
and weapons violations (Logan Seacrest interview with Kyle Magallanes, Email, April 10, 2023).
To evaluate Make-It-Right, researchers randomly assigned eligible youth to either receive an offer
to participate in restorative justice (intervention group) or be processed through traditional juvenile
prosecution (control group). The researchers found that juveniles in the intervention group were,on average, 19 percent less likely to be rearrested than those in the control group, an astonishing
reduction for a one-time intervention (Shem-Tov, Raphael, and Skog, 2022). In addition, the study
suggested the program had a causal effect, as rearrest rates among youth who completed it weremuch lower (19.2 percent) than those who enrolled but did not finish (57.7 percent). The reductionin arrests continued four years after participation, providing strong evidence that Make-It-Right can
reduce justice-system involvement among youth charged with relatively serious offenses (see Figure
2; Shem-Tov, Raphael, and Skog, 2022).

Figure 2

Rearrest Probability Curve in the Four Years Following Make-It-Right

0.80

Probability of rearrest

Control
0.60

Assigned MIR(treatment)
0.40

0.20

0.00
0

6

12

18

24

30

36

Months from randomization

44

42

48

Source: Reprinted
with permission
from Shem-Tov,
Raphael, andSkog, 2022.

CUSTOMER-CENTERED JUVENILE JUSTICE

Nebraska is another state that has invested heavily in making its juvenile justice system morecustomer centric. In January 2018, the state set out to integrate restorative practices into every
aspect of its juvenile justice system (NEB. REV. STAT. §43-260.03). One of Nebraska’s innovations
is the use of youth surrogates in cases where victim participation is either not possible or not
appropriate (Blankley and Jimenez, 2019). Surrogates do not necessarily represent the victim,
but instead engage the youth in a dialogue about the harm they caused. Even if a crime has
no individually identifiable victim, such as cases of drunk driving or drugs, surrogates who havebeen adversely affected by substance abuse can confront the destructive nature of the conduct
in a personal way. Nebraska trains former justice-involved youth to be future surrogates, which
benefits the program and provides continuing restorative benefits to participants who go on to
become volunteers (see Figure 3). So far, Nebraska has one of the only programs nationwide that
intentionally identifies and trains former youth offenders to be victim surrogates in future cases(Blankley and Jimenez, 2019: 44).

Figure 3

Participation in Nebraska Victim-Youth Conferences

Conference with actual victim (233; 34.4%)
Conference with youth surrogate (147; 21.7%)

Conference with community member (23; 3%)
Hybrid VYC: victim and surrogate (15; 2%)
Not Reported (7; 1%)
Conference with adult surrogate (22; 37.2%)

Source: Data derived from Jimenez, 2021.

45

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Nebraska’s program has proven successful across a number of metrics:• Of 871 case referrals, 78 percent held a restorative conference.
• Of the 677 conferences, 99.6 percent produced a reparation plan.
• Of the 668 cases with a reparation plan, 88.8 percent were successfully fulfilled.
• Overall, 90 percent of participants reported being satisfied with the outcome and would
recommend the process to others.
• Overall, 90 percent of youth participants did not recidivate within one year of participating in the
program (Jimenez, 2021).

Benefits for Victims
A customer-centered criminal justice system should help victims heal. However, the traditional
system can leave little room for victims, who are too often either treated like pieces of evidenceor excluded from the process entirely (Bazelon and Green, 2020). One of the greatest sources offrustration for victims is the difficulty in getting information about their cases (Strang et al., 2006).
Restorative justice conferences are a useful venue for victims to get questions answered, suchas “Why did you target me?,” “Am I safe now?,” and “How will you make this right?” directly fromthe source (GravitasOPG, 2021). Empowering victims to narrate their trauma and define their own
needs, rather than have them defined by the state or even victim advocates, can be a critical step intranscending the experience of a crime (Sherman and Strang, 2007).
Research suggests that victims who participate in restorative justice report higher levels ofsatisfaction, increased perceptions of fairness, and enhanced psychological benefits compared to
victims that suffered the same type of crime but went through the conventional legal process (Allanet al., 2022). A 2023 meta-analysis found that victims experience considerable reductions in negative
emotions (fear, anger, guilt, anxiety, distress, etc.) after a restorative conference (Nascimento,
Andrade, and Castro Rodrigues, 2022). This catharsis persisted over a period of years, indicatingthat a transformation from “victim” status to “survivor” status had occurred, which is imperative toemotional recovery following a traumatic event. Interestingly, the severity of the crime appears tohave little effect on victim satisfaction or outcomes (Umbreit, Vos, and Amour, 2006).

46

CUSTOMER-CENTERED JUVENILE JUSTICE

Challenges
As juvenile courts move toward a more customer-centered approach to justice, it is worth notingsome common challenges. Like any transaction between a business and a customer, consent
is a prerequisite for participation in a restorative process. However, children may not always
understand that participation is voluntary. Consider a young person who is given the choice between
a restorative program or taking their chances in court. In such a situation, even a wrongly accusedminor might feel pressured to falsely accept responsibility to avoid further legal ramifications(Suzuki and Wood, 2018). Research has confirmed this issue, suggesting that some youth
agree to restorative justice purely out of self-interest, especially when the alternative is viewed
as worse (Choi, Green, and Gilbert, 2011). Moreover, in a restorative process, young people are
expected to display significant emotional maturity, even when they may lack the psychological tools
necessary to do so (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Many justice-involved youth have underdeveloped
communication skills, limiting their ability to express remorse in a way that would be perceived as
genuine, leading to suboptimal restorative outcomes (Snow, 2013).

Recommendations
To address concerns over coercion, one solution is for courts to make restorative justice the default
response to certain delinquent behaviors. Courts should also consider expanding referral criteria
beyond misdemeanors to include more serious offenses and implementing a screening process toensure youth have the cognitive and emotional capacity to meaningfully participate. Victims should
also be screened and substituted with surrogates as necessary, particularly in domestic violence
cases or other situations in which victim participation could be inappropriate or harmful (Choi,
Bazemore, and Gilbert, 2012). Finally, for restorative justice to work, everyone involved must be able
to talk openly and honestly, without fear their words will later be weaponized against them. “Reverse
Miranda Rights” ensure that what is said in a restorative setting remains confidential and will not be
used as evidence or an admission of guilt in subsequent legal proceedings. In other words, insteadof the right to remain silent, individuals should have the right to be heard.

Conclusion
Restorative justice is a philosophy that challenges the justice system to adopt a more customercentric approach that can better address the needs of victims, youth, and communities. When those
closest to injustice take ownership in helping resolve it, an ethic of co-responsibility can emerge—arecognition that crime arises in a social context and fault usually does not lie entirely with theaccused. The evidence-based recommendations provided here can improve public safety outcomes
and lower costs by reducing the need for court time, probation officers, and other judicial system
resources (Baliga, Henry, and Valentina, 2017). By taking a page from the business world andadopting a more customer-centered philosophy, leaders can create a “five-star” court system thatmaximizes healing and provides lasting justice.

47

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

References
Allan, A., J. de Mott, I. M. Larkins, L. Turnbull, T. Warwick, L. Willett, and M. M. Allan (2022). “The Impact
of Voluntariness of Apologies on Victims’ Responses in Restorative Justice: Findings of a Quantitative
Study.” 29 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 593.
https://perma.cc/366C-K835
Baliga, S., S. Henry, and G. Valentina (2017). “Restorative Community Conferencing: A Study ofCommunity Works West’s Restorative Justice Youth Diversion Program in Alameda County.” Report
prepared for Impact Justice and Community Works West, Oakland, California.
https://perma.cc/RAU6-VCMD
Bibas, S., and R. A. Bierschbach (2004). “Integrating Remorse and Apology into Criminal Procedure.”
114 Yale Law Journal 85.
https://perma.cc/7N56-DTU8
Bazelon, L., and B. Green (2020). “Victims’ Rights from a Restorative Perspective.” 17 Ohio State Journalof Criminal Law 2287.
https://perma.cc/37BQ-WAJM
Blankley, K. M., and A. C. Jimenez (2019). “Restorative Justice and Youth Offenders in Nebraska.” 98
Nebraska Law Review 44.
https://tinyurl.com/4u8je54s
Choi, J. J., G. Bazemore, and M. J. Gilbert (2012). “Review of Research on Victims’ Experiences in
Restorative Justice: Implications for Youth Justice.” 34 Children and Youth Services Review 35.
https://perma.cc/YL5X-SF5L
Choi, J. J., D. L. Green, and M. J. Gilbert (2011). “Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Studyon Restorative Justice Processes for Youths.” 28 Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 335.
https://perma.cc/T36B-QBTH
González, T. (2020). “The Legalization of Restorative Justice: A Fifty-State Empirical Analysis.” 2019
Utah Law Review 1027.
https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=ulr
Gravitas OPG (2021). “Victim Satisfaction Survey 2021.” Report prepared for the New Zealand
Ministry of Justice, September.
https://perma.cc/V5AQ-YHXYJimenez, A. C. (2021). “Victim Youth Conferencing Evaluation: January 2018-June 2021 VYC
Enhancement Initiative Final Report.” Prepared for Office of Dispute Resolution, Administrative Officeof the Courts and Probation, Nebraska, June.
https://perma.cc/7AC8-MPXH
Nascimento, A. M., J. Andrade, and A. de Castro Rodrigues (2022). “The Psychological Impact ofRestorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes—a Systematic Review.” 24 Trauma, Violence, andAbuse 1929.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380221082085
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2022). “Juvenile Justice: Young People andRestorative Justice.” Report, October 12.
https://perma.cc/BGS3-VGY348

