A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT 

 

IMPACTS ON 

JUVENILE, FAMILY, AND TRIBAL COURTS

A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT 

COVID IMPACTS ON 

JUVENILE, FAMILY, AND TRIBAL COURTS

Gene Siegel

Jeremy Bilfield 

Melissa Sickmund

June 2022 

National Center for Juvenile Justice, research division of the 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
PROJECT CREDITS

Writing

Gene Siegel, Senior Research Associate

Jeremy Bilfield, Research Analyst

Melissa Sickmund, Director 

National Center for Juvenile Justice, research division of the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Advising

The Honorable Karen Aileen Howze (Ret.)

Hunter Hurst, Senior Research Associate

National Center for Juvenile Justice, research division of the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Editing

The Honorable Karen Aileen Howze (Ret.)

David Wohler, Senior Administrative Services Manager

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) thanks the juvenile, 

family, and tribal court judges, court administrators, chief juvenile probation officers, and others 

who participated in study interviews and responded to our national survey. 

This report was developed under grant number 21-P-027 from the State Justice Institute. The 

points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the State Justice Institute.

© The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Suggested Citation: Gene Siegel, Jeremy Bilfield, and Melissa Sickmund. 2022. A Preliminary 

Look at COVID Impacts on Juvenile, Family, and Tribal Courts. Reno, NV: National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4

STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS........................................................................................... 5

PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 5

PHASE 2 – INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................ 8

PHASE 2 INTERVIEW FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 8

OTHER LITERATURE................................................................................................................ 16

LESSONS LEARNED.................................................................................................................. 18

RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 20

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX A – NCJFCJ Phase 1 Survey.................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX B – Protocol for Phase 2 Interviews......................................................................... 31

APPENDIX C – Hierarchy Chart of Auto-coded Themes ........................................................... 46

APPENDIX D – Significance Testing Results and Tables........................................................... 48

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a cumulative total of 

83,590,446 COVID-19 cases in the United States in May 2022 (U.S. Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 2022). The pandemic has had profound impacts and social consequences in the 

United States for children and youth, families, and victims of abuse—particularly in poorer, 

marginalized, and underserved communities. 

Before the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that juvenile courts in the United 

States handled 722,600 delinquency cases in 2019 (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2019). There 

are child abuse and neglect data that have been compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Children’s Bureau that include the 2020 pandemic period (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2020) and these data indicate that for Federal Fiscal Year 2020, 

there were nationally 618,000 (rounded) victims of child abuse and neglect. The national number 

of victims for 2020 is an 8.7 percent decrease from the 2016 national estimate of 677,000 

victims. The Children’s Bureau report emphasizes that while the 2020 decrease may be due to 

the pandemic, the number of victims has fluctuated during the past five years and there are 

numerous factors that may contribute to these variations. The number of family court and tribal 

court cases are more difficult to estimate for many reasons, including the fact that the types of 

cases that family and tribal courts handle vary across the country (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Indian Affairs, 2021).

This preliminary study developed for the State Justice Institute by the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) attempted to take an initial look at the impact of the 

COVID-19 pandemic on justice systems engaged with the most vulnerable populations: children 

and youth, families, and adults who have been abused, as well as youth involved in delinquency 

matters and families involved with family or tribal courts. This assessment appears to be one of 

the first efforts to explore the impacts of COVID-19 on courts, particularly tribal courts, serving 

underserved and marginalized communities.

The project design employed mixed qualitative methods, including a survey of more than 300 

judges, court administrators, and juvenile probation managers from across the country, to 

identify and track the changes in practice, court rules, and communications as well as their 

experiences related to developing new approaches to complying with the rule of law and service 

to all in the nation’s communities during the ever-changing realities of the pandemic. The survey 

results were supplemented by structured interviews with 14 survey respondents from 10 

jurisdictions that reflected regional, rural, tribal, and urban jurisdictional diversity.

Findings and Preliminary Recommendations

Key findings from the survey indicate that courts have implemented a number of innovative and 

effective practices to address the impact of the pandemic on court cases involving children, 

youth, and families. The study also confirmed that what may be an appropriate practice in one 
2

jurisdiction may actually pose challenges for others where there are resource limitations, 

differential effects of the virus on different communities, issues of disproportionality in health, 

transportation, access to employment and education, as well as disproportionality and disparities 

that have greater impacts on marginalized communities across the states and territories. The 

NCJFCJ preliminary assessment shows that, despite these challenges, justice professionals 

working with these children and youth, families, and adults identified innovations and promising 

practices that did not, over time, allow the pandemic to interfere with community access to 

justice. This assessment also suggests that at least some of the innovations and new practices 

developed during the ongoing pandemic can be shared and expanded across jurisdictions. That 

said, there are persistent challenges that continue to pose daunting obstacles for many courts and 

communities.

Some of the key lessons learned from this exploratory study, including innovations and ongoing

challenges, are outlined below (please see the full report for a more detailed listing of local 

innovations and ongoing challenges in each jurisdiction, as well as preliminary 

recommendations).

Benefits and innovations include:

• Virtual hearings and remote access to hearings present far fewer time and travel demands 

for families involved in family or juvenile court matters.

• In some cases, virtual or remote proceedings enhance the safety of victims.

• In some states, state supreme court rules reinforce the viability of virtual proceedings.

• Hybrid hearings are giving the courts more flexibility and have helped with witness 

participation.

• Some juvenile courts have taken specific steps to prevent delays in delinquency matters.

• Some courts have been able to expand and improve interpreter resources.

• In general, virtual proceedings allow for more time certain calendaring, reducing delays.

• More people appear for virtual hearings with shorter waiting times versus in-person 

hearings.

• Virtual break out or waiting rooms have increased the availability of attorneys.

• Some courts have established virtual courtrooms.

• Children may be more comfortable in virtual settings.

• At least one tribal court provides laptops and Verizon jetpacks for greater connectivity.

• Virtual proceedings have helped some tribal communities feel safer.

• Good virtual technology helps some courts more accurately assess the credibility of 

litigants.

• Families can more easily meet with their attorneys in advance of hearings.

• Virtual proceedings have dramatically reduced attorney costs in some jurisdictions.

• In at least one jurisdiction, the custody docket has been running more efficiently.

• In some jurisdictions, detention visitation rates have increased due to virtual capability.

• When people participate from home, the court can see what the home looks like.
3

• Some jurisdictions have re-prioritized referrals to detention due to the pandemic.

• Some jurisdictions were able to improve virtual technology in jails and detention centers.

Ongoing challenges include:

• Court practices often vary across and within states, even in states with unified court 

systems.

• Huge and older courtrooms present formidable challenges for virtual technology.

• Internet access and connectivity continue to be obstacles in many rural and urban areas.

• Domestic violence and assault cases have increased in some communities.

• There are concerns regarding people being coerced in some virtual proceedings.

• Some jurisdictions expressed concerns regarding presentation of evidence and exhibits.

• While virtual technology may promote visitation, it limits the strength of early bonding 

between parents and young children.

• A substantial number of judges are experiencing Zoom fatigue.

• The pandemic continues to have significant adverse effects on court and other staff.

• At least one tribal court is experiencing a substantial increase in adult guardianships.

• Some tribal courts never had virtual hearings before the pandemic, and adapting to these 

circumstances has been difficult.

• Adverse COVID impacts for some tribes continue to prevent in-person hearings.

• Some tribes are experiencing decreases in protection orders.

• A shortage of process server resources is affecting many jurisdictions.

• Some courts have serious concerns about the viability of virtual treatment options.

• Mask requirements caused some issues for juries to assess credibility.

• Mental health and substance abuse issues continue to affect many courts.

• The loss of foster families and the inability to recruit new foster homes force children to 

wait.
4 

INTRODUCTION

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ (NCJFCJ) preliminary assessment of 

the impact of COVID-19 (or COVID) on access to the courts and the engagement of children, 

youth, and families takes an initial exploration of the challenges created by COVID, while also 

chronicling the innovative responses by many jurisdictions to shifting court processes and 

practice during the ever changing realities of the pandemic. 

The NCJFCJ started to consider the effects of COVID on juvenile and family court practices 

early in the spring of 2020 when the NCJFCJ initiated the “Court Transitions Project” to provide 

guidance to juvenile and family courts as they wrestled with the emerging challenges posed by 

the pandemic. As the pandemic began its spread through the United States, the NCJFCJ launched 

a dedicated COVID-19 and NCJFCJ Operations Updates page on its website (www.ncjfcj.org). 

In May 2020, the NCJFCJ posted a Statement Regarding Safe Courts and Access to Justice 

During COVID-19. This preliminary assessment, prepared for SJI, appears to be one of the first 

to explore and examine how COVID affected access to justice for children, youth and adults, and 

tribes. 

Understanding court jurisdictional frameworks is critical in the assessment of the impact of 

COVID and opportunities for innovation, new practices, and effective case management. Indeed, 

courts that hear cases involving children, youth, and families, and cases involving adult abuse, 

vary across the nation. This makes the use of family court difficult because each jurisdiction 

defines what courts have jurisdiction over what types of cases. Some hear cases involving 

divorce, child custody, and child support; some handle child abuse and neglect along with 

delinquency cases. Some jurisdictions include guardianships, while other jurisdictions leave 

these matters to probate courts. Some states have separate juvenile courts that operate under a 

variety of state or county court structures. 

COVID has amplified health inequities and other difficulties for many communities. For 

example, Native Americans and Alaska Native communities have been experiencing some of the 

highest rates of COVID in the United States. A recent analysis by Johns Hopkins University 

found that Native American or Alaska Native individuals were 3.5 times more likely to be 

hospitalized for the virus than others (Weeks, 2021). In response, during the pandemic each tribe 

developed its own policies and strategies to combat COVID as many continued to recognize that 

many of their court and health systems were underfunded even before the pandemic (National 

American Indian Court Judges Association, 2020). These factors affect the ability to address 

family issues that need to be resolved through the courts. Meanwhile, of the 574 federally 

recognized tribes, only 400 have tribal courts (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2022) and each 

tribe determines its laws, manages it resources, and creates structures for resolving cases

involving children, youth and families. 
5 

STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS

The NCJFCJ exploratory effort examines 

some areas and topics that overlap with 

other research but also addresses topics not 

specifically covered in other studies. More 

specifically, the NCJFCJ study focused on 

broader family court and tribal court issues. 

The NCJFCJ’s qualitative inquiries also 

reveal some important albeit preliminary 

findings related to community and human 

impacts, particularly as these relate to tribal 

communities and tribal courts, that have not 

been specifically or sufficiently addressed 

to date in other research. 

Mixed Methods Approach

The NCJFCJ study used a mixed methods 

approach with two phases. Phase 1 

involved a national survey (see Appendix A for the complete survey tool), using a convenience 

sample of more than 300 judicial officers, court administrators, court staff, tribal court judges, 

chiefs of juvenile probation, and others, to obtain their perceptions of the pandemic’s impacts. 

Phase 2 involved in depth interviews with 14 participants from 10 selected jurisdictions to delve 

more deeply into the specific effects of COVID. 

PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS 

Changes in court practices

Survey respondents were asked about a number of practices and practice changes that occurred 

in many courts before, during, and anticipated to continue after the pandemic has dissipated. The 

table below displays the percentages of these responses (See Appendix A for detailed survey 

findings). 

Not surprisingly, survey respondents indicated substantial changes in court practices in response 

to the pandemic. The most dramatic changes included: 

• A more than three-fold increase (from 18% pre-pandemic to 57% during the pandemic) 

in providing up to date information to litigants on changes in court policies. 

