Author: Jonathan Mattiello

“A man who became comatose after a fall counted on his daughter, who was assigned to be his guardian, to oversee his finances. However, she withdrew $10,000 from her father’s savings account and made $20,000 in cash advances from another account. When questioned, she said that her father always gave her generous gifts and would wish to continue to do so.” As the population of older Americans grows, so does the risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of the elderly. Courts are charged with protecting the well-being and assets of persons who are placed under a guardianship or conservatorship.  Because many judges only see a few guardianship cases, special resources to help them prevent and address problems are necessary. With support from SJI, NCSC has recently developed several such tools.

To guide judicial considerations when establishing a guardianship, the Pre-appointment Protocol provides examples and directs court staff to the next step at each stage in the process. The Guardianship/Conservatorship Judicial Response Protocol serves as an interactive tool to advise judges on steps to take and options to consider when allegations of wrong-doing have been made.

Courts cannot effectively monitor guardianship and conservatorship cases unless they have good information, yet the ability of state courts to provide basic data on these cases, let alone track those in which allegations of abuse or exploitation arise, is often inadequate. That is where the Guardianship/Conservatorship Monitoring: Recommended Data Elements come into play. They provide guidance on what data courts should collect and how to define it and use it to monitor cases. The need for judicial guardianship protocols, adequate data collection and tracking systems has become a priority for many state court leaders. NCSC’s newest resources contribute to reaching that goal. They can be found, along with other information and training resources, on the website for the Center for Elders and the Courts.

Before the coronavirus pandemic reduced court operations, state courts nationwide resolved 40 criminal felony cases and 100 criminal misdemeanor cases every minute of every day, but most courts failed to meet national time standards because of too many continuances and scheduled hearings.

These findings come from one of the most ambitious undertakings of its kind, the Effective Criminal Case Management project, a five-year examination of 1.2 million felony and misdemeanor cases from 136 courts in 21 states. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a report that details the project’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The researchers who worked on the project say the recommendations provide a roadmap for how courts can operate faster and more efficiently.  They recommend that courts:

• Limit continuances;
• Compile good data that help them figure out why some cases are resolved more quickly than others; and
• Schedule hearings on dates that maximize the likelihood that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be prepared.

Here are some of the project’s major findings:

• The project allowed researchers for the first time to estimate the number of criminal cases resolved each year in the nation’s state courts – more than 18 million, five million felony and 13 million misdemeanor.
• The average time to disposition is 256 days for felony cases and 193 days for misdemeanors, but no court in the study meets the current national time standards. Current time standards say that 98 percent of felony cases should be resolved within 365 days, and 98 percent of misdemeanor cases should be resolved within 180 days. On average, courts in the study resolved 83 percent of felony cases within 365 days and 77 percent of misdemeanors within 180 days.
• The courts that resolve cases faster are led by presiding judges who make it clear that they dislike continuances, which lead to additional hearings and delays.
• Timely courts dismiss fewer cases, and they are faster across all case types and all manners of disposition.
• Differences in court structure play a small but surprising role in overall average timeliness, with single-tiered courts being least timely and two-tiered courts being most timely.

“The report’s most important conclusions revolve around what faster courts do to be fast and what slower courts do that make them slow,” said lead researcher Brian Ostrom. “We know courts are always striving to be more efficient, so our hope is that court leaders read the report and implement its recommendations. What’s at stake is whether every person’s constitutional right to due process is honored in the process of seeking justice in individual cases.”

NCSC consultants Ostrom and Patti Tobias will provide as much as 60 minutes of free advice to courts that want to know how to operate faster and more efficiently, as part of the NCSC’s Dr. Is In program.  Go here to sign up.

For more information about this project, including an appendix that lists the courts involved, go here.

With SJI support, the National Association for Court Management (NACM) has made content from its 2020 NACM Annual Virtual Conference and Expo available online.  This year’s event went virtual for the first time due to the complexities of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Plenaries, workshops, the annual business meeting and much more have all been uploaded as videos that you can watch sequentially or by subject/session area.

NACM is also accepting proposals for its 2021 Conference, Justice for All: Courts at the Crossroads.  NACM is committed to providing innovative, engaging and emerging trends at the    Midyear and Annual conferences.  Conferenc`es are made up of plenary and concurrent breakout sessions.