CUSTOMER-CENTERED JUVENILE JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (2021). “Restorative Justice for
Juveniles: Literature Review.” Product of Model Programs Guide, Washington, D.C., August.
https://perma.cc/LLY5-FPKB
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) (2020). “A Review of
Restorative Justice in Florida and Other States.” Report 20-02, Tallahassee, Florida, January.
https://perma.cc/QJQ2-X2GJ
Pointer, L. (2021). “What Is ‘Restorative Justice’ and How Does It Impact Individuals Involved in Crime?”
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance National Training and Technical AssistanceCenter, Washington, D.C., August 5.
https://perma.cc/V6TS-N6LY
Scott, E. S., and L. Steinberg (2008). “Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime.” 18:2
The Future of Children 15.
https://perma.cc/C3PL-AXUD
Shem-Tov, Y., S. Raphael, and A. Skog (2022). “The Impacts of the Make-it-Right Program on Recidivism.”
Policy Brief, California Policy Lab, University of California, January.
https://perma.cc/ME4J-XSSN
Shepherd, R. E., Jr. (1999). “Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back.” 6 Juvenile Justice 13.
https://perma.cc/T6QT-E39F
Sherman, L. W., and H. Strang (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute.
https://perma.cc/MV9L-9AJ9
Snow, P. (2013). “Restorative Justice Conferencing, Oral Language Competence, and Young Offenders:
Are These High-Risk Conversations?” 20 Prevention Researcher 18.
https://perma.cc/P4TY-XF9P
Strang, H., C. M. Angel, D. Woods, and L. W. Sherman (2006). “Victim Evaluations of Face-to-Face
Restorative Justice Conferences: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis.” 62 Journal of Social Issues 281.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227658960_Victim_Evaluations_of_Face-to-Face_
Restorative_Justice_Conferences_A_Quasi-Experimental_Analysis
Suzuki, M., and W. R. Wood (2018). “Is Restorative Justice Conferencing Appropriate for Youth
Offenders?” 18 Criminology and Criminal Justice 450.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817722188
Umbreit, M. S., and R. B. Coates (1993). “Cross-Site Analysis of Victim-Offender Mediation in Four
States.” 39 Crime and Delinquency 565.
https://perma.cc/9ZGV-F4UA
Umbreit, M. S., B. Vos, and M. P. Amour (2006). “Victims of Severe Violence in Mediated Dialogue with
Offender: The Impact of the First Multi-Site Study in the U.S.” 13 International Review of Victimology 27.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026975800601300102
Zehr, H. (2015). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

49

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

50

MULTIDISCIPLINARY REPRESENTATION FOR PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY CASES

Multidisciplinary
Representation
for Parents in
Dependency Cases
Many jurisdictions are establishing multidisciplinary representation programs to provide
additional support to families in the child welfare system. This article discusses anevaluation of one such program in New Mexico and provides recommendations for courts
looking to implement multidisciplinary representation programs.

Teri Deal
Deputy Managing Director, Court Consulting Services, National Center for State Courts
Alicia Summers
Founder and Director, Data Savvy Consulting
The New Mexico Family Advocacy
Program (NMFAP) was designed to provide
multidisciplinary representation for parents
in the child welfare system. NMFAP focusedon identifying and securing appropriate
placement, promoting frequent and quality
visitation, providing tailored supportive
services, and ensuring parents’ involvementin their case planning. Parents in childwelfare cases had access to a legal teamthat included a highly trained attorney, amaster’s-level social worker contracted by
the New Mexico Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC), and a parent mentor. The

parent mentors who worked in NMFAP had
experience in the child welfare system andwere also contracted by the AOC.
Multidisciplinary representation models havedemonstrated positive results for families
in other states. For example, an evaluationin New York demonstrated that children
whose parents received multidisciplinary
representation spent 118 fewer days infoster care during the four years following
the case filing (Gerber et al., 2019). A studyof a similar program in Washington State
found that enhanced parental representation

51

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Four Cornerstones of the Advocacy Model

1

Identify and secure an appropriate placement, which will keep the child connectedto their family, community, and culture2

Promote frequent and quality visitation between parents and their children to
maintain and strengthen the family relationship

3

Provide tailored supportive services to parents to address the circumstances that
led to contact with the child welfare system

4

Ensure that parents are meaningfully involved in their case planning and thatimportant decisions are made in collaborative family conferences, outside of thecourtroom whenever possible

is associated with an increase in the rateof family reunification (Courtney, Hook, andOrme, 2011). The evidence of the benefitsof multidisciplinary representation has led
the American Bar Association Center onChildren and the Law to include access to a
multidisciplinary team in their best practices
for child welfare attorneys.
Although the evaluation of the NMFAP
did not find a significant difference intime to reunification for families withmultidisciplinary representation, programcases were significantly more likely toreunify than nonprogram cases or thosedischarged from the program before
reaching permanency. This article describes
implementation challenges that may have
impacted the outcomes for the NMFAP
and recommendations for states interested
in implementing and evaluating their own
multidisciplinary representation program.

52

Implementation Challenges
The Children’s Bureau awarded the New
Mexico AOC one of the Strengthening Child
Welfare Systems to Achieve Expected Childand Family Outcomes (SCWS) grants. New
Mexico used the funding to formalize andexpand multidisciplinary representation
efforts. Throughout the grant period, NMFAP
grew to serve six counties. In 2022 New
Mexico passed the Family Representation and
Advocacy Act (HB46). This bill created the
Office of Family Representation and Advocacy(OFRA). This independent, adjunct executive
agency will establish models for direct andmultidisciplinary representation and provide
training and supervision of practitioners.
The success of NMFAP helped pave theway for the OFRA. Even though the NMFAP
ultimately succeeded as a stepping-stone toenhanced statewide parental representation,
its implementation was not without challenges.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY REPRESENTATION FOR PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY CASES

The timing of implementation was the mostsignificant challenge. The NMFAP was
officially launched in February 2020, just one
month before the COVID-19 pandemic. The
reduced case filings and the unanticipatedhalt of and then limitations to in-person
interactions lasted for more than half the
program’s life. Only near the end of the grant
period were many interactions transitioning toin-person activities. The program model was
focused on closely developed interpersonal
interactions between the teams internally andexternally with other system practitioners.
The pandemic led to adaptive, creative
workarounds that allowed operations tocontinue; however, the initial restrictions
hampered some aspects, such as team trustand stakeholder collaborations.
The pandemic also prompted increased
turnover and low staffing levels, especially at
New Mexico’s Children, Youth, and Families
Department (CYFD), resulting in challenges
with maintaining a consistent message about
NMFAP. Implementing a multidisciplinary
representation program requires a strong
partnership with the judiciary, the attorneys,
and the child welfare agency. Everyone must
understand the program’s purpose, how itwill alter existing operations, and anticipatedoutcomes. While the NMFAP team engaged inseveral activities to build buy-in among court,
attorney, and child welfare professionals,
increased turnover required constant trainingof partners. Turnover at CYFD also resulted
in losing program champions early in the
program’s implementation, which slowed
momentum. NMFAP also experienced someturnover in the interdisciplinary teams,
potentially impacting relationship and trust
building, an essential program element.

Evaluation Challenges
The NMFAP evaluation was designed with the
project team to identify appropriate practicechanges. Short-term and long-term outcomesof interest were measured. The evaluation
included components of both processes (didthe program get implemented as intended)and outcomes (did the program change
outcomes). There were challenges in both theprocess and outcome evaluations.
A vital component of any program is fidelity to
the model. We need to know if the programis being implemented as expected to knowwhether the program makes a difference. The
NMFAP was designed based on cornerstone
advocacy; thus, we needed to measureadvocacy. The advocacy of attorneys in court
is fairly straightforward to measure througha structured court observation process.
However, that was a limited definition of
advocacy. It did not account for social worker
advocacy (as social workers attended but
did not speak in court) nor did it account for
advocacy that occurred outside of court.
Discussions with the program team yielded
two additional measurement strategies. The
first was to add advocacy to the log files thatattorneys and social workers used to track
their time and activities. The second was todesign a structured observation of an out-ofcourt activity like mediation. Neither of these
activities sufficiently measured out-of-court
advocacy. The weakness of the log files wasthat professionals, despite their training,
seemed to define advocacy differently andthus showed significant differences in reported
advocacy. The inconsistencies were too great
to use the data in a meaningful way. The
challenge of observing mediations was that
we were unable to get a sufficient sample ofcases from both program and nonprogram
mediations to make statistical comparisons.

53TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Parent engagement was a critical shortterm outcome of the program. We expected
program parents to be more engaged in theprocess than nonprogram parents. We had
two plans to measure parent engagement.
The first involved surveying parents about
their engagement in the process, as asking
parents is one of the best ways to understandif parents feel engaged. Response rates
were low for all parents, so we could not
make comparisons. In year two, we changed
methods to a semi-structured interview
process and increased incentives forparents. More parents participated in thesemi-structured interviews, but they still did
not yield a sufficient sample of program andnonprogram cases for comparison.
We also used parental compliance withthe case plan as a proxy for parental
engagement. However, NMFAP attorneys,social workers, and parent mentors did notthink that was a valid measure of whether
the parent was engaged. In later years of theevaluation, we developed a survey of NMFAP

Figure 1

54

attorneys about their perceived engagementof parents in the program and the CYFD caseplan. This data collection tool was in response
to discussions with NMFAP attorneys duringcontinuous quality improvement meetings tobetter assess parent engagement in their caseplans.
A final challenge with the evaluation was that
we used random assignment to increase
robustness of the design so that causal
inferences could be made. However, theprogram is not equally effective for all parents.
In particular, some parents were assigned
to the program but could not be located or
did not want to engage with the program.
Including these parents diluted any effects ofthe program. As part of the evaluation efforts,
we explored which parents were more likely tostay engaged. Mothers were generally more
likely to stay in the program than fathers. A
larger proportion of mothers who remained in
the program had mental health concerns thanthose who were discharged (see Figure 1).