• An increase from 6% pre-pandemic to 65% during the pandemic in the development of 

specific policies and procedures to protect the privacy and safety of participants through 

remote settings.

Survey Respondents 

• More than 300 total survey respondents

• 146 Other Court Staff and probation chiefs 

• 114 Judicial Officers 

• 52 Court Administrators 

• Community types (multiple responses allowed) 

• 149 Urban 

• 108 Rural 

• 56 Suburban 

• 7 Tribal 

• Case Types (multiple responses allowed)

• 58 judges reported handling family law 

cases

• 25 judges reported handling delinquency 

cases

• 17 judges reported handling domestic 

relations cases

• Remaining respondents handled other case 

types or a range of cases.
6

• An increase from 2% of all hearings being virtual pre-pandemic to more than two-thirds 

(68%) being virtual during the pandemic. At the time of survey completion (August 2021 

at the latest), one-fourth (25%) of respondents indicated they anticipated continuing 

virtual proceedings in at least some cases once the pandemic recedes. 

• Most respondents anticipated keeping the changes in seven out of the eight court 

practices, listed in the table below, at higher rates than before the pandemic.

Changes in Court Practices

Respondents saying their court... Before During

Anticipated 

After

Uses an e-filing system 32% 51% 41%

Had a disaster recovery plan 26% 30% 25%

Provided up-to-date information to litigants on 

changes in court policies 18% 57% 33%

Developed policies and procedures to protect the 

privacy and safety of participants in remote settings 9% 54% 29%

Decided which cases to hear in person 7% 55% 33%

Developed policies and procedures to protect the staff 

and public from the virus 6% 65% 36%

Changed the procedures for public access to hearings 4% 53% 25%

Experienced a decrease of in-person hearings 2% 68% 25%

Different types of survey respondents viewed challenges differently

The pandemic influences the utility and necessity of different 

court practice that vary across the family, juvenile, and tribal 

court spectrum. It is clear from the survey respondents that what 

works in one court may not be feasible in another. This variance 

may be due to differences in court system physical 

environments (e.g., some older courtrooms may pose more barriers to efficient and effective use 

of technology), technology access and capabilities (e.g., some communities have limited or no 

access to broadband, Wi-Fi, or other essential technologies), and other factors. Meanwhile, some 

courts have used the time during the pandemic to complete technology installations to better 

support Wi-Fi and other renovations to improve the court’s trauma responsiveness (Clark & 

McCrady, 2022)

Socio-economic factors are also relevant for many communities hard hit with job losses, 

homelessness, and increases in the need for addiction treatment and mental health services. For 

example, recent research emphasizes that the pandemic poses an unprecedented threat to global 

mental health, with children and adolescents at particular risk (Xiong, et al., 2020). 

We are doing adoptions 

virtually. Families like it.

—Family Court Judge
7

While the challenges posed by COVID-19 far outnumber the identified innovations evident in a 

number of courts, it is important to emphasize that this exploratory study confirmed a strong 

desire across jurisdictions to share information about what seems to be working and the need for 

more research on the effects of changes in court practices on children, youth, and families. 

Analyses of Phase 1 Survey Responses

The Phase 1 survey identified several substantial changes in practice that occurred during the 

pandemic and what respondents can, should, or will continue or change once COVID restrictions 

are no longer necessary. 

By the use of repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise tests, a number of significant 

relationships were observed between differences in respondent role (judge, court staff, and 

other). The opinions on the difficulty overcoming specific challenges associated with the 

pandemic depended on the respondent’s role. Notably, court administrators generally viewed 

issues tied to COVID as more challenging than did other respondents (full p-values and related 

effect sizes are visible in Appendix E). From this testing, court administrators had a statistically 

significantly negative view in comparison to one of the other two groups on six of the possible 

nine areas of challenge, including: 

• Access to the community

• Evidentiary hurdles in remote hearings

• Technological difficulties

• Internet access

• Making credibility determinations in remote 

settings

• Effectiveness of remote hearings 

The reasons for the differences between court administrators, who generally are responsible for 

the entire courthouse or court system, not just one courtroom or one docket, and other 

respondents, are not clear. However, the Phase 2 interviews indicate that the more expansive 

management roles of court administrators made managing the challenges presented by COVID

more extensive.

In sum, although some survey findings confirm plans in many courts to continue the use of 

remote hearings and other changes, there appear to be some different impacts on family and 

tribal courts that deserve further analyses. Overall, some changes made by family, juvenile, and 

tribal courts have made things easier, but other changes have produced complicated effects. 

Nothing is worse than having a 

parent visiting a child via Zoom, 

not being able to hold their child. It 

is heartbreaking.

—Juvenile Court Judge
8

PHASE 2 – INTERVIEWS

More than 90 Phase 1 survey respondents expressed interest in participating in follow-up 

interviews to discuss the effects of COVID in greater detail (see Appendix B for the complete 

listing of interview topics). Ten jurisdictions were selected for interviews to maximize 

geographic diversity. Phase 2 participants were drawn from Alabama, Delaware, Ohio, New 

York City, upstate New York, Kentucky, Texas, West Virginia, and tribal courts in northern 

California and New Mexico. In total, NCJFCJ researchers conducted interviews with 14 

interview participants (some jurisdictions included more than one person in their interviews). 

More specifically, Phase 2 interviews involved seven 

court administrators (six at the state level, one at the 

county level), two juvenile chief probation officers 

(one at the state level, one at the county level), and six 

judicial officers including two tribal court judges. The 

interview participants ran the gamut from large rural 

regions to urban and suburban areas and represented 

very different jurisdictions.

NCJFCJ researchers asked 15 open-ended questions involving direct experiences, lessons 

learned, benefits and ongoing challenges with virtual proceedings, and other changes in practice 

for family and tribal courts. All interviews were recorded to ensure accuracy. NCJFCJ project 

staff then compiled a list of key themes derived from these interviews and also used NVivo 

software to further attempt to identify major themes.

PHASE 2 INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Benefits of virtual proceedings identified by interview participants

The interviews confirmed that changes in 

responses to COVID-19 are not monolithic. 

Rather, there are important differences across 

communities and jurisdictions (see Appendix B). 

Indeed, what may be a benefit in one jurisdiction 

may be an ongoing challenge in another. 

Despite important differences, there are some benefits that are consistent across the Phase 2 

jurisdictions. These include: 

Witness, expert, and family participation increased

Phase 2 participants often attested to how witnesses, both expert and lay, were able to participate 

more easily in the virtual hearing setting. Interviewees noted that critical geographical limitations 

The pandemic has caused substantial 

delays in juvenile justice matters with 

some youth getting in trouble again 

while the system processes their 

initial referrals.

—Juvenile Court Judge.

Medical isolations of youth in our detention 

facility have presented serious challenges as 

most of these youth also have very serious 

mental health issues.

—Chief Juvenile Probation Officer
9

in many cases were removed by the new access strategies, allowing non-local specialists to be 

involved in the proceedings. 

Parent and child participation and involvement in hearings overall were also said to have 

improved after the introduction of remote access. Reasons for this change are likely linked to 

decreases in transportation barriers experienced before virtual access. Further, interviewees 

indicated that many hearing participants did not have to miss a significant portion of work in 

order to be present for the proceedings.

Virtual proceedings may help reduce generalized trauma in courts and allow judges to see into 

the lives of families

The pandemic has produced a range of trauma-related issues for courts and communities. Phase 

2 interviews revealed that judges have become more sensitive to, aware of, and responsive to the 

trauma experienced by children and families who appear before them. In addition, some judges 

noted that virtual proceedings allow the court to observe aspects of the family’s living 

conditions, which the court is not privy to during in-person hearings. The judges indicated that 

this information can help the court experience a different level of connection with families. The 

judges also recognized that virtual hearings provide opportunities to expand discussions on what 

may appear to be issues that should be addressed in the case. 

Court dockets are more efficient and attorney costs have decreased

Overall, courts saw that the hearings started on time eliminating long waiting periods. Some 

judges and court administrators remarked that cases appear to move more quickly, with dockets 

being run more efficiently than before the pandemic. This is an important aspect for courts as 

they attempt to establish and/or maintain credibility with families and the public as they continue 

efforts to create better outcomes based on local law and practice. A number of interviewees also 

observed that attorney schedules have become much easier to manage given the virtual options 

now available. This has produced some cost savings related to the amount of time that attorneys 

bill.

While there have been some benefits for trials, there are also some challenges

Regarding trials, judges indicated that families were able to much more easily contact and meet 

with their attorneys prior to trial. In contrast, however, some judges also reported that, in this 

new virtual setting, trials were far more challenging than other types of hearings due to the 

number of procedures, credibility determinations, evidentiary issues, and related requirements. 

The pool of court interpreters has increased in some jurisdictions

Some interview participants indicated that virtual proceedings allow for a greater pool of court 

interpreters versus requiring interpreters to be physically present for in-person hearings. This 

includes interpreters for languages that previously were not available for in-person events. 
10

However, at least one jurisdiction indicated that the use of virtual interpreters can be difficult 

when the technology is not up to par and participants may have difficulties hearing each other.

Improved family safety

In the interviews, stories were shared attesting that family violence victims felt much safer in 

virtual waiting rooms than in person. Further, interview participants also noted that alleged 

victims may feel more comfortable in virtual proceedings sharing information concerning 

possible violence occurring in their homes because they are not in proximity to the person 

responsible for the violence. 

Increased family time options

Some judges emphasized that families were able to increase contacts and family time with their 

children who were in placement or detention, though some judges lamented how reductions in 

in-person visitations adversely affected important bonding effects particular between parents and 

younger children. The ability of parents to have contact with detained youth was highlighted as 

an important benefit for youth who were placed in medical isolation. A number of judges 

mentioned that disagreements about COVID-19 vaccination between parents in custody disputes 

can adversely affect contact between parents and the children.

Summary of ongoing challenges identified by interview participants

As with the shared benefits previously listed, there are also some shared and persistent 

challenges that appear to be evident across Phase 2 jurisdictions. These include: 

Larger court caseloads, longer processing, and fewer placement options 

Some participants reported an increase in domestic violence and child abuse and neglect cases 

during the pandemic, though some interviewees also indicated decreases in child abuse and 

neglect reports. There were also significant concerns about potential delays in juvenile 

delinquency cases due to health considerations related to the pandemic, staffing shortages, 

technology issues, and other factors. A number of participants reported that the availability of 

foster homes and treatment facilities has been adversely impacted, sometimes causing youth to 

remain in detention facilities when they should be moved to mental health centers. Other 

jurisdictions reported higher numbers of medical isolations and/or lockdowns in order to contain 

outbreaks of COVID-19 in facilities. Interviewees expressed frustrations with these 

circumstances because they were concerned with possible detrimental effects, particularly for 

youth with special needs (e.g., mental health issues). Within the system as a whole, many of 

these challenges were exacerbated by staff shortages (often from illness) that could inhibit timely 

release from detention facilities and timely placement, and/or the initiation of community 

programming.
11

Confusing CDC and community health policies

The pandemic’s persistence has exacerbated a range of stressors for the courts, families, and 

communities including but not limited to mental health needs of court professionals as well as 

the parties in cases. The starts and stops brought about by COVID outbreaks made it feel as 

though things were moving backward, and it was difficult to manage COVID protocols when 

things were constantly changing. Messaging regarding the uncertainty of public health standards 

has also created problems for communities within some jurisdictions, the participants noted. 

Unclear CDC guidelines similarly made it difficult for courts to set appropriate, timely, and more 

consistent standards. 

