Court Pandemic Response 

and Recovery Grant 

Program Roundtable

Overview 

SJI awarded twelve grants in 2020 to support projects that assist state 

courts in their response to, and recovery from, the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These ranged from professional training efforts, pilot projects to create 

or improve various court services, and evaluations of new and enhanced 

services. Many engaged court professionals and litigants directly to help 

assess the value of these efforts. 

On March 16, 2022, SJI convened the grantees for a collaborative review 

of key insights emerging from these projects. In preparation for the 

virtual convening, SJI invited representatives from each grantee site to 

answer several questions about their projects and what questions or 

topics they were curious about or wrestling with. These responses 

helped to refine the interest areas for discussion during the roundtable, 

as well as the creation of project one-pagers that were shared in advance 

before the event. 

Over 40 court and justice system professionals attended the event, 

which consisted of four small-group topical panels and two large-group 

discussions. After the roundtable, grantees were asked to complete a 

handful of questions, sharing feedback on the event and provide

additional recommendations about needs in the field. 

Collective Strategies

Several strategies emerged from the event 

that offer practical guidance for implementing 

these innovations across the United States, in 

addition to areas that require further 

evaluation.

Collaboration

Partnership and collaboration were one of the 

most cited cost-effective strategies that 

grantees said supported the implementation 

and assessment of their pandemic response 

practices. These collaborations included 

interdisciplinary teams of scientists informing 

evidentiary practices, and data engineers informing technology 

applications.

“This would not have 

been possible if we 

did not include the 

city, city and district 

attorneys, the Police, 

and the Bar 

Association. It’s why 

we have already 

received most of the 

funding for 

implementation.”
One project cited the benefits of having both an interdisciplinary team to guide the project, as 

well as a core "work group" assigned to specific tasks. 

User Voice

User voice – or feedback – was another most cited strategy by 

grantees. Most projects leveraged some form of user voice or 

feedback from individuals most impacted by court pandemic 

responses. This included surveying parents about a new ondemand, online training option, user feedback from attorneys 

about a housing court data tool, roundtables with judges, and inperson and remote feedback from court users nationally. While 

one grantee perceived that court personnel’s limited time and 

bandwidth may restrict involvement in surveys or similar tools, the 

general sense was that there is significant value in, and appetite 

for, inviting these perspectives, especially open-ended feedback. 

Technology 

Technology was an obvious influence during the pandemic, including nuanced applications 

used by grantees both as the focus of pandemic response evaluations, and within pilot project 

innovations. This included online court data tools, merging functionalities of existing e-filing 

services, virtual or online dispute resolution projects, online learning platforms for 

professionals’ and court user trainings and real-time feedback tools. 

Balancing Court Goals

Many project assessments yielded mixed results when viewed against a range of court goals. 

For example, the Texas “Use of Remote Hearings” project concluded that remote hearings 

improved the user experience for court users in select types of hearings and cases, while 

another project reached a similar conclusion but found that remote hearings took about onethird longer. Similarly, the Court Voices Project showed that court users valued the 

convenience of remote service options in many courts, but “convenience” for some users 

meant going to the courthouse. Other court users found value in the helpfulness of court staff 

in an in-person setting over remote alternatives. 

Observations and Insights

The impacts of the pandemic on different courts and communities are ongoing and vary 

significantly across jurisdictions, a “diversity of impact,” as one panelist said. 

Grantees reported that the specifics of staff and judicial burnout – in addition to other “human 

impacts” – remain largely unknown and unaddressed. At a minimum, it is likely that significant 

technology and infrastructure barriers remain, not to mention the varied magnitude of case 

backlogs.

Plan for the unexpected. The best way to 

account for the unaccountable is to 

remain flexible and have open 

communication channels.

Courts were forced to become nimbler 

and more adaptable during the COVID19 pandemic. As some roundtable 

participants observed that courts that 

“Involving and 

gathering input from 

all judicial officers and 

court employees 

(court-wide) were 

vitally important for 

getting buy-in and 

support for the new 

virtual practices. It 

was time-consuming 

but inclusive and 

beneficial.”
perceived the pandemic as a temporary condition were resistant in ways that impeded 

needed changes. 

Courts are most effective and 

accessible when they offer choices.

Many grantees noted the importance 

of providing access in various ways, 

including virtual service options and 

more user-friendly methods to filing

forms or getting questions answered. 

User feedback should be collected routinely and considered essential when making policy 

decisions.

Grantees said that hearing from individuals directly was worth the investment. Feedback 

helped inform needed policy and practice changes, not to mention displaying court

commitment to giving voice – a key tenet of procedural fairness. 

Looking Ahead

There is still much to learn from how courts adapted during 

the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those lessons can inform 

future practice and policy. Early lessons suggest that 

collaboration within and among court systems and listening 

to a range of impacted voices will be key. While each 

jurisdiction’s challenges are inherently local, common court 

goals of access and fairness can be enhanced in various ways 

even during times of crisis. With diligence in documenting 

and sharing these lessons and innovations, the field will be 

better for it. 

For ongoing information relevant to SJI’s investment in 

these areas, https://www.sji.gov/priority-investmentareas/court-pandemic-response-and-recovery-grantprogram/. 

This report was written by Emily LaGratta, owner and principal consultant of

LaGratta Consulting, in collaboration with the State Justice Institute.

“Surveying jurors, attorneys, 

interpreters, and employees 

to learn about their 

experiences with virtual 

practices proved very 

interesting and beneficial. 

The results will help the 

Court’s leadership make 

data-informed decisions 

about and improve future 

Court practices.”