Differences in Parental Engagement with the Program

CASE CHARACTERISTICSASSIGNED(Stayed in Program)

ASSIGNED(Discharged from Program)

Mother Assigned to NMFAP

54% (n=54)

46% (n=46)

Father Assigned to NMFAP

42% (n=19)

58% (n=26)

Indian Child Welfare Act Case

22% (n=17)

11% (n=8)

Mother, Mental Health Concerns

38% (n=30)

25% (n=19)

Mother, Homeless

19% (n=15)

33% (n=25)

Father, Allegations of Emotional Abuse

4% (n=3)

12% (n=9)Father, Homeless

8% (n=6)

24% (n=18)

Father, Incarceration

5% (n=4)

23% (n=17)

MULTIDISCIPLINARY REPRESENTATION FOR PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY CASES

Recommendations for State Courts Looking to Implement Model
The implementation and evaluation of NMFAP provided some lessons learned that can be useful forother sites implementing multidisciplinary legal representation models.

Implementation Recommendations• Create opportunities for ongoing training for
all professionals to learn about the programand how it works.
• Include the child welfare agency in planningand implementation of the program.
• Identify opportunities to enhancecollaboration between professionals.
• Be flexible and ready for backup planningin case program implementation has
unexpected challenges.

Evaluation Recommendations• Measure parent engagement, whether
via surveys, interviews, or focus groups,
immediately before implementing the
program. This will be helpful if sufficientnumbers are not available postimplementation for comparison.
• Work with attorneys, social workers, andparent mentors to identify the best way tomeasure advocacy and engagement.

• Build in resources for early testing of themeasures and process.
• Consider opportunities to observe clientinteractions, such as shadow the attorney,caseworker, or parent partner for a day or
multiple days, to observe practice in areas
outside of court.
• Work with agency professionals andmultidisciplinary representation program
staff to identify recruitment strategies to geta mix of parents to ensure a representative
sample.
• Use the findings from this and othermultidisciplinary legal representation
evaluations to understand clients who aremost likely to engage and most likely tobe successful with the program to refine
program strategies, recruitment, andretention.
• Be realistic in expectations.
• Have specific exit criteria in place fornonengagement and ensure fidelity to thedischarge process.

References
Courtney, M.E., J. L. Hook, and M. Orme (2011). “Evaluation of the Impact of Enhanced Parental Legal
Representation on the Timing of Permanency Outcomes for Children in Foster Care.” Discussion paper,
Partners for Our Children, University of Washington, February.
Gerber, L. A., Y. C. Pang, T. Ross, M. Guggenheim, P. J. Pecora, and J. Miller (2019). “Effects of anInterdisciplinary Approach to Parental Representation in Child Welfare.” 102 Children and Youth
Services Review 42.
https://perma.cc/GBC5-KBTB

55

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

56

TRANSFORMING JUSTICE: NAVIGATING DATA CHALLENGES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

TRANSFORMING JUSTICE:

Navigating Data
Challenges in Domestic
Violence Courts
The National Center for State Courts addresses challenges in court data by promoting
the use of National Open Court Data Standards (NODS). NCSC has expanded NODS to
include specific case types like domestic violence (DV), which has led to improvements incourt data and case management.

Alicia Davis
Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts
Diane Robinson
Principal Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts
Rachel Buck
Senior Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts
Sarah Vandenberg Van Zee
Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts

57

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Without active casemanagement, bottlenecks
and delays occur, weakening
accountability and posing risks
to those affected by DV.

Courts grapple with challenges in effectively capturing and using data in domestic violence (DV)cases. Such cases are often characterized by missing or incomplete data, or the data may be ofpoor quality, meaning that essential details and pertinent information about incidents, survivors,or perpetrators are unavailable. Incomplete data lead to a lack of information on case timelinessand can result in less efficient and effective case processing. Without active case management,
bottlenecks and delays occur, weakening accountability and posing risks to those affected by DV.
This article addresses the challenges in capturing court data for DV cases, the impact of poor-quality
court data, case studies of data improvement efforts in DV cases, and NCSC’s continuing work inthis field.

The Challenges
Courts play a crucial role in addressing crimes related to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),such as domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.1 To effectively do so
requires collecting high-quality data across different case types, linking DV cases to existing matters
involving the same parties, and addressing the related complex needs impacting survivor safety andoffender accountability. However, courts, including those addressing DV, encounter challenges in
capturing and reporting essential data. Inconsistent data collection and data use are common.

1

58

See American Bar Association, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Toolkit, at https://www.americanbar.org/
advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/grassroots-action-center/ABA_Day_Digital/vawa-toolkit/.

TRANSFORMING JUSTICE: NAVIGATING DATA CHALLENGES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

Data Collection Problems
Variability in Reporting
Courts across the country vary in case and data management systems, with differing capabilities
to capture information. Further, some courts lack a data dictionary or other mechanism to provide
consistency in data elements. Jurisdictions and agencies may use different criteria and definitions
when recording DV incidents. As a result, qualifying elements for a case in one jurisdiction might berecorded differently in another, creating barriers to comparing and analyzing data consistently.

Incomplete or Missing Information
Some jurisdictions may collect comprehensive details about incidents, survivors, and perpetrators,
while others may have more limited or selective data. Further, a lingering effect of the transition frompaper to electronic court records is that essential information needed to oversee individual cases andthe court’s overall caseload is often buried within PDF documents, making it inaccessible for many
data management systems. Challenges to collecting demographic information have impacted courts’ability to analyze trends and uncover and address potential disparities across racial and ethnic
groups.

Data-Sharing Challenges
Court data often come from attorneys or law enforcement, yet defects in information sharing resultin duplicative data collection. Sometimes data-sharing objectives are at odds with one another. Data
quality depends on good data governance among justice partners. Improved information sharing withlaw enforcement would facilitate service of process of civil protection orders, including notifications
to courts and survivors of whether an order was served effectively. This is another area where
uniformity in data elements goes a long way in improving information sharing and collaboration.

Data Use Problems
Impaired Comparative Analysis

Barriers to Policy Development

The absence of standardized methodsof calculation makes it challenging toconduct meaningful comparative analyses.
Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners
rely on consistent data to identify trends,
patterns, and best practices. Without
uniformity, drawing accurate comparisons
is impractical.

Identifying best practices for managing DV
cases in courts requires consistent data.
Policymakers require reliable and consistent
data to formulate effective strategies andpolicies. However, the lack of standardized
data collection methods makes it challenging
to identify priorities, allocate resources
efficiently, and tailor interventions to
specific needs.

59

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

The Impact

Addressing
the issues ofinconsistent
data collection
and usage
involves
establishingstandardized
protocols anddefinitions thatare uniformly
applied acrossjurisdictions.

While court data will never achieve perfection, the necessity andurgency to enhance its quality become clear when considering therisks for the parties involved. Quality data support timely hearings,
orders that better meet the needs of the survivors, and survivor
referrals to needed services. This creates a more positive court
experience by reducing confusion for survivors, who are then able
to focus on the DV case without having to keep track of other legal
matters/hurdles that may arise from poor-quality data, such as
duplicative or conflicting court orders that may occur with cases
being handled in different courts. The expedited nature of DV cases
often results in independent proceedings for DV cases involving
the same parties. For example, a family may be simultaneously
moving through a family court (for a dissolution), a civil court (fora civil protective order), or a criminal court (for a criminal caseregarding the abuse). This combination of court processes, coupledwith a lack of awareness among judicial officers, impedes effective
institutional responses by potentially fostering duplicative andconflicting processes and outcomes (e.g., distance requirements,
possession of the house or car, or child visitation arrangements).
In DV cases, tracking progress and assessing the effectivenessof interventions or policies are crucial. A more thorough datainformed understanding of a court’s DV caseload also provides
opportunities to identify trends, as well as any disparities that may
exist. For example, if courts collect quality demographic data, they
can identify if DV court practices and service referrals are impacting
certain groups of court users differently and possibly refer toculturally specific victim service providers.
Quality court data are essential to equip judges with the informationnecessary for effectively resolving cases and supporting courts in
adapting their approaches, particularly in addressing case backlogs.
Courts must proactively gather and utilize data to effectively
manage cases, especially DV cases. Collaboration between judicial
officers, court-process experts, and data-process experts is crucial
to ensure that data and technological solutions meet the needsof all court personnel. Addressing the issues of inconsistent datacollection and usage involves establishing standardized protocols
and definitions that are uniformly applied across jurisdictions. For
this, the implementation of National Open Data Standards (NODS)(www.ncsc.org/nods) emerges as a solution.

60

TRANSFORMING JUSTICE: NAVIGATING DATA CHALLENGES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTSThe Solution
The adoption of NODS, designed to improve court data and enable cross-jurisdictional researchanalysis, has been recognized by some courts for its benefits. NODS is fundamentally a process of
mapping court data to standards so that the data can be used accurately and effectively. NODS canbe part of a data governance plan, supporting the overall data life cycle, by helping courts:
1. Identify needed data, which fosters consistency and quality in data collection;
2. Provide sample values for data elements to increase data consistency;
3. Improve the quality of data so that meaningful analysis can be done, illustrating what courts 		
are doing and how they are impacting the community; and4. Establish policies related to data deletion and archival.
Courts that have implemented NODS have illuminated opportunities to improve data quality, a criticalelement for effective case management, across three key areas:

Navigating Caseloads/Optimizing Case Progression: Tracking time frames and casestatus is essential for accurately assessing how courts manage caseloads. The absenceof accurate data poses a challenge in identifying bottlenecks or backlogs in the court
process. This can lead to delays in DV cases. Analyzing events impacting timeliness, suchas the granting of continuances, is essential to uncovering root causes behind delays andinconsistencies in case progression, which delay relief for survivors.
Enhancing Demographic Data Collection: Improved data collection and proactive
monitoring across demographic groups are essential for analyzing and addressing racial andethnic disparities. An equity analysis approach can optimize resource allocation by identifying
disparities at multiple decision points in a case’s life cycle.
Utilizing Data/Unlocking Insights: While individuals seek relief from courts in DV cases,
external life factors impact cases. Courts are striving to determine the prevalence of complex
issues in protection order cases, such as mental illness, substance use, advocacy, legal
support, transportation, childcare, housing assistance, and coercive control. Courts can serve
as a gateway to a comprehensive support network by utilizing data to understand service
needs, available resources, and gaps. However, only a few courts possess the necessarydata, primarily within the framework of a mental health task force, to broaden the scope ofinquiry to diagnose service gaps and prompt changes in funding or community partnerships.
Data utilization helps courts identify and communicate needs, build public trust, andunderstand survivor needs beyond the immediate case.