School impacts

Shifting school policies related to frequent COVID outbreaks and other considerations continue 

to pose important challenges for the courts. The changes from virtual schooling, which presents 

unique obstacles, to in-person classes affected the ability of court staff to plan for court 

proceedings. For example, when schools close in-person classes, court staff and families 

involved in court cases have to rearrange their schedules to support in-home instruction. 

Serious mental health and substance abuse issues

Many judges and others emphasized that their courts have seen an increase in litigants or family 

members who have serious mental health illnesses. The participants said that the pandemic has 

had a negative impact on the community’s ability to provide mental health services from 

assessment to treatment for the individuals before the court. The participants also noted that 

access to mental health or substance abuse treatment has been particularly acute for children in 

foster care and juvenile detention, where mental health issues may have been exacerbated by 

medical isolation implemented as part of COVID protocols. Families and teens who are 

recovering from some form of substance addiction have also been negatively affected in their 

ability to receive care, with some interviewees expressing some concerns about the benefits of 

virtual treatment. 

Staff shortages and burnout and the need for interventions for court staff

Participants mentioned that staff burnout and staffing shortages are increasingly a concern for 

courts and related agencies. The issue of staff shortages and burnout reinforces the survey 

findings for some court administrators who view challenges during the pandemic more 

pessimistically than other groups. A number of judges and court administrators also raised 

concerns regarding COVID’s continuing impact on the availability and use of process server 

resources, making it very difficult for some courts and agencies to ensure timely notice to the 

parties.
12

Persistent technology challenges and inexperience with virtual proceedings

The physical court environment in some jurisdictions has exposed challenges in implementing 

available technological solutions due to building age and structure, and some courthouses and 

courtrooms may be built from materials not conducive to a strong wireless signal. In some cases, 

these courts had to rely on telephonic participation. In some tribal jurisdictions, video hearings 

were not implemented until after the pandemic, and these tribal courts had no prior experience 

conducting virtual proceedings.

Challenges determining who is present in virtual proceedings, difficulty making credibility 

determinations, and filing difficulties 

Interview participants emphasized that it was sometimes difficult to determine who was offcamera during virtual proceedings. Credibility determinations were also especially challenging, 

particularly in jury trials. Further, pro se litigants were unclear on how they should submit 

documents or evidence given the new remote formats. In some courts that closed down or had 

limited operations during the pandemic, it was challenging for victims of family violence to file 

and obtain timely protection orders. 

Technology itself as a divider

Though remote hearings have provided opportunities for 

some to increase attendance at court hearings, interviews 

revealed that the digital divide has meant some 

communities were not able to benefit in the same way 

after the change to remote hearings. Stable internet 

connections, when available, come at a cost and that cost 

is prohibitive for many low-income litigants. Courts 

were forced to recognize and adapt to bureaucratic 

practices that placed a drain on litigants’ data plans and 

cell phone batteries. In many parts of the country, urban and rural areas both, there are 

challenges in obtaining stable internet connections. In some rural/frontier and tribal 

communities, any broadband access whatsoever can be nonexistent. 

Overall, even when communities have internet access, the constant use of virtual calls and 

hearings has been said to cause Zoom fatigue for some court staff and judges serving these 

families. 

Prior to this work, concerns have been raised as to whether enough Americans possess access to 

broadband or internet in a meaningful way so as to make the remote provision of justice and 

court services practical. In 2019, Pew research estimated that nearly 90% of American adults 

used the internet in some fashion (Pew Research Center 2021a). Approximately 114.27 million 

American households had access to the internet in that same year (O’Dea 2021). However, in 

The pandemic has prevented me 

from establishing face to face inperson interactions and 

relationships with children and 

families in my court. This can have 

adverse impacts on kids and 

families.

—Family Court Judge
13

considering cellphones alone, studies have shown nearly 96% of U.S. adults owned a cellphone 

and 81% owned a smartphone in February 2019 (Pew Research Center 2021b).

Transportation barriers persist

While reducing transportation and travel demands have been noted as benefits of virtual 

proceedings, it is important to note that in areas with limited or non-existent internet or cell 

phone access court clients must find ways to garner access. In these situations, parties must 

travel to locations where the internet is available. This poses significant challenges for those 

without transportation and, even if they do have access to a vehicle, the cost of gas may create 

further barriers.

Transportation to and from court has long been an issue in many communities. For individuals 

without vehicles or access to public transportation, just getting to in-person hearings has been a 

major challenge. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates that 8.5% of American households have no 

vehicle to use, and 32.5% have only one (U.S.CB 2022). Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, 

estimates of household size in 2019 (3.14 people) (Statista, 2022), nearly 28.6 million people 

have no access to immediate personal transportation. Further, the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA) found that 45% of Americans lack access to any method of 

public transportation (APTA 2021). Therefore, utilizing remote means of access to justice seems 

to be critically important for those who do not have physical transportation. 

Appendix C provides more details, by jurisdiction, on what Phase 2 participants say is working 

and what circumstances continue to pose challenges related to the pandemic.

Community and human impact

The Phase 2 interviews revealed the broader effects of 

the pandemic on communities beyond the courts. The 

longer-term effects of the educational, socio-economic, 

public health, social interaction, mental health, and other 

pandemic consequences on these communities have yet to be determined, particularly for tribal 

communities that have been devastated by the pandemic. 

As conditions continue to evolve across the country, it seems imperative that researchers and 

other practitioners must carefully monitor and respond to the longer-range consequences of the 

pandemic, not only in the courts but on all community aspects that are intrinsically linked to 

court cases and the access to justice. 

Additional insights from NVivo analysis of interview responses

In addition to recording interviews, the NVivo software was used to identify themes that 

occurred over the course of the interviews to verify the conclusions and observations seen within 

the qualitative analysis and summaries of the interviews. Themes were largely decided by using 

We lost members of the national tribal 

council, COVID took their lives. 

—Tribal Court Judge.
14

the software’s auto-coder to reduce bias in coder assessment. From this, all words spoken over 

the course of the interviews were recorded by the software. In the word cloud below, the most 

common word stems have been organized (e.g., “talk” and “talking” share a stem). The data 

show that “judges” and “courts” were at the center of all discussions, with an emphasis on what 

people know now given their breadth of experience with the pandemic. This represents the core 

idea that is shared across all background research and this study—that the situation is constantly 

evolving and unprecedented and that everyone is learning as time goes on. In addition, 

“hearings” represent a related theme—discussions focused on changes to hearings as technology 

was introduced and hearings went virtual. Within the 

hierarchy chart seen in Appendix D, where smaller subthemes are included within greater themes, all include 

some discussion of virtual hearings. Of all themes as 

ranked by the number of words covered, court itself took 

up the largest share at 575 words (see bar chart below).

The second widest word coverage theme was “county” which emphasizes that the changes and 

discussion happening were occurring at the local not the state level. This also reflects that in 

most jurisdictions, courts are organized at the county level. As the pandemic continues, impacts 

and responses will continue to be based largely on county- and community-level work. 

We are seeing an influx in 

overdoses and deaths due to 

substance abuse. 

—Family Court Judge.
15

What can be taken from the NVivo thematic look is that the interviews mirror what was observed 

in many of the sources cited in the literature review. Participants focused greatly on the existence 

of virtual hearings and the benefits that they provide or limitations inherent in them. Families and 

the way in which they have been affected took center stage after the courts focused on the new 

processes that are a part of the new court reality. Many of the effects are so sufficiently 

individualized that they are hard to capture in aggregate. As such, more weight should be given 

to the individual stories and statements in Appendix C. 

It is hoped that this initial look at changes in family, juvenile, and tribal court practices provides

at least some indications of emerging innovations, ongoing challenges, as well as community and 

human impacts associated with the pandemic. Moreover, this work intends to point to areas 

where future research and, perhaps, technical assistance and training are needed to assist courts 

as they move forward to address ongoing hurdles.

As mentioned, the NCJFCJ’s initial examination of changing practices and innovations overlaps 

with other research on the efficacy of remote court proceedings and the related benefits and 

challenges associated with the shift to hearings that are virtual.

575

382

312

311

223

187

187

177

161

158

154

145

136

130

123

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Court

County

Family

Cases

Hearings

Facilities

Family Court

Officers

Protection

Information

Judge

Probation

Term

Domestic Violence Case

Center

Top 15 Themes by Spoken Words Covered
16

OTHER LITERATURE 

The pandemic has prompted a growing body of articles, bulletins, and studies examining court 

and other related impacts. References cited for this report show that in the earliest days of the 

pandemic many courts, executive branch agencies, and service providers involved with court 

cases had formed clear opinions on adapting or modifying traditional court practices while 

focusing on safety measures to continue to provide services to children and youth, families, and 

adults. In addition, organizations involved in research also reviewed and compared practices

before and during the pandemic. A few examples: 

The Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators reported that, based on the 35 juvenile justice 

jurisdictions surveyed and eight structured interviews, agency administrators believed that the 

pandemic was a key opportunity to change old ways (Pette, 2022). They saw that the challenges 

put forth to the justice system would provide opportunities to invest necessary resources to meet 

modern and future challenges. 

The Washington State Board of Judicial Administration’s Court Recovery Task force (2020) 

found that 78% of the 33 Washington counties surveyed were using remote options to conduct 

court hearings. Within hearing subtypes, family law hearings were performed the most 

frequently in both remote and in-person settings according to 82% of survey respondents. 

Further, courts indicated that they had a desire to keep the new remote hearings, sanitization 

protocols, and e-filing systems moving forward.

In September 2020, researchers used structured interviews to examine how COVID-19 impacted 

the intersection of racial justice with family and juvenile courts (Gagnon & Alpern, 2021). 

Judges interviewed in Georgia and New York State spoke about how the changes made in 

technology during the pandemic will not, by themselves, solve issues underlying racial disparity 

such as financial insecurity that disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic families. In this 

study, which focused on child welfare proceedings, judges also expressed concerns regarding 

access to justice as not every individual involved with the court has sufficient internet access or 

other capabilities to participate virtually. In contrast, the same study also suggested that virtual 

hearings can provide opportunities to break down hierarchies inherent in the architecture or 

environment of most court rooms. More specifically, this study suggested that without the judge 

raised above the court on the bench, everyone appeared far more equal in a camera feed. Overall, 

despite ongoing concerns related to racial justice, most of the judicial officers who participated 

in these interviews could not foresee a future where all parties would be required to appear in

person for all child welfare hearings.

In November and December 2020, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) found that of 

more than 200 judicially led diversion programs across 40 states, 49% involved virtual 

proceedings, with approximately one-quarter existing entirely in virtual space (Kunkel, Ray & 
17

Bryant, 2021). Fully 47% of the same respondents in this study also indicated that there is a high 

level of support for continuing to use virtual proceedings. 

The Center for American Progress (CAP) showed that the Navajo Nation had the highest 

COVID-19 infection rate in the country, surpassing New York (the state with the highest rate) 

and even Wuhan, China at the epidemic’s initial outbreak (Doshi et al., 2020). Further, American 

Indian people in general constitute a disproportionate number of infected cases. For example, 

during the study period, in New Mexico, Native Americans accounted for 10% of the population, 

but 55% of positive cases. For the same period, in Wyoming, Native Americans represented 3% 

of the population but 33% of positive cases. The CAP examination attributes these dramatic 

conditions to a deadly mix of a failure of the U.S. government to provide promised funding, 

Native American income sources being stagnated by state policy, and impaired infrastructure on 

tribal lands. The CAP analyses further emphasized how difficult it is to imagine how the

improvements in justice provision during the pandemic in non-Native communities could be 

equally realized by many tribes, given the severe conditions that Native communities face. 

