Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic

The Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic grant solicitation was designed to leverage the 

combined resources and expertise of the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, and the State Justice Institute (SJI), along with other federal partners, 

to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdoses among individuals who 

come in contact with law enforcement or are involved in the criminal justice system in high-risk 

rural communities and regions. 

Twenty-one rural American communities substantially impacted by the opioid epidemic will 

receive $14.8 million in grants, up to $750,000 per community, to develop tailored and 

innovative responses to gaps in prevention, treatment and/or recovery services for individuals 

involved in the criminal justice system. Communities awarded 18-month implementation 

phase grants at the end of 2019 represented sixteen states, including the following sites:

• Arkansas Rural Health Partnership (AR)

• County of Rio Arriba (NM)

• Ellenville Regional Hospital (NY)

• Franklin County Sheriff's Department (MA)

• Grays Harbor Public Health & Social Services (WA)

• Marcum and Wallace Hospital (KY)

• Marshall University Research Corporation (WV)

• Memorial Regional Health (CO)

• Mohave Substance Treatment Education & Prevention Partnership (AZ)

• Northern Kentucky University (KY)

• Northumberland County (PA)

• Porter-Starke Services Inc. (IN)

• Portsmouth City Health Department (OH)

• Prisma Health–Upstate (SC)

• Project Lazarus (NC)

• Reno County Health Department (KS)

• SMA Healthcare, Inc. (FL)
• Mary's Regional Health Center (MN)

• Upper Cumberland Human Resources Agency (TN)

• WestCare Tennessee, Inc. (TN)

• Whitley County Health Department (KY)

SJI funding ensures that state courts are a key component in these collaborative efforts to 

address the opioid epidemic in rural areas. More information is available on the project 

website. Site profiles are being be added to the website, along with new resources as the 

project moves forward. 
Preparing for Public Health Emergencies

The coronavirus may not have been labeled a pandemic yet, but the rapid spread of the virus is 

a good enough reason for court officials to plan for how they would deal with one. Fortunately, 

there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has updated its public health emergency page, 

which offers many resources for court administrators and judges. The page features Preparing 

for a Pandemic, a blueprint for developing a plan to combat a pandemic, as well as resources 

from last year’s SJI-funded National Pandemic Summit at the University of Nebraska Medical 

Center, home to the nation’s largest biocontainment unit.

The information on the page also applies to public health emergencies other than pandemics, 

which are relatively rare. It applies, for example, to influenza, which has killed between 12,000 

and 61,000 Americans per year since 2010. The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed about 

675,000 Americans and tens of millions worldwide, caused courts to close in the District of 

Columbia, Tennessee and Kentucky, among other places, but fortunately public health 

emergencies rarely lead to court closings.

Despite that, public health emergencies sometimes impact the courts, and court officials need 

to know how to react to them. Court administrators need to know how to keep their courts 

operating efficiently when some of their employees are sick and can’t work. And judges must 

know what to do when they are called upon to order quarantines for individuals infected with 

contagious diseases. A quarantine order related to a nurse in Maine who was exposed to the 

Ebola virus in Africa in 2014 made national headlines.
“Preparing for a Pandemic addresses the legal bases for actions the government may take and 

provides a ready-reference for a judge confronting issues that thankfully are extremely rare as 

they relate to things like a quarantine,” said William Raftery, senior NCSC Knowledge and 

Information Services analyst.

If you have questions about this or resources to share, email the NCSC.
CCJ Urges Regulatory Innovations in the Delivery of Legal Services

Members of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) recently gathered for their midyear meeting 

where there was discussion on the variety of proposed innovations in the regulation of the 

delivery of legal services. State supreme courts, after all, don’t just act as arbiters of legal 

disputes, but also hold ultimate authority for the regulation of the practice of law in their 

states.

The assembled members heard from the President of the American Bar Association (ABA), Judy 

Perry Martinez, who did not mince words about how critical innovation is in the effort to close 

the nation’s access to justice gap. She also emphasized the vital role of both the ABA and state 

judicial leaders in fostering open discussion about potential reforms.

“We need and are beginning to see bold new ideas to address our nation’s unmet legal needs,” 

said Martinez. “Given the dire circumstances that the public faces when trying to protect their 

basic rights, doing nothing—having no dialogues and conversations among stakeholders; 

fearing to ask “what if” or “why not”—may pose an even greater risk.”

At its business meeting, CCJ adopted a policy resolution Urging Consideration of Regulatory 

Innovations Regarding the Delivery of Legal Services, which was proposed by its committee on 

Professionalism and Competence of the Bar. The resolution “urges its members to consider 

regulatory innovations that have the potential to improve the accessibility, affordability and 

quality of civil legal services, while ensuring necessary and appropriate protections for the 

public.”

As ABA President Martinez noted: “The ultimate purpose of regulation is not to protect the 

livelihood of lawyers but to advance the administration of justice.”
American University and NACM Release Caseflow Management Report

The Justice Programs Office (JPO), a center in the School of Public Affairs at American

University, in partnership with Right to Counsel (R2C) National Campaign consortium member

the National Association for Court Management (NACM) partnered on a project which recently

released its final report titled, Enhancing Caseflow Management to Ensure Effective Assistance

of Counsel.

With SJI support, the report and archived webinar available through NACM, explore the tension

between ensuring the right to counsel and caseflow management, what causes it and what

alleviates it, and what judges and court administrators can do both separately and as a team to

ease it.

Caseflow management is defined as the coordination of court processes to ensure court

proceedings progress in a timely and efficient manner. This can sometimes result in courts’

feeling pressure to process cases quickly in order to clear a docket and avoid case delay. This

pressure may also result in the scheduling of case events without consideration for whether a

defense attorney has been assigned to the case, and if so, whether one has had time to

sufficiently prepare for these events. In some instances, competing interests may emerge—

those supporting prompt resolution of cases against those supporting effective assistance of

counsel, which at times may slow down case proceedings. When these interests are not

adequately addressed, a tension emerges for judges and court administrators: the right to

counsel tension.
The report is the culmination of several activities that involved face-to-face meetings with court

professionals, industry expert analysis, and a focus on two courts in Spokane, Washington, and

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
New Justice for All Website Provides States with Resources

to Meet Public Legal Needs

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC), in partnership with the Self-Represented Litigation 

Network (SRLN), has published a new Justice for All website aimed at addressing the needs not 

only of those already in the court process, but also of people with unmet civil legal problems 

who could benefit from legal help—even if they don’t yet realize their problems have a legal 

solution.

The Justice for All website offers a framework for engaging with a wide range of stakeholders to 

systematically expand access to justice. Through broad collaboration, it ensures there is no 

wrong door through which to enter the civil justice system.