As NODS continues to gain popularity, courts can amplify data-collection processes by using this tool
to consider key factors for DV and adopt a complete set of data standards that can be applied acrossjurisdictions. This has provided opportunities for NCSC to develop use cases for NODS that focus on
specific case types, such as the DV extension.

61

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Case Studies
NCSC piloted the DV extension to NODS (https://perma.cc/NUL7-EYN7) in summer 2023 via a
Domestic Violence Backlog Lab to help courts better understand and address factors contributing tobacklogs and case delays. As part of the lab, participants, including courts in Delaware, Illinois, andPuerto Rico, assembled teams of judges, court-process experts, and data experts to learn about
the multifaceted data life cycle, including data-quality and data-improvement practices. Participantsalso compared their court data with the DV extension to NODS, analyzing where their data met thestandards and where it did not align. This analysis, coupled with discussions during the lab itself,
revealed that certain important data elements were not being collected, including information on
parties present, postponements (requesting party and reason), and identifiers to track individuals
across cases and courts within the state. Momentum built by participation in this lab has spurred
data-improvement efforts in their jurisdictions.

Case Study: Delaware
Delaware’s family court has launched efforts to increase the capacity for court services byimplementing a dedicated DV compliance calendar for added accountability for litigants ordered
to DV intervention and community services. They are also pursuing recidivism data analyses todetermine if case management through the DV compliance calendar has helped reduce recidivism
and increase completion rates for their DV intervention program. Administrative staff have indicatedthat rates of petitioner dismissals for civil protection order cases have been a significant concern.
Thus, the court is considering opportunities for partnerships with universities and advocates to
identify the reasons for dismissals to assess potential gaps in court services. A multijurisdictional
study will be able to evaluate this trend and the impact of various frameworks as they are developed.
As this work continues, Delaware aims to bring a procedural justice focus to these cases to explore
the possibility of the court providing assistance, identifying needed resources, and maximizing selfefficacy for survivors. However, many of these efforts are challenged by the lack of an electronic
filing system. Paper-filing systems make it difficult to track data and case history; thus, Delaware willcontinue burgeoning efforts to identify and establish an electronic case management system.

Case Study: Illinois
Illinois’s participation in the lab was particularly timely as the Illinois Supreme Court has establishedthe Supreme Court Committee on Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking to identify strengths
and opportunities for improving court processes for these cases. The committee has since createdworkgroups on data collection, firearms restrictions, human trafficking, and remote access. It is also
addressing issues related to T and U Visas to support survivors of trafficking and other crimes.2
The data collection workgroup is focusing on data improvement efforts, including identifying data
elements the various stakeholders collect, determining which elements to keep or discard, and262

See Victims of Human Trafficking: T Nonimmigrant Status at https://perma.cc/Q5PN-RNS5 and Victims of Criminal
Activity: U Nonimmigrant Status at https://perma.cc/36NG-B2S9.

TRANSFORMING JUSTICE: NAVIGATING DATA CHALLENGES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

assigning stakeholders to collect the consensus list of elements. Though Illinois does not use asingular case management system, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts is updating theirstatewide data collection and storage system and plans to include DV-related data in this new
system.

Case Study: Puerto Rico
The Judicial Branch of Puerto Rico leveraged what they learned from the DV extension of NODS
and the lab to implement immediate strategies and develop a work plan for longer-term efforts.
According to Dr. Mario Marazzi, director of the Office of Statistics, Data Sciences, and Judicial
Planning, “In the case of Puerto Rico, the National Open Court Data Standards (NODS) helped us
perform a metadata benchmarking exercise that let us identify a feature of our clerk’s data entry
that needs improvement.” This exercise revealed incorrect coding of case identification affected
the judge’s disposition of the order. As a result, approximately 50 percent of the civil protection
order requests in some regions were found to be incorrectly recorded as denied. Puerto Rico has
been working to quickly fix the errors to all incorrectly registered civil-protection-order cases thathave occurred since 2015 and are sharing the results of this audit with their judges. Puerto Rico
has transformed their court statistics team with the establishment of an Office of Statistics, Data
Sciences, and Judicial Planning and is adding continuous quality improvement functions to theirwork. In addition, the courts are working to build an organizational structure to support quality databy pursuing training for clerks on data-entry practices and establishing a cohort of staff to pilot new
data-entry processes. Puerto Rico is encouraged by the work that has been undertaken thus far to
improve identification of gaps and strengthen relationships with stakeholders. Dr. Marazzi added,“These changes are critical to strengthening the judicial processes in Puerto Rico to better protect
victims of domestic violence.”

Future Work by NCSC
The combined achievements of the DV extension of NODS and DV Backlog Lab continue to leadto data-improvement efforts beyond the original scope of the project. With support from the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, NCSC is conducting a research andevaluation project in Illinois to further the data-improvement efforts begun by the state’s supreme
court committee and the DV Backlog Lab. With a goal to create a more efficient and humancentered court system, NCSC will conduct data and process analyses to streamline processes
and improve offender monitoring. NCSC will also leverage the application of NODS to the model
Domestic Violence Coordinated Court in Winnebago County to evaluate the program’s impact. Thisevaluation will identify potential practices that can be infused into other courts to equip judges withcritical information and provide appropriate attention to survivors through case management andservices, potentially serving as a blueprint for jurisdictions nationwide. Findings and lessons learned
from this project will be made available on www.vawaandcourts.org.3

3

Also available at https://perma.cc/9TPN-JCSR. For more information on data standards, see Pandemic Response
Team, Business Data Dictionary for Courts (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 2024).

63

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

64

ACTION PLANNING TO ADVANCE SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Action Planning
to Advance
Systemic ChangeState courts should embrace action planning as a mechanism to amplify access tojustice, in particular for people of color and other historically marginalized groups. Action
planning requires continuous work to break down institutional barriers, making way forenvironments rich in diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB).

Glenn A. Grant
Acting Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts
Jessica Lewis Kelly
Special Assistant to the Administrative Director, New Jersey Courts

65

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

A Catalyst for Change: New Jersey’s Courts
Through the vision of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the New Jersey courts are engaged in an ongoing
effort to dismantle institutional biases and improve court operations for greater justice equity. Thisinitiative is more than aspirational pronouncements about equality and fairness. It is about theimplementation of measurable steps to improve the court system. This article provides a roadmap for
how courts, regardless of size, can use New Jersey’s action-planning model to fulfill their mission.
The New Jersey Supreme Court Action Plan for Ensuring Equal Justice, launched in July 2020,
reinforced and focused New Jersey’s commitment to DEIB initiatives. This plan addressed systemic
racism and other inequalities with nine specific, measurable action items.1 From improving
impartiality in jury selection to requiring continuous legal education on diversity and bias, the first
installment of the plan laid a foundation for concrete change.
Each subsequent year, the New Jersey Supreme Court has reported on its progress, documenting
achievements and setting new goals for reform. The plans for 2021 and 2022 and the latest
installment in 2023 include pledges to provide greater transparency in collection of debts and courtimposed fines and fees, investigation of potential biases in juvenile probation interventions, andsupport for attorneys of color.2 In addition, the judiciary also adopted an Equity Impact Analysis
tool to ensure that all policy and other proposals are evaluated for alignment with DEIB Guiding
Principles.3 Each of the 36 items in the first four installments of the court’s action plans focuses on
an identified gap and proposes one or more ways to address that gap through improvements to court
practices, procedures, or outcomes.
The action-planning process is shaping New Jersey’s court culture. By acknowledging hidden
inequities and fostering a community where everyone is encouraged to voice concerns, the courts
engage in collective problem-solving and shared victories. Successes are no longer celebrated only
by people directly involved with clients or local initiatives; rather, they are broadcast throughout the
judiciary, inspiring further change and reinforcing the value of the action-planning process.

66

1

See New Jersey Judiciary, “Commitment to Eliminating Barriers to Equal Justice: Immediate Action Items andOngoing Efforts,” at https://perma.cc/99YX-H6NT.

2

See the plans for 2021 at https://perma.cc/J3PR-4QWX; for 2022 at https://perma.cc/CN92-WG9Y; and for 2023 athttps://perma.cc/74AA-6GC7.

3

See the Equity Impact Analysis at https://perma.cc/6MAC-5J2F and the Guiding Principles athttps://perma.cc/4SVG-R4DD.

STEP 5ACTION PLANNING TO ADVANCE SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Tracking
andReporting
Progress

STEP 4
Defining Action Items

STEP 3
Establishinga Time Frame

STEP 1High-Level
Commitment

STEP 2Public Declaration
and Broad Sharing

A Roadmap for Action Planning in the Judiciary
To make action planning effective and meaningful, courts need a clear, actionable roadmap. This
is not just about setting goals but about committing to a process that yields results and fosters
accountability. As one model, consider this roadmap to ensure that action planning translates into
progress and change.