Furthermore, there appears to be little to no research that specifically examines how juvenile and 

family matters have been handled by tribal courts during the pandemic.

Data reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that Hispanic people represent a larger 

share of COVID cases relative to their share of the total population (24% vs. 18%), while their 

share of deaths is more proportionate to their share of the population (17% vs. 18%). The 

disparity in cases relative to their share of the population has decreased slightly over time. For 

example, as of early October 2021, they accounted for 27% of cases. Black people make up a 

similar share of COVID cases relative to their share of the population (13%), but account for a 

slightly higher share of deaths compared to their population share (14% vs. 13%). This pattern 

has been consistent since October 2021. White people account for a lower share of COVID cases 

compared to their share of the population (54% vs. 60%) but a larger share of deaths compared to 

their population share (63% vs. 60%). The higher share of deaths relative to their share of the 

population reflects a shift from October 2021 when their share of deaths was slightly lower than 

their share of the population. This shift largely reflects a higher death rate compared to other 

groups during the fourth quarter of 2022 amid the Omicron surge. Consistent with data as of 

early October 2021, Asian people make up a lower share of cases and deaths compared to their 

population share (4% and 3%, respectively, versus 6%).

In 2021, clearer patterns began to emerge on both court hearings and in juvenile justice facilities. 

The Performance-based Standards Learning Institute (PbS) surveyed 2,623 family members of 

youth in juvenile justice facilities from April 2019 to April 2021 and found that the proportion of 

parents who said they used video calls to stay in contact with their children increased from 1% to 

7% (PbS, 2021a). The researchers also found that support by families and other parties for virtual 

hearings increased from 3% in 2019 to 31% in 2021. Coincidentally, the PbS study found that 

use of all types of physical and chemical restraints were lower than before the pandemic, and it 
18

also showed that staff relationships with youth improved in facilities compared to pre-pandemic 

levels (PbS 2021b).

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC 2021) examined changes in court practices in eight 

Texas court jurisdictions including those handling family law matters. NCSC found that 85% of 

hearings were conducted remotely and this level of remote proceedings continued through 

December 2021. NCSC also found that remote hearings took an average of approximately 34% 

longer than in-person hearings. The longer hearing times were attributed in no small part to 

technological difficulties that the NCSC indicated could be reduced with time and practice. 

Qualitative analysis of judicial interviews in this study did cite an increase in participation from 

parties in family-related cases. Child custody hearings were particularly noted as being wellsuited for remote hearings. NCSC also found that judges presiding over virtual child welfare 

hearings believed attendance was higher than with in-person proceedings. The reasons offered 

for this increase included participants no longer having to travel or take as much time off from 

work. Many judges reported having an easier time implementing the best-practice 

recommendation of more time-certain hearings with virtual proceedings. Technical issues 

prevalent at the start of the pandemic were also said to have decreased over time. The benefits of 

the remote set up were not merely confined to families and judges. The NCSC noted that waiting 

times and travel time for attorneys and other court professionals were equally cut by virtual 

hearings. Attorneys were also said to have been either just as or better prepared for their cases 

compared to in-person proceedings. 

COVID impact research has not been limited to juvenile and family court matters. The NCJFCJ 

examined remote hearing access in elder abuse and guardianship cases (Kay 2021). The 

publication also provided resources for judges to make their courts more accessible to older 

citizens and increase their participation. 

LESSONS LEARNED

In sum, lessons learned from the NCJFCJ exploratory study include:

• Virtual hearings and remote access to hearings present far fewer time and travel demands 

for families involved in family or juvenile court matters.

• In some cases, virtual or remote proceedings enhance the safety of victims.

• In some states, state supreme court rules reinforce the viability of virtual proceedings.

• Hybrid hearings are giving the courts more flexibility and has helped with witness 

participation.

• Some juvenile courts have taken specific steps to prevent delays in delinquency matters.

• Some courts have been able to expand and improve interpreter resources.

• In general, virtual proceedings allow for more time certain calendaring, reducing delays.

• More people appear for virtual hearings with shorter waiting times versus in-person 

hearings.

• Virtual break out or waiting rooms have improved the availability of attorneys.
19

• Some courts have established virtual courtrooms.

• Children may be more comfortable in virtual settings.

• At least one tribal court provides laptops and Verizon jetpacks for greater connectivity.

• Virtual proceedings have helped some tribal communities feel safer.

• Good virtual technology helps some courts more accurately assess credibility of litigants.

• Families can more easily meet with their attorneys in advance of hearings.

• Virtual proceedings have dramatically reduced attorney costs in some jurisdictions.

• In at least one jurisdiction, the custody docket has been running more efficiently.

• In some jurisdictions, detention visitation rates have increased due to virtual capability.

• When people participate from home, the court can see what the home looks like.

• Some jurisdictions have re-prioritized referrals to detention due to the pandemic.

• Some jurisdictions were able to improve virtual technology in jails and detention centers.

Examples of ongoing challenges related to virtual proceedings:

• Court practices often vary across and within states, even in states with unified court 

systems.

• Huge and older courtrooms present formidable challenges for virtual technology.

• Internet access and connectivity continue to be obstacles in many rural and urban areas.

• Domestic violence and assault cases have increased in some communities.

• There are concerns regarding people being coerced in some virtual proceedings.

• Some jurisdictions expressed concerns regarding presentation of evidence and exhibits.

• While virtual technology may promote visitation, it limits the strength of early bonding 

between parents and young children.

• A substantial number of judges are experiencing Zoom fatigue.

• The pandemic continues to have significant adverse effects on court and other staff.

• At least one tribal court is experiencing a substantial increase in adult guardianships.

• Some tribal courts never had virtual hearings before the pandemic and adapting to these 

circumstances has been difficult.

• Adverse COVID impacts for some tribes continue to prevent in-person hearings.

• Some tribes are experiencing decreases in protection orders.

• Shortage of process server resources is affecting many jurisdictions.

• Some courts have serious concerns about the viability of virtual treatment options.

• Mask requirements caused some issues for juries to assess credibility.

• Mental health and substance abuse issues continue to affect many courts.

• Loss of foster families and the inability to recruit new foster homes force children to wait.
20

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are a number of recommendations that have been revealed by this work. This preliminary 

listing reflects what the authors of this report consider to be top priorities moving forward.

Information sharing on innovations and solutions should be formalized

The pandemic has fundamentally challenged how justice is provided to the American public, 

especially in the cases of family, juvenile, and tribal courts. While some of the innovations 

described in this report are jurisdiction-specific, it does not mean that they cannot be modified or 

even taken whole in other jurisdictions. 

One approach would be to create an appropriate forum or forums to allow jurisdictions across the 

country to regularly share information pertaining to pandemic impacts, innovations, and 

challenges for the courts and system partners. These forums should also include efforts to create 

more comprehensive solutions, perhaps with federal and state-level participation, for 

jurisdictions that continue to face persistent obstacles related to technology and other issues. 

Within these forums, jurisdictions should share information on how technology can continue to 

be improved to enhance court practices and case outcomes. These forums should not be limited 

to court professionals but should include key court partners including executive branch agencies. 

The specific examples cited in the Phase 2 interviews offer glimpses of the types of innovations 

that may be shared across jurisdictions. 

Special emphasis should be placed on assisting tribes

As discussed, the pandemic’s impacts on tribes and tribal courts continue to present a range of 

challenges (technological and other resources). Steps should be taken to examine COVID’s

impacts on these communities in more detail and, based on findings, the tribes should be offered 

free and culturally-sensitive technical assistance to assist these communities in developing 

workable plans to improve local conditions. As discovered, some tribes have been innovative in 

their efforts to improve access to the internet and Wi-Fi (e.g., the use of Verizon Jetpacks), but, 

as Phase 2 interviews illustrated, other issues affecting Native American communities deserve 

more careful attention and support.

At least one tribal court reported a substantial increase in adult guardianships stemming from 

addiction issues and this increase appears to be linked to the pandemic. These guardianship cases 

are placing immense pressure on elderly family members who are serving as guardians. The 

NCJFCJ is not aware of any research that has been conducted on the impacts of the pandemic on 

tribal guardianship matters.
21

The mental health impacts of the pandemic on children, youth, and families involved in the 

court system, and the adverse effects on court staff, deserve special attention

Efforts should be initiated to examine more specifically the mental health impacts of the 

pandemic on children, youth, and families who are involved in family, juvenile, and tribal court 

matters, as well as court staff and partners. There should be a particular focus on youth who are 

detained and/or involved in the juvenile justice system. Courts and their partner agencies 

continue to struggle with internal and external resources to provide treatment services for the 

communities they serve. However, as this exploratory study revealed, court and partner agency 

staff are also experiencing staff burnout, turnover, and other signs of significant mental health 

issues. A comprehensive approach to identify and develop workable options seems warranted to 

determine short-range and longer-range impacts and develop positive responses.

The impact of the pandemic on safety considerations, particularly for victims of domestic 

violence, should also be more carefully examined

This exploratory study revealed the need to more specifically examine the impacts of the 

pandemic on safety issues related to domestic violence cases including the filing of protection 

orders and the effects of remote proceedings on the safety of survivors. In some communities, 

judges reported that domestic violence cases are skyrocketing and, in contrast, that filings of 

emergency protection orders have substantially decreased. The reasons for these circumstances 

and options for addressing these challenges should be given top priority. 

Courts and their partners should consider applying lessons learned from COVID to 

broader disaster planning efforts

While this report emphasizes the persistent and ever-changing nature of the pandemic, it is 

important to consider how lessons learned during COVID could be applied to other disaster 

scenarios. The Phase 1 survey found that less than one-third of respondents anticipated 

developing a disaster recovery plan that would incorporate at least some of the aspects of 

changes brought about by the pandemic. This seems to be an essential step that courts and 

partner agencies should take as they attempt to be as proactive as possible in the face of evolving 

circumstances.
22 

REFERENCES

American Public Transport Association. (2021, July 7). Public transportation facts. American

Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/newspublications/public-transportation-facts/ 

Board for Judicial Administration Court Recovery Task Force. (2020, November 24). Changing 

Court Practices Amidst COVID and Beyond. Washington Courts. Retrieved from 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_bja/Final%20Changing%20Court%20Pract

ices%20Admist%20COVID%20Survey%20summary.pdf 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2022. Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive Services 

from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register. 87 FR 4636 p. 4636-

4641. 1/28/2022. Retrieved from 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/28/2022-01789/indian-entitiesrecognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of 

Clark, K.B. and McCrady, J.S. (2022, March). Creating a Trauma-Informed Court – Why 

physical space matters. PowerPoint presentation at the NCJFCJ National Conference on 

Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Doshi, S., Jordan, A., Kelly, K., & Solomon, D. (2020, June 18). The COVID-19 Response in 

Indian County. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from 

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/covid-19-response-indian-country/ 

Gagnon, A. and Alpern, S. (2021). Reimagining youth justice: How the dual crises of Covid‐19 

and racial injustice inform judicial policymaking and reform. Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal, 72(2), 5–22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12196 

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. (2021). Juvenile Court Statistics 2019. Pittsburgh, PA: 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Kaiser Family Foundation (2022). COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Race/Ethnicity: Current

Data and Changes Over Time. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid19/issue-brief/covid-19-cases-and-deaths-by-race-ethnicity-current-data-and-changes-overtime/

Kay, A. (2021). COVID-19 and Abuse in Later Life: The Impact and What Judges and Courts 

can do. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NCJFCJ_COVID19_and_Elder_Abuse_Final.pdf 

Kunkel, T., Ray, B., & Bryant, K. (2021, February). Adoption of Virtual Services in Judicially 

Led Diversion Programs. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/60101/Adoption-of-Virtual-Services-inJudicially-Led-Diversion-Programs.pdf 
23 

National American Indian Court Judges Association. (2020). https://www.naicja.org/covid19-

resources/

National Center for State Courts. (2021, June). Study of Virtual Child Welfare Hearings 

Impressions from Judicial Interviews. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/65520/Study-of-Virtual-Child-WelfareHearings-Judicial-Interviews-Brief.pdf 

O'Dea, S. (2021, November 9). U.S. households with Broadband Internet 2020. Statista. 

Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/183614/us-households-with-broadbandinternet-access-since-2009/ 

Ostrom, B., Douglas, J., Tallarico, S., & Roth, S. (2021, December). The Use of Remote 

Hearings in Texas State Courts: The Impact on Judicial Workload. National Center for 

State Courts. Retrieved from https://www.ncsc.org/_media/_importedncsc/files/pdf/newsroom/TX-Remote-Hearing-Assessment-Report.pdf 

Performance Based Standards. (2021a, August 20). Data Snapshot: Responding to the 

Pandemic-What Families Said About Their Experiences. Performance Based Standards. 

Retrieved from https://pbstandards.org/blog/posts/2021/august/data-snapshot-respondingto-the-pandemic-what-families-said-about-their-experiences/ 

Performance Based Standards. (2021b, August 20). Data Snapshot - Use of Restraints and StaffYouth Relationships. Performance Based Standards. Retrieved from 

https://pbstandards.org/blog/posts/2021/august/data-snapshot-responding-to-the-pandemicwhat-families-said-about-their-experiences/ 

Pew Research Center. (2021a, April 7). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Pew Research Center: 

Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/factsheet/internet-broadband/ 

Pew Research Center. (2021b, April 7). Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, 

Science & Tech. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ 

Pette, S. (2022, February). The Impact of COVID-19 on Juvenile Justice Systems: Practice 

Changes, Lessons Learned and Future Considerations. Council of Juvenile Justice 

Administrators. Retrieved from 

https://mcusercontent.com/10b10aa0562ed09660f97b9a0/files/4a54f006-f02f-08af-37c9-

9255f32ffd06/COVID_19_Impact_on_JJ_Systems.01.pdf 

Statista. (2022, February 22). Average family size in the U.S. 1960-2020. Statista. Retrieved from 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-theus/#:~:text=As%20of%202019%2C%20the%20U.S.,from%203.7%20in%20the%201960s 
24 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2022). Tribal Court Systems. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. https://www.bia.gov/CFRCourts/tribal-justice-supportdirectorate 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021, October 8). 2019 U.S. population estimates continue to show the 

nation's growth is slowing. Census.gov. Retrieved from 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-nation.html 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022, March 2). Why We Ask About... Vehicles available. Census.gov. 

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-eachquestion/vehicles/ 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022, May 26). COVID Data Tracker. 

Retrieved from https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-adminrate-total

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Child Welfare Information Gateway (2020). 

Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics. Retrieved from Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics - 

Child Welfare Information Gateway

U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Affairs (2021). Tribal Court Systems. Retrieved from 

Tribal Court Systems | Indian Affairs (bia.gov)

Weeks, R. (2021, October) New data shows COVID-19's disproportionate impact on American 

Indian, Alaska Native tribes. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, Center for 

American Indian Health. https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/10/11/map-covid-19-impact-americanindian-population/ 

Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L., Gill, H., Phan, L, Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R., 

Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. (2020, December 1). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on 

mental health in the general population: A systematic review. National Library of 

Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7413844/
25

APPENDIX A – NCJFCJ Phase 1 Survey 

SJI Survey on COVID Impacts and Practices (administered using Qualtrics)

You have been selected to complete this survey which is intended to obtain feedback on the experiences 

and perceptions of judicial officers and other court stakeholders regarding the impact of COVID-19 on 

court operations. All responses will be kept confidential, de-identified, secure, and used solely for this 

project. This is the first phase of the project, if you are interested in participating in the second phase, 

which will involve participation in a 1-hour, in-depth interview, to be conducted remotely, please provide 

your contact information at the end of the survey.

Please select your role:

• Chief Justice (1)

• Chief Court Administrator (2)

• Judge or Judicial Officer (3)

• Court Administrator (4)

• Tribal Court Judge (5)

• Tribal Court Administrator (6)

• Other Court Staff (7)

What types of cases do you currently hear?

• Civil (1)

• Criminal (2)

• Delinquency (3)

• Dependency (4)

• Domestic Relations (Divorce, Custody, Child Support) (5)

• Family Law (6)

• Mental Health/Mental Disability (7)

• Probate (8)

My jurisdiction is: (select all that apply)

• Urban (1)

• Rural (2)

• Suburban (3)

• Tribal Community (4)

How many years have you served in your current role?

Please respond to the following statements (select all that apply):

My court...

Never

Before the 

Pandemic

During the 

Pandemic

Will After 

the 

Pandemic

experienced a reduction of in-person court operations 

took steps to identify cases that must be in person 

developed policies and procedures to ensure privacy 

and safety 

provided up-to-date information to litigants on 

changes in court policies 

uses an E-filing system 

changed the procedures for public access to hearings 

had a disaster recovery plan 
26 

Please use the sliding scales below to rate the seriousness of the challenges posed by the pandemic with 

0 denoting Trivial challenges, 50 Moderate challenges, and 100 Extremely challenging.

Credibility determinations 

Evidentiary hurdles posed by remote hearings

Engagement/connection between parties, families, and the court

Access to community 

Ability of court-based services to monitor compliance 

Perceptions of remote hearings 

Technology 

Internet Access 

Impact on workload for judicial officers and court personnel 

In your role on the court, what is the most important thing you have learned during the pandemic?

Were there any changes that you or your court implemented during the pandemic that you think should 

be continued?

Would you like to be considered for the second phase of this project? If so, enter your email below. 
27

Survey Analysis

For most figures, raw counts and proportion of responses have been given. When analysis was 

conducted between significant relationships between role and identification of difficulties in the 

pandemic, Chief Justice and Tribal Court judges were collapsed into a Judge/Judicial Officer

category and Chief Court Administrator was collapsed into Court Administrator. 

Section 1: Identifiers 

Please select your role

Count

Percent 

of Data

Chief Justice 1 0.3%

Chief Court 

Administrator 4 1.3%

Judge or Judicial 

Officer 110 35.3%

Court Administrator 48 15.4%

Tribal Court Judge 3 1.0%

Other Court Staff 146 46.8%

What type of cases do you currently hear?

Count Percent 

of Data

Family Law 58 15.8%

Delinquency 25 6.8%

Domestic Relations 

(Divorce, Custody, Child 

Support)

17 4.6%

Criminal 14 3.8%

Civil 13 3.5%

Probate 13 3.5%

Dependency 12 3.3%

Mental Health/Mental 

Disability

8 2.2%

1 4

110

48

3

146

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

58

25

17 14 13 13 12 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
28

My Jurisdiction is (select all that apply)

Count Percent

Urban 149 40.6%

Rural 108 29.4%

Suburban 56 15.3%

Tribal 

Community 7 1.9%

How many years have you served in your current role?

N Average Median

267 9.4 6

149

108

56

7

0

50

100

150

200

Urban Rural Suburban Tribal

Community
29

Section 2: Temporal Matrix 

214

81

5 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Experienced a decrease of inperson hearings

175

104

22 15

0

50

100

150

200

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Decided which cases to hear in 

person

204

113

18 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Developed policies and 

procedures to protect the staff and 

public from the virus

170

93

29 27

0

50

100

150

200

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Developed policies and 

procedures to protect the privacy 

and safety of participants in remote 

settings

180

104

56

18

0

50

100

150

200

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Provided up-to-date information 

to litigants on changes in court 

policies 161

131

99

26

0

50

100

150

200

During the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Before the

Pandemic

Never

... Uses an E-filing system

168

79

28 12

0

50

100

150

200

During

the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Never Before

the

Pandemic

... Changed the procedures for 

public access to hearings 93

82 78

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

During

the

Pandemic

Before

the

Pandemic

Will After

the

Pandemic

Never

... Had a disaster recovery plan
30

Section 3: Sliders
31

APPENDIX B – Protocol for Phase 2 Interviews

Thank you again for agreeing to participate in Phase 2 of the SJI COVID Impacts Project. We 

are going to ask you a series of questions and ask you to discuss issues and topics that were 

raised by respondents during the Phase 1 survey phase. You completed the entire survey and we 

deeply appreciate your cooperation. Ultimately, the goal of this project is to compile relevant and 

useful information about innovative practices and ongoing challenges related to the pandemic 

and provide that information to family and juvenile courts across the country.

Your participation in Phase 2 and this interview is completely voluntary. You do not have to 

answer any questions or discuss any topics that you do not feel comfortable responding to. 

However, please know that we are not going to ask you any questions or discuss any topics that 

are case-specific or that would compromise confidential or private information.

Before we begin, did you have an opportunity to review the list of questions/topics in advance? 

Are you OK with us (audio) recording this interview? We do this solely to ensure that we do not 

miss important information that you will provide. Know also that we will not identify you 

individually as a participant in this interview. Your responses will be compiled in a manner that 

protects your identity but can be summarized in a way that leads to meaningful information for 

other family and juvenile courts.

1. What is your current position? If it is a group interview, ask participants to identify 

themselves and their jobs/roles.

2. What types of cases do you/your court handle (e.g., custody, divorce, domestic relations, 

protection orders, dependency, delinquency, others)?

3. Please describe what is happening in your court right now related to the pandemic (for 

example, video/virtual hearings, in person hearings, for which types of cases, open to the 

public, etc.). 

4. Have other things changed in your communities related to the pandemic (e.g., access to 

the internet, access to transportation, socio-economic impacts, or other changes)?

5. If your court handles a range of family and juvenile court matters, what differences are 

there between family court cases (e.g., custody, divorce, domestic relations, protection 

orders, etc.) and juvenile court matters (e.g., delinquency and dependency) as these relate 

to the pandemic (e.g., more virtual hearings in certain types of cases, more in person 

hearings in certain types of cases or at certain hearing stages, etc.)?

NOTE: We want to get a sense of the impacts specifically on family court matters (e.g., 

custody, divorce, domestic relations, protection orders, etc.) and juvenile court matters 

(e.g., delinquency and dependency).

6. If you are a court administrator, how often do you meet with the family court/juvenile 

court judge(s) to discuss ongoing challenges related to the pandemic? If you are a 

judicial officer, how often do you meet with your court administrator to discuss 
32

challenges related to the pandemic? NOTE: If the judge and court administrator jointly 

participate in the interview, simply ask them the question.

7. In cases/hearings involving children, has the frequency of in-person hearings been 

impacted by concerns related to child vaccination issues? Other issues?

8. The Phase 1 survey revealed that many jurisdictions anticipate they may continue to hold 

virtual proceedings for at least some types of cases. What is the circumstance in your 

court and could you explain the reasons for this?

9. What data are your court collecting/tracking related to the pandemic? How is that 

information being collected and used?

10. FOR PARTICIPANTS HANDLING A RANGE OF FAMILY COURT MATTERS: 

How has the pandemic impacted safety considerations in family court matters (e.g., 

safety of litigants/survivors in child custody, divorce, domestic relations, protection 

orders, other related matters)? How have alleged victims been impacted?

11. What issues with remote technology have been the biggest challenges for your court (e.g., 

internet access, video conference technology, telephonic, access to jails/prisons, other)?

12. If there are/were challenges accessing remote technology, what has been done to address 

those challenges?