STEP 1 | High-Level Commitment
Action begins at the top. The most successful action plans have buy-in from the highest
levels of leadership. When a chief justice, supreme court, or administrative director
publicly commits to action, especially concerning race equity, it sends a powerful
message. The commitment must be clear, and its progress must be measurable. Action
planning is not about making promises; it’s about setting a standard for accountability andcreating a metric for success.

STEP 2 | Public Declaration and Broad Sharing
Once the commitment is made, it should be shared across the entire organization. It
is important to communicate the pledge to all levels, from senior leaders to frontline
staff. This transparency ensures that the commitment is known, shared, and supported,
promoting a culture of inclusivity and collective responsibility.

67

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

STEP 3 | Establishing a Time Frame
Change rarely happens overnight, but without a timeline, it might not happen at all. By
setting a time frame of one year or less, the court places significant pressure on itself
to act and not let initiatives languish. Some objectives might be reached sooner, but thedeadline ensures sustained attention and effort. This step is about pacing to ensure thatthe court stays on track without becoming complacent.

STEP 4 | Defining Action Items
Identifying specific action items is critical. Courts can consider an ABC approach to action
planning:• Authority: Ensure that the right people are empowered to act.
• Buy-In: Gain the support of those involved and affected by the actions.
• Collaboration: Work together within and beyond the court system.
• Duration: Set realistic time frames for each action item.
• End Results: Define what success looks like.
• Follow-Up: Determine how the court will maintain improvements over time.
This structured approach ensures that each action item is grounded in a strategy that’s
both achievable and sustainable.

STEP 5 | Tracking and Reporting Progress
The final step is ongoing evaluation. This is about tracking what’s working and what’s not
and understanding why. It’s about being transparent with progress, or the lack thereof.
Reporting out, ideally annually, holds the court accountable not just to itself but to the
public it serves. The court must own its successes and its failures, learning from both tocontinually refine and improve its action plan.
By following these steps, courts can ensure that their action planning is more than just a
set of intentions; it becomes a dynamic process that drives systemic change. Each stepbuilds on the last, creating a cycle of continuous improvement that can respond to theevolving needs of the community and the demands of justice.
By following this roadmap, courts can ensure that their action planning is more thanjust a set of intentions; it becomes a dynamic process that drives systemic change. It
creates a cycle of continuous improvement that can respond to the evolving needs of thecommunity and the demands of justice.

68

ACTION PLANNING TO ADVANCE SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Selecting and Implementing Action Items:
The ABCs of Effective Reform
To select the right action items, courts can use an ABC model focusing on Authority, Buy-In,
Collaboration, Duration, End Results, and Follow-Up. This model provides a structured approach tochoosing and implementing reforms that can lead to systemic and lasting change.

AUTHORITY | The Starting Point for Independent Action
Before embarking on a reform, courts must assess their independent authority to enactchange. Some initiatives, like amending court rules to mandate diversity and bias training
for attorneys, may lie well within the judiciary’s purview. Similarly, requiring implicit bias
training for judges and court staff is a move the court can unilaterally implement. These
kinds of actions are ideal starting points because they do not require external approval,
allowing the court to act decisively and swiftly.
Court-driven reforms often yield significant return on investment that can catalyze interest
and engagement. For example, New Jersey announced, implemented, and then reported
on the court’s pledge to train its entire workforce (approximately 9,000 employees) on
implicit bias. Judges and staff at all levels participated in those critical training programs,
which enhanced awareness of DEIB issues and strengthened support for action planning.

BUY-IN | Securing Stakeholder Support
Not all reforms are solely within the court’s control. In these cases, securing buy-in fromnecessary stakeholders becomes essential. This involves gauging current support levels
and identifying strategies to bring stakeholders on board within the set time frame. The
objective is to ensure that those who have a stake in the court’s functioning are not justaware of the proposed changes but are active proponents of them.
The landlord-tenant reforms launched in New Jersey in 2021 illustrate the value of buyin from parties with different interests. Rather than unilaterally adding new pleading
requirements for property owners and additional opportunities for tenants to raise affirmative
defenses, a special committee, including plaintiff attorneys, legal service providers, andcommunity advocates, worked together to recommend reforms that were acceptable andworkable to all parties.

69

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

COLLABORATION | The Key to Joint Initiatives
Certain reforms extend beyond the judiciary’s scope and require collaboration with otherbranches of government or external organizations. Determining the feasibility of suchpartnerships is vital. Will the legislature, executive, or local agencies be open to working
with the court? Is there a history of collaboration that can be expanded? Courts mustevaluate whether these cooperative efforts can be established promptly and effectively
within the relevant schedules.
One example is New Jersey’s Judiciary Opportunities for Building Success (JOBS)
program. Through the JOBS program, the judiciary has connected hundreds of probationclients and participants in recovery court with employment opportunities made possible
through public-private partnerships with some of the top companies in New Jersey, including
hospital systems, utilities, and large and small businesses. While the judiciary leads thisinitiative, its success derives from the voluntary engagement of employers who offer goodpay, benefits, training, and employment, in particular for Black clients, who comprise thelargest race category (53 percent) of those who have secured employment through the
JOBS program.

DURATION | Balancing Short-Term Wins and Long-Term Goals
The timeline for reform can significantly influence the perception of success. While longterm initiatives lay the groundwork for systemic improvements, short-term wins can be
crucial for maintaining momentum and demonstrating progress. To that end, courts should
identify reforms that can deliver immediate, visible benefits while also contributing to thebroader, ongoing objectives of the judicial system.
As part of the first installment of its action plan, in 2020 the New Jersey Supreme Court
vacated old outstanding warrants for failures to appear for 592 juveniles. This action
provided immediate, measurable results for youth, including disproportionate numbers ofyouth of color. More recently, in furtherance of the spirit of this earlier promise, the court
vacated more than $7 million in unpaid supervision fees owed by people no longer subject
to probation supervision.

70

ACTION PLANNING TO ADVANCE SYSTEMIC CHANGE

END RESULTS AND FOLLOW-UP | Measuring Impact and Sustaining Progress
Finally, courts must clearly define the intended outcomes of their reforms. Some changes
may have a direct and immediate positive impact on those interacting with the justicesystem. Others may be more indirect, setting the stage for future benefits. It is important toconsider what will resonate with the community and stakeholders. Additionally, a plan forregular follow-up and assessment ensures that the reforms have the desired effect and thatthe court remains accountable for continuous improvement.
For example, in December 2020 the court approved a framework for standardized statewide
review of certain adults and juveniles subject to probation supervision. Consistent with that
protocol, superior court judges ordered early termination of probation supervision for morethan 500 individuals who had achieved critical rehabilitative goals and met other relevant
criteria. Some individuals were discharged entirely, and others had their cases converted
from supervision to collections only.
To ensure that such actions are more than a one-time effort, the court authorized anddirected probation services to review future cases periodically to determine eligibility forearly termination. A review conducted in 2024 confirmed that since the court authorizedongoing review, judges have concluded supervision early for around 8,000 more people on
probation.
By carefully evaluating potential reforms, courts can select and implement initiatives that not only
address immediate concerns but also pave the way for a judiciary that is more equitable, inclusive,and responsive to the needs of all its citizens.

Examples for Inspiration
Initiatives across various states offer a wealth of knowledge and strategies for courts at every levelto adapt and adopt in their quest to improve equity in the administration of justice. Additionally, state
courts looking to advance racial justice initiatives are encouraged to consider the action plans or
strategic plans published by Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, andWashington, as well as the ongoing work of other court systems as highlighted in NCSC webinars
and policy resources.4

Conclusion
As our state court systems continue to evolve, so do our responsibilities. The work of New Jersey’s
courts exemplifies a commitment to systemic change that ensures justice for all. As these plans
continue to unfold and more courts embrace action plans of their own, the promise of a truly fair andequitable judicial system becomes increasingly attainable.

4

See Delaware’s plan at https://perma.cc/G56R-QVRS; New Hampshire’s plan at https://perma.cc/C4DQ-9ERP; andWashington’s plan at https://perma.cc/BX39-HZP4.

71

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

72

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALSFROM CLASSROOM TO COURTROOM:Engaging Today’s
Students to Become
Tomorrow’s Court
Professionals
This article summarizes the findings of a field visitation program during the 2022-23
academic year in an urban district trial court. A diverse cohort of undergraduates from anational university participated in an onsite learning experience about the various roles,
responsibilities, and career opportunities in the judicial branch.

Giuseppe M. Fazari
Professor, Monmouth University

73

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

BackgroundExperiential learning involves the application of concepts and ideas. Activities that place students
in working environments as a part of the course curriculum result in a learning experience thatenhances students’ comprehension of the material and, perhaps more importantly, fosters personaland social development (Larsen et al., 2017; Lei, 2010). Furthermore, scholars have found thatstudents who engage in experiential learning in tandem with classroom activities had better retentionof the material, were more highly motivated following the experience, and scored better academicallyin the course (Fedesco, Cavin, and Henares, 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2017). Field experiences,in particular, help shape and inform students’ perspectives on early career choices (Kolb, 1984;
Hutson, Cooper, and Talbert, 2011).
Courts can use experiential learning to build on the interests and curiosities of university students
by helping them explore the depth and breadth of careers in the judiciary that they would nothave otherwise discovered. These benefits are generally supported by the literature for bothpublic- and private-sector organizations that partner in comparable initiatives (Cupps and Olmosk,
2008; Sanahuja Vélez and Ribes Giner, 2015; Rothman, 2007). Courts that are not alreadyengaged in these collaborative programs fail to reap the advantages that these high-reward/lowrisk opportunities can yield. For instance, prospective employers can use experiential learning todifferentiate their recruitment from other agencies and industries competing to draw the best andbrightest into their organizations. Managers can also use these occasions to bring awareness about
required and preferred qualifications and develop students’ skills to secure employment with theinstitution. Moreover, employers gain a forum to demonstrate the value of their contributions to thepeople and businesses located in the same community as the university.
This visitation program discussed here provided a district trial court a platform to enhance its
recruitment pool by engaging with a diverse student cohort. For those court employees assigned tointeract directly with students, it allows them to reflect on their experiences and the development ofskills they cultivated during their careers. These collective experiences can increase employee job
satisfaction by broadening the scope of their daily work and reinvigorating their commitment anddedication to the purposes and responsibilities of courts.
With these objectives and potential benefits in mind, and in accordance with Kolb’s cycle ofexperiential learning, an onsite visitation program was designed for the purposes of integrating thefollowing into the curriculum:
1. Knowledge: the concepts, facts, and information acquired through formal learning andexperience.
2. Activity: the application of knowledge to a real-world setting.
3. Reflection: the analysis and synthesis of knowledge and activity to create new knowledge.