13. The Phase 1 survey also revealed a range of possible positive impacts on family and 

juvenile court operations (e.g., improved attendance at hearings, more timely hearings, 

less time demand for parents/litigants to miss work, fewer transportation barriers, etc.). 

What have been the primary benefits in your court?

14. Other emerging research and our Phase 1 survey also revealed a number of ongoing 

challenges and possible adverse impacts (e.g., due process, evidentiary concerns, making 

credibility determinations, technology obstacles, inability of parents to visit children in 

person, etc.). What have been the most formidable challenges in your court and what has 

been done to try to address these?

15. Any additional concerns or issues that you wish to discuss or raise?

Thank you for participating in this interview. Once again, we will be preparing a summary of 

your interview responses for you to review before we complete the final study report. We will be 

sending that to you via email and no one else will see your responses. We want to be sure we get 

your responses right!
33

APPENDIX C – What 10 jurisdictions say is working and what are some ongoing 

challenges related to the pandemic

While this study is considered exploratory, the survey and interview responses we received 

revealed important information for juvenile, family, and tribal courts. As previously noted, one 

of the outputs requested by Phase 2 interview participants was some initial direction regarding 

what may be working in different jurisdictions as well as what challenges persist in specific sites. 

Below, we have provided some examples from the Phase 2 interviews regarding what appears to 

be of benefit or working and what presents ongoing challenges in each of the Phase 2 

jurisdictions. Please note that while we do not list the specific interview participants here, all 

have agreed to provide additional information on the changes and innovations that have occurred 

in their jurisdictions, as well as to provide updates on the ever-evolving circumstances 

surrounding the pandemic and how they are trying to address these (contact the NCJFCJ authors 

for contact information for the specific sites).

What is working?

This section displays the key changes and innovations that seem to be working in the 10 Phase 2 

jurisdictions (please note that some of these reforms are under consideration or are being piloted, 

and may not have been fully implemented in the respective jurisdictions).

Alabama

• Virtual hearings present far fewer time and travel demands. For witnesses, including 

expert witnesses, who used to have to drive great distances, now they can participate via 

Zoom. This makes them more available and presents far fewer time and travel demands. 

For parents, it is an important benefit to be allowed by the judge to Zoom in when they 

cannot get off from work.

• Enhanced safety for victims. In some cases, the safety of persons alleging domestic 

violence has been enhanced because they feel more comfortable sharing information with 

the court remotely and not having to be physically in the same space as the alleged 

perpetrator.

• Hybrid hearings are giving the courts flexibility. Many courts are holding hybrid hearings 

now with some courts holding hearings in different places, not just in the courthouse. We 

have had courts holding proceedings in parking lots in some areas of the state, very 

creative. 

• State supreme court rules have helped reinforce viability of virtual proceedings. The 

Alabama Supreme Court and juvenile judges are working on wording on what to allow 

related to virtual proceedings. Zoom has its place, but having the Alabama Supreme 

Court issue rules makes everyone take it more seriously.
34

• Juvenile cases are not allowed to linger compared to other family court matters. Judges 

feel delinquency matters need to happen while youth remember what happened.

• An application called AlaCourtPlus is being used by judges to record virtual hearings. 

There are some restrictions related to recording juvenile matters, but expanding this is 

being considered.

• Virtual proceedings have allowed the courts to expand and improve interpreter 

resources. The courts are getting better interpreters and better access to more qualified 

and unbiased interpreters with the use of Zoom, and this has been a major breakthrough. 

There used to be significant delays in finding qualified interpreters and it cost more, but 

they are more available now.

• More time certain hearings are occurring, though more recently, some judges have gone 

back to more block hearing schedules.

• Less waiting time. Parties used to come to the waiting areas and wait for extended periods 

in too many cases. We have seen dramatic improvements in this regard.

• Cases seem to be moving more quickly, especially review and administrative hearings.

• Virtual break out or waiting rooms have enhanced the availability of attorneys to meet 

with their clients. These really help hearings run on time and allow attorneys and clients 

to be better prepared. The attorneys and clients can wait in the virtual break out room 

until the judge admits them.

Delaware

• The state family court has created forms that people can use to request in-person, remote, 

or hybrid hearings and that has allowed flexibility. By and large, however, if there are no 

constitutional issues, hearings are conducted remotely, but if someone needs to present 

evidence and testimony there is flexibility.

• The court-based mediation program continues to be held virtually and appears to be 

working. Delaware has a court-based mediation unit that handles custody, visitation, and 

other child-related matters and these mediation sessions have been virtual.

• Virtual proceedings have dramatically reduced transportation and travel demands for 

families, and they have reduced the amount of time parents need to take off work. 

• Requests for emergency relief can more easily be accommodated without having to deal 

with typical problems of scheduling and courtroom availability.

• The court can pull data for any time period, compare filings, dispositions, and other key 

data points, and the court can do pre- and post-COVID analyses by case type and 

examine backlogs.

• The courts developed Zoom protocols to ensure that persons who are not supposed to 

participate in virtual proceedings were not present.

• In some cases, remote hearings can reduce trauma for litigants and children. Our court 

has a child wellness mental health docket and virtual proceedings are having less 
35

traumatic effects on children. Reduction in trauma may also be occurring for adults and 

domestic violence survivors when they do not have to encounter perpetrators in person.

• The courts and key partners established virtual courtrooms. For detained youth, the court 

in cooperation with Youth Rehabilitative Services and the Department of Corrections, has 

set up virtual courtrooms in facilities that are assigned to each particular court. This helps 

reduce detention or holding cell time.

Kentucky

• The unified court has been able to help all courts manage Zoom resources. All family 

court judges now have enhanced Zoom accounts.

• Most judges use a hybrid system. While remote hearings are an option, the ratios of inperson to remote hearings vary across the state, as do the types of hearings that are 

remote. The increase in participation indicates some courts will continue to hold virtual 

hearings at their discretion. With the change to conducting more remote hearings, our 

courts have seen an increase in participation across all platforms.

• Most judges are using remote hearings for conferences and reviews. In contrast, most 

courts are conducting in-person hearings for contested evidentiary matters. 

• Improved attendance by parents and caregivers at child welfare hearings. This has been 

the most often reported positive impact.

• State court administration uses the CourtNet system to track data. While the data are not 

pandemic-specific, they can isolate data by dates to compare pre- and post-COVID 

periods. There have also been qualitative surveys to measure judicial perspectives on the 

impacts on parties, case management, access, and different hearing types. 

• With remote hearings in which people participate from home, the court gets to see what 

the homes look like. This is another nuance in how the court can see how people are 

living.

Northern California Tribal Courts

• More people are appearing for their virtual hearings. They are able to appear from their 

homes if they have access to remote technology. 

• Children may be more comfortable in virtual settings. In dependency cases, when a child 

is speaking in a remote hearing, the child may be more comfortable in their own 

environment and be a lot more cooperative versus sitting in the courtroom.

• In some tribal courts, everyone seems more comfortable in virtual hearings. The tribal 

courts have a substantial number of self-represented litigants and everyone seems to feel 

more at ease in a virtual setting.

• The court is considering creating a YouTube video to instruct self-represented litigants. 

The court is considering options including a YouTube video that would instruct selfrepresented litigants on what to do.
36

• The tribe purchased iPads that a social worker can drop off for use, and computers have 

been set up in strategic locations. In Tolowa, for example, the tribe bought two 

computers and three iPads and a social worker can drop off an iPad for people to use and 

return. The court has set up virtual access at locations in Redding at the health clinic, the 

counseling clinic, and the library, and hearing participants can be directed there to use the 

computers or iPads for Zoom, though this continues to be a struggle.

New Mexico Tribal Court

• The tribe’s tradition of a type of pre-trial, family meeting, or informal discussion 

continues to resolve issues without the need to come to court. This probably resolves half 

of the cases that would ordinarily go to court, and the judge issues an order as to what is 

agreed to. This is particularly helpful in civil matters.

• The Pueblo used federal dollars to provide laptops and Verizon jetpacks to allow for 

greater connectivity. Before the pandemic, maybe 85% of households did not have this 

connectivity.

• Virtual hearings have dramatically increased hearing attendance and participation. 

Tribal court is experiencing more participation than ever, whether it be in civil or 

criminal cases. The court estimates there may be as high as 95% attendance and 

participation now at hearings, versus 75% before the pandemic. People feel more 

comfortable in front of a screen. The court feels there will always be a place for virtual 

proceedings as long as the court continues to administer justice.

• Attorneys like virtual proceedings. They do not have to charge as much and do not have 

as many travel time demands.

• Litigants do not have to take as much time off of work as they used to. This finding 

transcends specific jurisdictions and seems to be a persistent benefit.

• Virtual proceedings help the community feel safer. This is particularly relevant in tribal 

communities. Native American communities have been disproportionately affected by 

COVID, people have died and people are scared. But virtual proceedings help the 

community recognize that the court cares about broader community safety.

New York City

• Continuing collaboration by the court and its key partners has enhanced remote 

hearings. There continues to be exceptional collaboration among attorneys and agencies

in family court cases to help people use the technology for remote hearings.

• Good virtual technology helps the court more accurately assess litigants. Issues including 

body language and facial expressions are clearer in virtual proceedings versus when they 

are several feet away due to social distancing and other considerations in the courtroom.
37

• Virtual proceedings have dramatically reduced waiting times. As indicated in a number 

of other jurisdictions, before COVID families often sat in the court lobby waiting hours 

for their hearings to commence. That is no longer the norm. 

• Families can more easily meet with their attorneys in advance. This is an important 

benefit as it allows attorneys to explain to family members what is going to happen 

before the hearings so families know what to expect.

Upstate New York

• Almost all family court trials are conducted virtually. Probably 90% of family court trials 

are being done virtually where parties appear using Microsoft Teams. It works really 

well. The court and the local bar support virtual family court trials.

• Virtual hearings with less time demands generally work better. While family court trials 

are generally conducted virtually, shorter hearings including initial appearances, short 

appearances, custody, visitation, and even some family offense matters seem to be better 

suited for the virtual environment.

• Virtual proceedings have created more privacy for family litigants. We do not have 30 

people waiting in the hallways.

• Virtual adoptions have been embraced. The court reports that adoptive families seem to 

really like the virtual adoption option.

• Litigants without attorneys are very happy not having to come to court and wait for 

hours. Persons filing restraining orders can get help online with filing petitions. In 

addition, judges can often be ready virtually in less than an hour and they can prioritize 

domestic violence cases.

• Offering petitioners the option of turning off the camera, except during trials, can make 

them more comfortable. At initial and early proceedings, the court can offer the petitioner 

to just appear via audio. 

• Offering the option of virtual proceedings seems to improve participation. In family 

offense proceedings, the court is able to offer petitioners the option of appearing 

virtually. This really impacts the petitioners as they feel more comfortable continuing 

with the proceedings.

• Virtual hearings improve the timeliness of emergency proceedings. The court is able to 

handle emergency proceedings on very short notice which is a huge benefit. Attorneys do 

not have to rearrange schedules and can attend remotely.

• Court clerks are tracking COVID impact data. These include data related to how many 

cases the court has, how many are falling behind, how many are closing, and how many 

hearings are held virtually versus in person.

• The hybrid virtual option can help with witness participation. The court appears to favor 

the option of hybrid virtual hearings in cases involving witnesses who have short 

testimony times.
38

Ohio

• Overall, the primary benefits to the court include court savings, dockets that run more 

efficiently, and better hearing attendance. In Warren County, it appears that almost 

everyone involved in family court proceedings can now log in and attend virtually.

• Custody pre-trials via phone have been working. This was started when COVID first 

happened. The court feels this is a good business practice.

• The court prefers to conduct in-person hearings in dependency matters. The court feels 

the unique aspects of dependency cases are better addressed in person rather than 

remotely.

• Virtual proceedings have dramatically reduced attorney costs. Outside of some custody 

and delinquency matters, attorney costs have gone way down since the court enacted 

remote hearings.

• The custody docket is running more efficiently. Furthermore, feedback from the public 

has been positive regarding participants not having to miss work in these cases.

• Court administration tracks data related to the health and safety of young people and 

court staff. Court administration maintains a spreadsheet that tracks exposures, positive 

tests, how long staff are out of the office, vaccination status, and more. The court uses 

this to help inform decisions.

• Visitation rates for detention and the residential center have increased. Court 

administration estimates that visitations by family members may have increased by as 

much as 90% compared to pre-COVID. Youth seem to enjoy it more versus family 

members staring at each other in visitation rooms, so there are more frequent contacts 

with parents and relatives.

Texas

• Court hearings have varied from virtual to in-person, depending on local conditions. The 

juvenile court has been flexible and has focused on ensuring the safety of personnel and 

juveniles/families.

• Collaboration among system partners has been key in addressing shifting COVID 

circumstances. The Juvenile Justice Department is in a unique location and includes two 

courtrooms, court staff, the juvenile prosecutor, defense attorneys, clerks, probation staff, 

and a 61 bed detention center. The court has played an important role in fostering 

agreement across different stakeholders.

• COVID screenings in the parking lot and designated parking for juveniles and families. 

The court has continued to adjust practices to ensure safe operations to maximize 

participation and safety.

• Prioritizing referrals that merit detention. The department and court decided to focus on 

felony referrals for detention. Law enforcement referrals were cited for administrative 
39

intake via phone and/or virtual platform. When COVID cases subsided, intakes were 

changed to in-person at a designated office with plexiglass protection.

• Implementation of continuous COVID safety protocols. Direct care staff, county medical 

division personnel, and administration implemented continuous safety protocols that 

included COVID screenings at the beginning of every shift, PPE and face shield 

adherence, frequent cleaning/sanitizing, and ensured that affected staff did not return to 

the facility until they were fully cleared. As a result of these protocols, not one youth in 

detention tested positive during a recent 21-month period. 

• Modified training to virtual. Direct care staff and probation officers are required to 

achieve state certification. The department invested in Zoom accounts and desk cameras 

for recertification training and training for new hires.

• Virtual delinquency hearings have helped improve attendance by juveniles and families 

and made hearings more timely. While some judges may have reservations about juvenile 

proceedings, they supported the process due to COVID safety protocols.

• Creating a flexible schedule helped the department limit the number of persons in 

buildings and gave staff flexibility. After the nation-wide lockdown, the department 

resumed operations by creating a flexible schedule for administrative staff to come to the 

office on designated days and work an A or B schedule. This gave staff flexibility to 

come to work later and make child care arrangements.

• Increased use of GPS monitoring has helped keep the detention population down. When 

youth were released from detention due to COVID concerns, GPS electronic monitoring 

was increased and that helped monitor juvenile compliance with court orders.

West Virginia

• Better technology in jails and detention centers. The court received a grant to improve 

technology in jails and detention facilities. This allows for more remote hearings from 

jails and detention, a real plus. Transportation from jails has been a real issue.

• Real improvements in overcoming transportation barriers due to increased availability of 

remote hearings. These include not having to transport inmates from jails. 

• Attorney availability and schedules have improved. Before COVID, attorneys were often 

spread across different courtrooms or courts. Their schedules are more manageable now.
40

What are key ongoing challenges?

Below are outlines of the key ongoing challenges reported by each of the Phase 2 jurisdictions.

Alabama

• Practices vary across the state in terms of virtual hearings. With 67 counties in the state, 

despite a unified court system, there are not uniform practices across all courts related to 

the pandemic.

• Huge courtrooms present important challenges. Cameras, microphones, and other 

equipment have to be in the right locations to function, and in-person proceedings are 

more difficult due to social distancing requirements.

• Internet access and connectivity are real problems. While the vast majority of people 

have cell phones, being able to connect to the internet and stay connected has been an 

issue in urban and rural areas.

• Domestic violence cases have skyrocketed. While this is not surprising due to conditions 

fomented by the pandemic, this has produced a variety of pressures on the court and the 

community.

• Truancy cases have plunged. With schools operating remotely during the pandemic, 

truancy referrals have dramatically decreased. There are concerns that these cases will 

increase with schools reopening.

• Child vaccination issues do arise and present important challenges. In some cases, 

particularly dependency matters, some courts are very aware of not wanting to retraumatize children by confronting parents or caregivers about their vaccination 

decisions.

• Some courts are experiencing recent COVID outbreaks. While the pandemic shows signs 

of ebbing in some jurisdictions, there have been more recent outbreaks due to the highly 

contagious Omicron variant. These outbreaks prompt different practices as circumstances 

shift.

• There are concerns regarding people being coerced in some virtual proceedings. When 

people appear via Zoom or other platforms it is not always easy to determine if there is 

someone else in the room.

• Evidentiary concerns. In response, Alabama is piloting an exhibit tool within 

AlaCourtPlus to allow easier uploading of exhibits that judges can accept in open court. 

• Parents visiting children. While the courts use FaceTime as much as possible, this limits 

the strength of early bonding that is so important with young children. While the courts 

want to order in person visits whenever possible, sometimes there need to be porch visits. 

These young children do not understand why they cannot see their parents in person.

• Montgomery County created a mediation project that the court feels should be in person, 

not virtual. This project was just getting off the ground when the pandemic hit but the 

court feels it really needs to be in person, not virtual.
41

Delaware

• Zoom fatigue. This has been a very real phenomenon for many judges, but judges have 

discretion as to whether a hearing is virtual or in-person.

• Internet access. Access and connectivity have been issues in rural and other areas of the 

state.

• A sense of informality. Some judges have felt that remote hearings contributed to some 

sense of informality, but this experience varies among judges.

• Regular contact between judges and court administrators varies. There are some areas of 

the state where some judges do not have regular contact with their court administrators.

• Credibility determinations. Initially, there were some concerns about this issue, but that 

has waned.

• Backlogs and delays in juvenile delinquency proceedings. These have been big concerns, 

with some juveniles picking up additional charges while their cases are pending. 

• Evidentiary issues. The courts have experienced some challenges in this regard largely 

because of self-represented litigants not knowing how to submit evidence for remote 

hearings, and the Delaware Family Court is not an e-filing court.

• The pandemic’s impacts on staff. Staff have had to do extra work and have been 

experiencing fatigue and burnout. The courts have been averaging about 75% staffing 

levels. At times, the court records room has to be closed, and at other times staff have had

to be moved around to perform roles for which they have not been fully trained. The 

courts are very frustrated in not being able to recognize employees adequately for all the 

hard work they have been doing during the pandemic.

Kentucky

• Broadband access is a huge issue. Through experience, the courts have discovered 

important nuances associated with it. A lot of people use their cell phones or go to places 

like Walmart to access Wi-Fi. Access to technology is a big issue. The courts cannot 

serve parties who cannot get into virtual hearings.

• A significant increase in mental health and substance abuse issues. These include an 

increase of overdoses and deaths due to substance abuse.

• Parental disagreements regarding vaccination. There has been an increase in cases and 

hearings in which parents themselves disagree about getting vaccinated and/or whether a 

child should be vaccinated.

• Social distancing requirements in some courthouses. These have resulted in some 

domestic violence survivors waiting in their vehicles or other waiting areas, which may 

place them in proximity to alleged abusers, according to victim advocates. 

• Virtual proceedings have also fostered some safety concerns. As indicated, sometimes 

the court cannot tell who is in the same room with a petitioner or participant. The extent 

of such circumstances is not fully known.
42

• Barrier to interpreting services. In contrast to at least one other Phase 2 jurisdiction that 

has experienced improvements in access to interpreting services, some courtrooms in 

Texas do not have adequate devices to project sound throughout the courtroom to ensure 

effective interpreting.

• Collaboration with child welfare and maintaining community partnerships have been 

difficult. The courts feel strongly that strong partnerships with child welfare and the 

community are essential to promoting community safety and best practices. The 

pandemic has inhibited ongoing collaborative efforts. 

• Internet capacity across a large geographic region was a major challenge. Many 

families leaned on school districts to provide computer tablets and some schools were 

parking buses in neighborhoods so students could access the internet. 

• Remote school was very difficult, particularly for families with multiple children. 

Families struggled with prioritizing virtual education for their children. It also posed 

challenges for department staff who had to stay home.

• Staff shortages were exacerbated during the pandemic. The probation department had to 

assign staff to work in different roles and different shifts. While there was some minor 

push back, no one was laid off and staff understood the need to ensure the safety and 

security of children.

• Juveniles initially detained were placed in medical isolation. While this presented 

challenges, particularly for youth with mental health issues, the department partnered 

with a local nonprofit to conduct COVID testing that helped reduce lengths of stay in 

medical isolation. That said, detention lengths of stay were problematic as safety 

protocols limited the movement of and interactions with some youth. These restrictions 

limited defense attorney interactions and probation staff preparing disposition reports for 

the court. At times, technological issues inhibited communication with youth in medical 

isolation.

• Youth with serious mental health issues presented significant challenges. Some detained 

youth present serious mental health problems and they were exposing themselves and 

spitting on staff. While staff were wearing protective clothing and shields, they were also 

trying to de-escalate these situations. These situations were very stressful for staff and 

youth. Mental health evaluations were also delayed due to medical isolations. The 

department continues to have strong concerns that the mental health needs of youth were 

not consistently met during juveniles’ extended quarantine periods, other than phone calls 

or virtual visits from the mental health team. 

• Transportation continues to be an important obstacle. The county comprises a very large 

geographic area with very limited public transportation, so remote hearings are necessary 

to allow everyone to participate.

• The county has been experiencing increases in child protective, assault, and domestic 

cases. These cases have been intensified due to the effects of social isolation as well as 

disruptive and assaultive behavior involving youth and caregivers. 
43

• The lack of placement options has caused a range of problems. As noted in other 

jurisdictions, the lack of foster families has presented important problems. Mental health 

issues are so prevalent among the juvenile justice population, and there have been no 

hospital or treatment options due to staff shortages and other concerns. 

• There have been adverse spillover effects from youth waiting for juvenile correction 

placements. State safety protocols and other factors have led to youth waiting months in 

the detention center for placement in state facilities. State correctional facilities are facing 

staffing issues. Time served in detention does not count toward correctional placement 

time because there is not the same level of rehabilitative services. The misbehavior of 

these youth in detention, because they feel they have nothing to lose, has caused major 

concerns.

Northern California Tribal Courts

• A substantial increase in adult guardianships. This increase largely stems from addiction 

issues impacting the tribes. There are also more guardianships and conservatorships for 

adults in their 40s, and it is elderly parents that are becoming guardians for those adults. 

• The tribal courts in this region never had any type of Zoom hearings before the 

pandemic. The tribes had only used remote telephonic participation so there has been a 

learning curve as well as challenges implementing virtual technology. This has been 

particularly evident in Smith River, a very small community. Public access to Zoom and 

technology became big issues. 

• The tribal courts have had great difficulties keeping staff. The various obstacles created 

by COVID, including closing down courthouses, socio economic conditions in some 

tribal communities, and related challenges, have caused a loss of employees. 

• In Smith River, there is no possibility of in-person hearings at this point. The pandemic 

has had very serious impacts on the Smith River reservation and the tribal council has 

been forced to take steps to keep tribal members safe. For the tribal court, this means 

hearing participants need to come to some agreement to conduct virtual proceedings, but 

if there is no agreement, proceedings come to a halt.