74

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALS

The pilot program focused on developing and coordinating the field visitation program at a district
trial court located in the same county of a national university where select courses were offeredduring the 2022-23 academic year. The court ombudsman office corresponded with faculty forseveral months to arrange a half-day program for students to observe various operations of thetrial court.1 Ultimately, the aim of the pilot was to determine the relative value of these uniqueexperiences when students are afforded greater insight into the general working conditions andenvironment of professionals employed in the judiciary (and specifically the trial courts).

Methodology
Students enrolled in the Fundamentals of Courts, Criminal Courts, and Comparative Justice Systems
courses during the fall 2022 and spring 2023 semesters were selected for the study. Students weresurveyed before the program launch and then again following the half-day session. The visitation
allowed students to observe actual court proceedings, including a sentencing and plea hearing,and engage with judges, executive-level managers, and other personnel, all of whom provided
an overview of their roles and responsibilities. Time was allocated at the end of each segment for
students to ask questions about the work and career trajectory of the professionals. The areasof work that were incorporated into the visitation program included the Trial Court Administrator’s
Office, Office of the Ombudsman, Criminal Division, Probation Division, and General Operations(including Jury Management).
Post-visitation survey data were collected along 11 variables and elicited through a series of Likert
scale questions (five-degree differential) pertaining to students’ experiences and observations.
Demographic data were organized along the criteria of major, resident/commuter status, year of
study, race, ethnicity, and gender. A content analysis was done on comments extracted from two
open-ended questions in determining the strengths, areas in need of improvement, and perceived
utility of the program. The results, conclusions, and recommendations were provided to the Center ofFaculty Development—the university institute that granted the fellowship to conduct this study. The
university sent a follow-up letter to the district court conveying appreciation for hosting the student
cohort, with the recommendation that the partnership with the university be continued and expanded
given the study’s preliminary findings.

1

In some jurisdictions, the role of an ombudsman is overseen by a communications director or officer.

75

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Findings
Findings matched conclusions in the related literature demonstrating benefits for both the academic
institution and court organization. More specifically, results showed high rates of satisfaction among
participants. Students were more highly motivated to learn about career opportunities in the courts
following the onsite learning experience and interaction with judges, probation officers, and court
management professionals. Comparing pre- and post-survey results of the program indicatedthat undergraduates’ knowledge base expanded and general interest in the court administration
profession increased. The content analysis of comments was particularly noteworthy regarding theeffects the visitation had on perceptions of the court profession.
Results were tabulated using the mean score for each of the 11 variables to assess students’
feedback about their experiences and observations. The fall 2022 cohort totaled 13 students,
whereas the spring 2023 cohort comprised 21 students. Students’ evaluations of the program ranged
between “agree” and “strongly agree” (see Table 1). With respect to the agenda, administration,
judge, and courthouse environment, both cohorts likewise assessed the overall program favorably
as either “very good” or “excellent.” Both sets of the evaluation suggest that students found eachsegment of the program overwhelmingly positive.

76

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALS

Table 1

Mean Scores of Undergraduate Feedback of Court Visitation Programby Survey Measure and Semester
FALL 2022 COHORT
Mean Score

SPRING 2022 COHORT
Mean Score

Student would participate in another visitation

4.69

4.76

Course prepared student for visitation

4.54

4.81

Visitation enhanced student learning

4.69

4.71

Student would recommend professor organize
visitations for future course offerings

4.85

4.95

Presentation materials provided by the court
were informative

4.77

4.76

Duration of the visitation was satisfactory

4.69

4.76

Visitation provided a good proportion oftheoretical and practical learning

4.92

4.71

Agenda/Program Organization

4.46

4.48

Administration Presentation

4.38

4.62

Judge Presentation

5.00

4.57

Courthouse Environment

4.69

4.62

SURVEY MEASURE
Visitation Program Deliverable

Visitation Program Deliverable

Notes:
Response scale for the visitation program deliverable denoted students’ level of agreement as follows:
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
Response scale for visitation program presentation denoted students’ level of satisfaction as follows:
1 = Poor; 2 = Below Average; 3 = Average; 4 = Above Average; 5 = Excellent.

77

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Most program participants were criminal justice majors (see Table 2). This is not surprising given thatthe selected classes are upper-level courses that are not generally taken as electives by nonmajors.
Slightly more than 60 percent of the undergraduate group were campus residents. Sophomores
comprised the largest faction of the class groupings, making up 38 percent of the cohort. Morethan 70 percent of the cohort identified as female. While most of the class identified as Caucasian,more than a third of the cohort identified themselves as Hispanic. African Americans comprised 15
percent of the group. There were no significant differences observed in the satisfaction rates of thedeliverables or presentation of the program. All students regardless of status or semester enrolled
rated the onsite visit favorably.

Table 2

Notable Demographics of Undergraduate Participants

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE

PERCENTAGE
OF COHORT

Criminal Justice Major

91

University Resident

62

Sophomore

38

Female71

Hispanic

35

Race
Caucasian76

African American

15

Asian

6

Other

3

Students were asked to respond to this statement before the field visit: I have an interest in pursuinga career in the court administration field. All but two of the undergraduates were interested inpursuing a career in law enforcement, law (as a practicing attorney), or unrelated fields (nonmajors
who were taking the course as an elective) or were uncertain. It should also be noted that the
instructor made clear to those seeking work in policing that probation could be a viable option.2
The data demonstrated that more than 80 percent of the cohort at the start of the semester had noapparent interest in exploring court administration as a profession (see Figure 1).

2

78

In the state where the field visit was conducted, probation fell under the auspices of the judiciary as a division of thecourts.

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALS

Figure 1

Percentage of Student Cohort with an Interest in Pursuing a Career in Court
Administration Before Onsite Visit

12%
6%
Yes
UnsureNo82%

Following the onsite visit with judges and court professionals, the undergraduates expressed theirlevel of agreement with this statement: This course increased my interest in the court administration
field as a possible career choice. Eighty-six percent expressed a newfound interest in at least
exploring and discussing the job opportunities available in the judiciary. Only 2 percent appeared
determined to pursue an entirely different line of work outside the judicial branch (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Percentage of Student Cohort’s Level of Agreement with an Interest in Pursuinga Career in Court Administration following the Onsite Visit

12%
Strongly Agree

2% 0%

Agree
Neutral18%

Disagree68%

Strongly Disagree

79TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Undergraduates were asked to respond to the following open-ended questions from which a content
analysis was conducted:
1. What specific aspects (if any) did you find positive about the onsite visitation program?
2. In what ways (if any) do you believe the onsite visitation program can be improved?
More precisely, the students’ aggregate feedback was reviewed to determine the existence andfrequency of factors that elevated their onsite experience, as well as considerations that could
have enriched it further. Students were most notably absorbed by the live court sessions, theprofessionalism of the presenters, and the breadth of information about careers in the judiciary.
Suggested improvements were grouped into providing transportation to and from the courthouse andexpanding the program to a full day to deepen their exposure to the processes and professionalsof the courts (see Table 3). Incidentally, this latter recommendation could be viewed as a positive
remark given that many students sought to build on the experiences afforded during the visit.

Table 3

Emergent Themes to Research Questions and Sample Responses

THEME

SAMPLE RESPONSES

Positive Aspects of Visitation Program
Viewing live
court hearings• The ability to see the court process in practice was really good.
• Seeing the judge sentence a defendant was a unique experience.
• Viewing a court proceeding so that I could connect it to our class discussion wasvery informative.

Dispositionof visitation
speakers• Meeting with administrators because it felt personal. It was great to see thediversity of managers and judges.
• Everybody was incredibly enthusiastic and really loved what they do.
• The love for their job really resonated with me. Made me feel like I could belong.
• I enjoyed getting to hear from the administrators who had a similar backgroundto me and how they make a difference in the community.

Careerpresentation
information• I liked hearing from different sectors of the courts.
• I gained a lot of new information and insight I was not previously aware of—I aminterested in a whole new set of careers now.
• I enjoyed the internship opportunities presented and talking to the different
people from various areas of the court.

Suggested Improvements for Visitation Program

80

Transportation• It would be beneficial to provide transportation from campus to the courthouse.
• The organization of getting to the court—maybe a bus for transportation so thewhole class could travel together.

Lengthenvisitation timeframe

• A longer visitation would give more depth (including more divisions, greater detailon the inner workings of the different courts, viewing more court proceedings, etc.).
• Make it a full day and add a portion for networking with professionals. I would have
liked to have spent more time talking with [the probation supervisor].