• In some cases, persons have been standing at the courthouse door to file documents. In 

Rancheria, persons file paper documents and then the documents have to be sterilized 

which can take 72 hours which inhibits timely processing.

• Some self-represented litigants are filing in state court. With the barriers at tribal courts, 

some persons go to state court to file their documents.

• There is a process server issue with a great need for more. The sheriff’s department was 

doing personal service at no cost, but due to loss of staff that is no longer available.

• There are obstacles to obtaining full orders of protection. In Smith River, persons are 

relying more on emergency protection orders from the county until the tribal court can 

issue an order.
44

• Credibility issues. This has been a big challenge with persons claiming no ability to 

appear by Zoom, and they participate telephonically. As a result, the court cannot 

determine who is there.

• Inability to budget for and conduct in-person drug testing. With substance abuse being a 

major factor in many cases, limits on testing resources have created important challenges.

• With parents participating in treatment via Zoom, a lot can be hidden. The court has 

serious concerns about the viability of virtual treatment options.

New Mexico Tribal Court

• Reduction in orders of protection. A lot of domestic violence and sexual assault victims 

are from the Pueblo, but many of the alleged perpetrators are not. The court is not seeing 

as many orders of protection, but this does not mean abuse is not happening. While this 

may indicate that some people are feeling safer it needs more research.

• Closing down the Pueblo to non-residents became a reality. The tribal council elected to 

close down the Pueblo due to the pandemic, and only tribal members may enter and 

leave.

New York City 

• While important changes have occurred, some of these need to be formalized including 

calendar improvements. While the court has realized some important innovations, there is 

a need to formalize things more and fine tune the technology to better run the calendar, 

for example.

Upstate New York

• The need to address backlogs in the criminal docket. The court is behind in the criminal 

docket and most criminal proceedings are being conducted in person now.

• The state requirement for everyone to wear masks caused some issues in jury trials. It 

was not ideal because juries have to assess credibility.

• Mental health issues have to become a priority in family and criminal courts. The court 

has never seen so many mentally ill litigants, and the youth who suffer from these issues 

are the hardest hit.

• Juvenile proceedings do not work virtually. With young people who come to court, it is 

so important for the judge to establish rapport. The court finds it very difficult if not 

impossible to establish connections with these youth virtually as these young people see 

it as another video game.

• Not enough foster families. The pandemic has reduced the number of foster families and 

made it extremely difficult to recruit new families. This causes a domino effect as 

children are forced to wait for family-type placements.
45

Ohio

• All detention hearings are being done via Zoom. The detention center has been on 

periodic lockdown due to positive COVID cases, which prevents in-person hearings.

• Recent staffing issues have been exacerbated due to the Omicron variant. There has been 

a significant increase in the number of staff who cannot come in to work, including about 

30% of detention staff unable to work. It has been a real challenge to have enough staff to 

make sure they are safe and young people are safe; this is the court’s biggest concern.

• School changes have presented big challenges. Last year, school was remote. This year, 

all schools are in person and that transition was a big challenge for students and parents.

• Maintaining the court staff teamwork atmosphere. As reported in other Phase 2 

jurisdictions, addressing staff burnout and stress poses major challenges.

• Mental health issues. These issues not only impact children and families, but court staff 

as well. Very important concerns.

• Changing CDC guidelines can affect operations. The Ohio Supreme Court has provided 

good guidance, but, in the beginning, everyone was doing things in their own ways. 

West Virginia

• Some counties are experiencing outbreaks and are continuing to do virtual hearings. The 

conditions vary across the state. Some probation officers are conducting curbside or 

porch visits. 

• Outbreaks or potential exposures are the biggest concerns. There are smaller groups 

coming into probation offices now to reduce exposure risks and maintain safe distancing.

• Many probation violation matters were not being heard. Exposure issues and other safety 

concerns inhibited hearing violation matters.

• Visitation issues have been challenging. Again, due to exposure and safety concerns, the 

frequency of in-person visits had been curtailed. The situation is returning more to 

normal now in at least some areas.

• Initial technical obstacles were major challenges. For the courts, there were some due 

process concerns including the ability to face witnesses and be in court in person, but 

those have been anecdotal.

• The inability to do drug screens and home visits were important obstacles. Juvenile 

probation officers are required to do in-home visits. The pandemic eliminated these for 

extended periods. Drug testing was also difficult and while there was a switch to patch 

testing and some counties set up outdoor areas to get their patches to keep people safer, 

this was not ideal.
46

APPENDIX C – Hierarchy Chart of Auto-coded Themes 
47
48

APPENDIX D – Significance Testing Results and Tables

Rate Difficulty in: Access to the Community

ANOVA

P-Value 0.002

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.264

Group Summary Statistics

Group Average Median Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 62.24 59.0 4979 80 55.43 to 69.04 30.59

Administrator

s 48.53 50.0 1553 32 39.39 to 57.67 25.35

Other Court 

Staff 69.80 75.0 4118 59 62.87 to 76.72 26.56

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValueEffect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court 

Staff -7.56 -19.09 to 3.97 0.27 0.26

Administrators Judges -13.71 -27.21 to -0.20 0.05 0.47

Administrators

Other 

Court 

Staff -21.27 -34.84 to -7.69 0.00 0.82
49

Rate Difficulty In: Evidentiary Hurdles Posed by Remote Hearings

ANOVA

P-Value 0.007

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.231

Summary

Group Average Median Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 68.18 75.0 6204 91 63.75 to 72.60 21.23

Administrators 53.68 51.0 1664 31 45.60 to 61.75 22.01

Other Court 

Staff 62.16 68.0 3978 64 55.85 to 68.46 25.23

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValueEffect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court 

Staff 6.02 -3.14 to 15.18 0.27 0.26

Administrators Judges -14.50 -25.45 to -3.54 0.01 0.68

Administrators

Other 

Court 

Staff -8.48 -20.60 to 3.64 0.22 0.35
50

Rate Difficulty In: Technology

ANOVA

P-Value 0.008

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.219

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 54.06 50.5 4757 88 48.34 to 59.77 26.97

Administrator

s 38.56 34.5 1311 34 29.92 to 47.20 24.76

Other Court 

Staff 53.71 51.0 3706 69 46.93 to 60.49 28.24

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValueEffect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court Staff 0.35 -10.20 to 10.89 0.90 0.01

Administrator

s Judges -15.50 -27.80 to -3.20 0.01 0.59

Administrator

s

Other 

Court Staff -15.15 -28.16 to -2.14 0.02 0.56
51

Rate Difficulty In: Internet Access

ANOVA

P-Value 0.02

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.217

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 49.69 50.0 4124 83 43.18 to 56.20 29.81

Administrator

s 34.23 30.0 1027 30 22.94 to 45.53 30.25

Other Court 

Staff 53.34 54.5 3414 64 45.36 to 61.33 31.96

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValueEffect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court Staff -3.66 -15.90 to 8.59 0.74 0.12

Administrator

s Judges -15.45 -30.95 to 0.05 0.05 0.52

Administrator

s

Other 

Court Staff -19.11 -35.49 to -2.73 0.02 0.61
52

Rate Difficulty In: Creditability Determination in Remote Settings

(Note: Outliers in data set prompted Ranked ANOVA)

Ranked ANOVA

P-Value 0.029

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.193

Summary

Group Average Median Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 61.73 60.0 5432 88 56.88 to 66.57 22.86

Administrators 51.42 50.0 1594 31 43.51 to 59.33 21.57

Other Court 

Staff 54.71 51.0 3228 59 47.49 to 61.93 27.71

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValu

e

Effect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court 

Staff 7.02 -3.33 to 17.36 0.25 0.28

Administrators Judges -10.31 -21.33 to 0.71 0.07 0.46

Administrators

Other 

Court 

Staff -3.29 -15.95 to 9.36 0.79 0.13

Rate Difficulty In: Effectiveness of Remote Hearings

ANOVA

P-Value 0.014

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.186

Summary

Group Average

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 54.64 51.0

475

4 87 49.24 to 60.04 25.33

Administrators 41.19 48.0

127

7 31 33.85 to 48.54 20.03

Other Court 

Staff 50.79 50.0

335

2 66 43.85 to 57.73 28.24
53

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValueEffect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other Court 

Staff 3.86 -6.60 to 14.31 0.65 0.15

Administrators Judges -13.45 -24.26 to -2.64 0.01 0.56

Administrators

Other Court 

Staff -9.59 -21.54 to 2.35 0.14 0.37

Rate Difficulty In: Language, Culture, and Disability Barriers in Remote Hearings 

ANOVA

P-Value 0.105

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.173

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 54.95 52.5

428

6 78 47.92 to 61.98 31.17

Administrators 39.62 40.0

103

0 26 26.72 to 52.51 31.93

Other Court Staff 53.25 54.0

314

2 59 44.96 to 61.55 31.84

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValu

e

Effect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other Court 

Staff 1.69 -11.22 to 14.61 0.90 0.05

Administrato

rs Judges -15.33 -32.80 to 2.13 0.10 0.49

Administrato

rs

Other Court 

Staff -13.64 -31.80 to 4.53 0.18 0.43
54

Rate Difficulty In: Impact on Workload for Judicial Officers and Court Personnel 

ANOVA

P-Value 0.091

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.161

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 63.99 70.0

556

7 87 57.54 to 70.44 30.25

Administrator

s 54.75 51.5

175

2 32 44.05 to 65.45 29.67

Other Court 

Staff 68.97 76.0

489

7 71 61.72 to 76.22 30.63

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValu

e

Effect Size

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court Staff -4.98 -16.52 to 6.55 0.56 0.16

Administrator

s Judges -9.24 -24.08 to 5.61 0.30 0.31

Administrator

s

Other 

Court Staff -14.22 -29.55 to 1.10 0.07 0.47
55

Rate Difficulty In: Ability of Court-based/Court-referred Services to Monitor Compliance

ANOVA

P-Value 0.203

Effect Size (Cohen's 

f) 0.142

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 62.31 57.0

542

1 87 57.26 to 67.36 23.70

Administrator

s 55.79 60.0

184

1 33 46.74 to 64.84 25.53

Other Court 

Staff 65.90 70.5

382

2 58 59.12 to 72.68 25.78

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValu

e

Effect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court Staff -3.59 -13.64 to 6.46 0.66 0.15

Administrator

s Judges -6.52 -18.86 to 5.81 0.42 0.27

Administrator

s

Other 

Court Staff -10.11 -23.50 to 3.28 0.17 0.40
56

Rate Difficulty In: Engagement/Connection Between Parties, Families, and the Court

ANOVA

P-Value 0.159

Effect Size 

(Cohen's f) 0.124

Summary

Group

Averag

e

Media

n Sum

Sample 

Size

Confidence Interval of 

Average

Standard 

Deviation

Judges 63.80 70.0

555

1 87 57.90 to 69.71 27.72

Administrator

s 56.09 51.0

185

1 33 48.26 to 63.93 22.10

Other Court 

Staff 65.47 71.5

458

3 70 58.89 to 72.06 27.62

Pairwise Tests

Group 1 Group 2

Difference in 

Averages (1-2)

Confidence Interval of 

Difference

PValu

e

Effect Size 

(Cohen's d)

Judges

Other 

Court Staff -1.67 -12.18 to 8.85 0.90 0.06

Administrator

s Judges -7.71 -19.35 to 3.92 0.26 0.30

Administrator

s

Other 

Court Staff -9.38 -21.49 to 2.73 0.16 0.36