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALS

Apart from field visits, there are several methods that allow students to apply what they learn in theclassroom to work environments, including internships, cooperative education, course fieldwork,
faculty-led research projects, volunteer engagements, and employer-university led partnerships,
conferences, guest speaker series, and networking events.
The preliminary results of this pilot program suggest that courts should consider exploring thesecollaborations with post-secondary institutions. Overall, this specific visitation provided students witha clearer understanding about select concepts of court administration, a broader view of the trial
court system and the community it serves, and an opportunity to build and foster network contacts
for future internships and job opportunities in the courts. The judiciary, likewise, appeared to benefit
from the program because it gained a diverse candidate pool of students from which to recruit
prospective interns and employees, who were evidently more enthusiastic about working for the
courts following their visit.
This appeared particularly noteworthy for minority students who engaged with court professionals
with similar ethnic and racial backgrounds. The professionalism and positive impression espoused
by a probation supervisor (a Hispanic female), criminal division judge (an African American male),and jury management supervisor (an African American female) were remarkable and noted in
students’ comments.
Many students were observed by the instructor approaching these professionals following theirrespective presentations to inquire further about their experiences. The comfort level was madepossible by the administrators and judge, who offered their advice and support and were generous
with their time in responding to the impromptu questions of the group that gathered aroundthem. These observations are indicative of the benefits of meeting and speaking with historicallyunderrepresented persons who are professionals in the court workplace. As evidenced by thesubsequent classroom discussions and some of the salient points made by students, the visitation
showed them firsthand that the court was inclusive, served as an advocate for disenfranchised
groups, removed real and perceived barriers, demonstrated a commitment to a diverse workforce,and amplified the sense of community that the court administrators were proud to serve. It also
provided institutional spokespersons with a unique opportunity to discuss their work experiences
while conveying their commitment and passion about the purposes and responsibilities of thecourts—discourses that appeared to energize both the students and professionals.

81

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Conclusions
Findings corresponded to the literature in showing that the benefits derived from the visitation are
inextricably linked to the design of the initiative. Thus, the role of the instructor and court liaison
in developing these kinds of learning experiences cannot be understated because it directly
affects the extent to which objectives for the program are achieved (Menkshi and Braholli, 2020).
Recommendations were segmented along suggestions that were research, action, and project
oriented. One of the key proposals included strengthening the pilot program experience with otheropportunities to engage professionals for the purposes of internships, guest-speaker engagements,
or undergraduate research projects. Because the visitations provided a venue that allowed students
to interact intellectually and socially with judges and court administration professionals, it could
be used as a touchstone to further enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and othercollaborations such as hosting practitioners for university-sponsored forums, conferences, androundtable discussions. More broadly, questions remain: How can the university and court work
together to best involve stakeholders in the development and delivery of onsite visitations? To what
extent, given time and resource constraints, can visitations be individualized to best meet students’interests even if they are not fully aware of the potential possibilities? Should students be givena modicum of control over the areas toured and professionals they interact with while visiting thecourt?
The program appeared to improve undergraduates’ ability to think more critically about the concepts
discussed in the classroom, particularly as it related to various court events and the internal andexternal stakeholders who play important roles in those processes.

Perhaps most critically, the visitation widened the students’ perspectives of court
administration because it involves an experience that cannot be replicated in theclassroom. Being onsite, however briefly, enabled them to empirically study the many
areas of the court, including case management, probation, finance, operations, humanresources, and information technology.
This exposure was at least partly responsible for the change in interest that most of the group had
when asked about considering a career in the courts following the visit. Expanding the generalscope and scale of the pilot was central to the proposed recommendations, principally because theresults showed remarkable promise in helping to shape cognitive and affective learning outcomes.
In this way, it shifts students’ understanding of and appreciation for the work of the courts, which canultimately inspire them to become its next generation of leaders.

82

ENGAGING TODAY’S STUDENTS TO BECOME TOMORROW’S COURT PROFESSIONALS

References
Cupps, S., and K. E. Olmosk (2008). “Developing Effective Internships within Public Sector
Organizations.” 37 Public Personnel Management 303.
Fedesco, H. N., D. Cavin, and R. Henares (2020). “Field-based Learning in Higher Education: Exploring
the Benefits and Possibilities.” 20 Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 65.
Hutson, T., S. Cooper, and T. Talbert (2011). “Describing Connections Between Science Content
and Future Careers: Implementing Texas Curriculum for Rural At-Risk High School Students Using
Purposefully-Designed Field Trips.” 33 Rural Educator 37.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Larsen, C., C. Walsh, N. Almond, and C. Myers (2017). “The ‘Real Value’ of Field Trips in the Early Weeks
of Higher Education: The Student Perspective.” 43 Educational Studies 110.
Lei, S.A. (2010). “Field Trips in College Biology and Ecology Courses: Revisiting Benefits andDrawbacks.” 37 Journal of Instructional Psychology 42.
Menkshi, E., and E. Braholli (2020). “Field Trips as a Valuable Learning Experience for Students.” 4
Vjetari Shkencor 221.
Rothman, M. (2007). “Lessons Learned: Advice to Employers from Interns.” 82 Journal of Education for
Business 140.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation,
Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Sanahuja Vélez, G., and G. Ribes Giner (2015). “Effects of Business Internships on Students, Employers,and Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review.” 52 Journal of Employment Counseling 121.

83

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

84

PHASE: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATIONPHASE:A Practical Approachto Implementation
Implementation science is the study of strategies to promote the successful adoption andintegration of policies, practices, or programs. PHASE is a research-based implementation
framework specifically designed for court professionals.

Teri Deal
Deputy Managing Director, National Center for State Courts
Conor Geiger
Project Associate, National Center for State Courts
Wendy Schiller
Former Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts
Mariarenee Contreras
Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts
Even the most meticulously crafted plans
can encounter challenges when it comesto implementation. Lack of buy-in, limited
resources, and the absence of readiness canstall or stop an action plan in its tracks. This isespecially true in the court community, where
there may be frequent shifts in priorities,
multiple partners with diverse perspectives,
and resistance to change. Fortunately,
research from other fields, including
education, healthcare, and social services,
can teach strategies to drive successfulchange efforts. This area of study is called
implementation science, and its application injustice settings is growing (Zielinski, Allison,and Brinkley-Rubenstein, 2020).

Implementation science is the study ofstrategies to promote the adoption andintegration of practices and programs.
Lessons from implementation science bridge
the gap between plan and practice andoptimize the conditions that lead to effective
implementation. There are many different
implementation frameworks; however, mostagree that implementation happens overtime and in phases and can be impacted
by factors external to the change itself,such as policies, organizational culture, andleadership. Successful implementation of apolicy or practice change begins long before
it is executed. Implementation starts withan intentional focus on mobilizing interest,
consensus, and support among key partners
and the building of structural supports, suchas policies, performance measures, andfeedback loops (Fixsen et al., 2005).
85

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) developed the PHASE framework, a practical
approach to help courts implement new policies, programs, and practices. The PHASE framework
integrates research-based strategies from implementation science in other fields to support courts
in cultivating the internal and external conditions that create environments conducive to change. It
creates an easy-to-follow structure for courts on how to intentionally plan for implementation efforts.
The framework has five components.

P

PURPOSEA clear statement of the purpose for making a change, including its anticipatedoutcomes, is critical for successful implementation. It can keep the effort focused andunite court professionals, community members, and partners in support. A purpose
statement should cover two key aspects:• Description of the issue prompting the change, including specific areas for
improvement.
• Anticipated consequences of the change, including its expected impact on processes
and long-term outcomes.

H

HOW
Failure to establish readiness for a change is the most common reason change efforts
fail (Weiner, 2009). When preparing to implement a change, court professionals
can assess readiness by identifying individuals who will be involved or impacted,
understanding the court’s current capacity for change, and considering how the court’sorganizational culture may affect change efforts. When preparing to implement a newpolicy or practice, ask these questions:• Are there resources (e.g., workforce, financial, time) to implement the change?
• How do individuals who will be involved or impacted by the change feel about it?
• Is there a court or judicial leader who is a champion for the change?

A

ACTION PLAN
A clearly documented action plan is vital for courts implementing new policies orprograms. It ensures clear communication, aligns efforts, optimizes resources, andfosters accountability. The action plan also documents implementation strategies
to mitigate risks identified in the readiness assessment (Powell et al., 2015). Keyelements of an action plan include:• Agreed upon tasks, timelines, and responsibilities.
• Clear expectations for communication frequency and methods to track progress on
the action plan.
• Performance measures to monitor implementation.

86

PHASE: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATIONSSUPPORT
Court professionals and partners crucial to court operations benefit from strategic
support via training, coaching, and feedback loops. These activities foster successful
knowledge transfer, skill building, and a court culture that values continuous
improvement. Intentionally planning how to prepare individuals to implement a newpolicy or practice includes:• A targeted training schedule ensuring a shared understanding of the change and thereasons for it.
• Individualized coaching to support behavior change.
• Intentional feedback loops to share information and receive feedback from court
professionals and partners.

E

EXAMINE
Evaluating whether a program, policy, or practice achieves its intended outcomesrequires waiting until it is fully implemented; however, examining how implementationis going can provide valuable insights throughout the implementation process.
Considerations when planning how to examine implementation include:• Identifying the data necessary to objectively measure progress and when and how itwill be collected.
• Processes and opportunities for sharing and discussing information to assess fidelity,
identify successes and barriers, and inform adjustments to the action plan.

Pilot Testing the PHASE Framework
In fall 2023, NCSC welcomed 22 courts into the Implementation Consulting Collaborative (ICC)
to pilot the PHASE framework. The ICC focused on educating participating courts on the PHASE
framework and helping them apply it to real changes they are making in their courts. This involved
a five-part virtual-training series, concurrent development of implementation plans, and followup monthly consultations. The pilot aimed to evaluate how the PHASE framework supports court
professionals in assessing readiness, identifying strategies to address barriers, creating action plans,
and implementing new policies and practices.
NCSC is evaluating the ICC to assess whether the content of the ICC was valuable and applicableto participants, how much the ICC contributed to participants’ knowledge about key aspects ofimplementation science, and the extent to which the PHASE framework contributed to the effective
implementation of court improvements. It takes years for efforts to be fully implemented. This article
describes the short-term outcomes of the evaluation, including the usefulness and applicability of theframework and changes in knowledge.

87

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

The 22 courts selected to participate in the ICC represent 13 states and 4 international locations.
The courts’ implementation efforts were diverse, including data improvement and performancemeasurement efforts, new practices for managing records, court-community collaborations, andincorporating new hearing formats and case management processes such as mediations. Initial
feedback from the participating courts demonstrated that the PHASE framework was applicable
across court types and for a variety of implementation efforts.
NCSC tracked attendance in the five-part virtual-training series and established that participating
courts needed to attend at least three sessions to receive subsequent monthly consultations. The
ICC experienced nominal attrition, and 18 courts were eligible to receive monthly consultations.
Many participating courts had multiple individuals attend the ICC sessions, and an average of 27
individuals attended each week.
NCSC developed several guided worksheets to help the ICC participants develop a comprehensive
implementation plan that incorporates all the components of the PHASE framework. The worksheets
were designed to spur critical thinking about implementation steps and understand the change
process (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

88

Example of a Guided Worksheet that Was Provided to Site ParticipantsPHASE: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION

The worksheets were given as homework at the end of each training session, and participants wereasked to submit their completed homework before the next training session. Several participants
shared that the worksheets helped them think through details often overlooked during action
planning. For example, one participant reflected that the stakeholder analysis worksheet was “acrucial step worth taking more time to consider.” They added that without intentionally analyzing theinfluence and support of stakeholders, implementation efforts can “lose out on potential partners or
miss opportunities.” Another participant shared how the worksheets helped managers slow down
and be intentional, stating, “As a manager, we are all busy and often want to press the easy button
for everything, but this does not allow you to do that; instead, it forces you to slow down, think andtake time showing that the investment [of time] really pays off.”
As part of NCSC’s evaluation efforts, participants were asked to complete a survey after eachsession. One of the items on the survey asked them to rate the relevance of the session’s content
to their work. An average of 11 participants completed the evaluation at the end of each session.
Participants felt strongly that the training content was relevant to their current work, and 91 percent
rated the content as extremely relevant or very relevant across all five sessions (see Figure 2).
Similarly, participants reported that they would use what they learned in each session. When
asked if they would use what they learned in the five-part training series, 77 percent of participants
responded “definitely yes” (see Figure 3).

Figure 2

Relevance to WorkHow relevant was this content to yourgeneral or overall work? (n=56)

Figure 3

Application of Information

Will you use what you learned today inyour implementation effort? (n=56)

39%
77%

52%

9%

Extremely
Relevant

Definitely yes

Very
Relevant

Probably yes

Moderately
Relevant

21%

Possibly89

TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2024

Increase in Knowledge
NCSC surveyed participants before and after the training series to gauge their agreement withstatements about applying implementation science concepts. Twenty-five individuals completed thepre-test, and ten completed the post-test. In the pre-test results, participants disagreed with several
statements, including:• “I know how to apply principles of implementation science to my work.”• “I can describe implementation drivers.”• “I know how to identify threats to successful implementation and address them in an action plan.”• “I know how to incorporate coaching and feedback loops into support plans.”
This meant their confidence in applying implementation science concepts was low; however, in the
post-test results, no participants disagreed with any of the statements. The three items with thegreatest increase in the level of agreement were:• “I can describe implementation drivers.”• “I know how to apply principles of implementation science to my work.”• “I know how to assess whether my court is ready to implement a new policy or practice change.”

Courts’ Readiness to Change
During the ICC, NCSC asked the participants to complete a readiness assessment to identify how
prepared their court was to implement their proposed change. Participants frequently rated theircourts as having a high level of readiness in terms of collaborating with partners, having support
for data collection and reporting, and having an identified champion. Conversely, participants
frequently rated their courts as having a low level of readiness in terms of having the resources,
the expertise, and the communication plan needed to implement the change. After completing thereadiness assessment, the courts reflected on the items they rated at the lowest level of readinessand incorporated research-based implementation strategies into their action plan that mitigate thoserisks to implementation. One participant noted, “Assessing readiness is a well-designed exercise
as it breaks down the very definition of readiness and helps the implementation plan preparation bytaking into account all mechanisms, tools, and factors necessary for successful implementation of
the new policy.”Monthly Consultations
Since January 2024, 16 of the 22 courts have been participating in monthly consultations to enhancetheir understanding and application of PHASE, receive feedback on their implementation plans,
and identify solutions to implementation barriers. During the consultations, participants discuss
how they have used the implementation strategies presented during the ICC sessions and receive
feedback from NCSC staff and other participants on how to address anticipated and unanticipatedimplementation challenges. They also have an opportunity to share feedback on the efficacy of
the ICC and the PHASE framework so that NCSC can continuously improve its usefulness andapplicability.

90

PHASE: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION

Conclusion
While the field of implementation science is not new, the court community has yet to fully incorporate
its lessons into court reform efforts. The PHASE framework and the ICC are two steps forward.
The content of the ICC resonated with the participating courts, and the court professionals who
attended the sessions took away information they could immediately apply in their work. More than
one participating court has reported using the PHASE framework to plan for additional efforts. With
the monthly follow-up consultations from NCSC, these courts will continue to receive coaching on
implementation strategies to increase the likelihood that their proposed plans are implemented fully
and sustained. NCSC is also developing a guidebook for courts on the PHASE framework that will
incorporate the worksheets developed for the ICC and lessons learned from the experiences of the
ICC sites. The guidebook will be released in fall 2024. Visit www.ncsc.org/phase for more information
on PHASE and to see the guidebook when it is released (also at https://perma.cc/B92E-R7TY).

References
Fixsen, D., S. F. Naoom, K. A. Blasé, R. M. Friedman, and F. Wallace (2005). Implementation Research: A
Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental HealthInstitute. National Implementation Research Network.
Powell, B. J., T. J .Waltz, M. J. Chinman, L. J. Damschroder, J. L. Smith, M. M. Matthieu, E. K. Proctor, andJ. E. Kirchner (2015). “A Refined Compilation of Implementation Strategies: Results from the Expert
Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project.” 10 Implementation Science, article 21.
https://perma.cc/T8PK-CPFL
Weiner, B. J. (2009). “A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change.” 4 Implementation Science,
article 67.
https://perma.cc/KT6H-WMB2
Zielinski, M. J., M. K. Allison, L. Brinkley-Rubinstein, G. Curran, N. D. Zaller, and J. E. Kirchner (2020).
“Making Change Happen in Criminal Justice Settings: Leveraging Implementation Science to Improve
Mental Health Care.” 8 Health Justice, article 21
https://perma.cc/P8AL-Q76D

91

Board of Directors 2023-2024
National Center for State Courts
Anna Blackburne-Rigsby
Greg Sattizahn
Matthew B. Durrant

Chief Judge, Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C., Chair
State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial System, South Dakota, Vice Chair
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Utah, Chair-electRita deChabert Petersen

Administrator of Courts, Judicial Branch of the Virgin Islands, Vice Chair-electMary Campbell McQueen

President, National Center for State Courts

Barry P. Barbash

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Washington, D.C.

Reginald J. Brown

Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C.

Russell R. Brown III

Court Administrator, Cleveland Municipal Court

Christopher W. Dell

Senior Advisor, Fieldstone Africa

Deirdre Dunham
Karl R. Hade

Trial Court Administrator, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County
Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia

Lynne Halbrooks

Nichols Liu, Washington, DC

Michael L. Lanza

Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Selective Insurance Group, Branchville, New Jersey

Yolanda L. Lewis

Executive Director, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Dallas

Emily Miskel
Craig S. Morford
Elizabeth N. Mulvey
John T. Nockleby

Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas
Vice President and General Counsel, ExxonMobil Corporation, Irving, Texas
Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, Boston
Professor of Law, Susan Gurley Daniels Chair in Civil Advocacy, Director, Civil Justice Programand Journalist Law School, Los Angeles

Kathleen Flynn Peterson

Ciresi Conlin, LLP, Minneapolis

Richard J. “Rick” Pierces

Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

Richard A. Robinson

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Connecticut

Thomas W. Ross

President (ret.), Volcker Alliance, Inc., New York City

Loretta H. Rush

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Indiana

Toko Serita
Lewis R. Sifford
Morris Silberman
J. D. Smith
Corey R. SteelErica R. Yew

Statewide Coordinating Judge for Problem Solving Courts, Kew Gardens, New York
Sifford, Anderson & Company, P.C., Dallas
Judge, Second District Court of Appeal, Tampa, Florida
Law Office of J. D. Smith PLLC, Seattle
State Court Administrator, Nebraska Supreme Court
Judge, Superior Court Santa Clara County, San Jose, California

NCSC Officers and Management Staff
Mary Campbell McQueen

President

Michael Buenger

Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

Deborah Mason

Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer

Jeffrey Apperson

Vice President, NCSC International

Pamela Casey
Ed Danso

Vice President, Research Division
Chief Financial Officer

Laurie K. Givens

Vice President, Court Consulting Services

Amy McDowell

Chief Legal Officer

John Meeks
Jesse Rutledge

Vice President, Education and Professional Development
Vice President, Public Affairs

TRUS TED LEADERSHIP.
PROVEN SOLUTIONS.
BETTER COURTS.

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Ave. | Williamsburg, VA 23185(800) 616-6164 | ncsc.org