Private Sector – please contact Stacey Smith about sponsorships with speaking opportunities.

Earlier this year, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a report-style guide.  The purpose of this report is to provide facilities and access to justice recommendations for how courts can continue to offer in-person self-help services while respecting the public health and social distancing provisions required under COVID-19.

As confirmed cases continue to rise in states across the country, this resource may help courts maintain their efficiency, especially those which have slowly reopened or reintegrated self-directed services.

In addition to the report, there is also Tiny Chat #13 from Danielle Hirsch and Zach Zarnow, who are joined by NCSC Senior Architect and Facilities Planner Allie McKenzie to discuss six tips from the report further exploring this topic.

On November 13, 2020, SJI Board Member Hernan D. Vera was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Vera has been a Principal at Bird Marella since 2015, where he focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and class action defense.  He also counsels and advises clients on risk management in public matters where a problem-solving, community approach is essential to the success of the litigation.  He previously served as President & Chief Executive Officer of Public Counsel, the nation’s largest pro bono, public interest law firm.  He was the first Latino leader of the 40-year-old civil rights organization, which is based in Los Angeles.  Mr. Vera was a commercial litigator with the international firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he specialized in class actions.  Mr. Vera has also worked as an Education Staff Attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and clerked for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California.  He was appointed to the SJI Board of Directors in 2010.  He received an A.B., with Distinction, from Stanford University, and his J.D. from the UCLA School of Law.

Each fiscal year, SJI allocates significant financial resources to support its Priority Investment Areas (PIAS). The PIAs are applicable to all grant types, and the categories within allow for greater flexibility to be responsive to current and emerging court trends.  These broad PIAs are closely aligned with SJI’s mission in both statute and policy.  SJI strongly encourages potential grant applicants to consider projects addressing one or more of these PIAs, and to integrate the following factors into each proposed project:

• Evidence based, data-driven decision making
• Cross sector collaboration
• Systemic approaches (as opposed to standalone programs)
• Ease of replication
• Sustainability

For FY 2021, the Priority Investment Areas are listed below in no specific order:
 
Opioids and Other Dangerous Drugs, and Behavioral Health Responses
Behavioral Health Disparities
Research indicates that justice involved persons have significantly greater proportions of mental, substance use, and co-occurring disorders than are found in the public. SJI supports cross-sector collaboration and information sharing that emphasizes policies and practices designed to improve court responses to justice-involved persons with behavioral health and other co-occurring needs.  
 
Promoting Access to Justice and Procedural Fairness
Self-Represented Litigation
SJI promotes court-based solutions to address increases in self-represented litigants; specifically making courts more user-friendly by simplifying court forms, providing one-on-one assistance, developing guides, handbooks, and instructions on how to proceed, develop­ing court-based self-help centers, and using Internet technologies to increase access. These projects are improv­ing outcomes for litigants and saving valuable court resources.

Language Access
SJI supports language access in the state courts through remote interpretation (outside the courtroom), interpreter training and certification, courtroom services (plain language forms, websites, etc.), and addressing the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
Procedural Fairness
A fundamental role of courts is to ensure fair processes and just outcomes for litigants.  SJI promotes the integration of research-based procedural fairness principles, policies, and practices into state court operations to increase public trust and confidence in the court system, reduce recidivism, and increase compliance with court orders.
 
Reducing Disparities and Protecting Victims, Underserved, and Vulnerable Populations
Human Trafficking
SJI addresses the impact of federal and state human trafficking laws on the state courts, and the challenges faced by state courts in dealing with cases involving trafficking victims and their families. These efforts are intended to empower state courts to identify victims, link them with vital services, and hold traffickers accountable.
Rural Justice
Rural areas and their justice systems routinely have fewer resources and more barriers than their urban counterparts, such as availability of services, lack of transportation, and smaller workforces.  Programs and practices that are effective in urban areas are often inappropriate and or lack supported research for implementation in rural areas.  SJI supports rural courts by identifying promising and best practices, and promoting resources, education, and training opportunities uniquely designed for rural courts and court users. 
Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues
SJI assists courts in improving court oversight of guardians and conservators for the elderly and incapacitated adults through visitor programs, electronic reporting, and training.
Disparities in Justice
SJI supports research and data-driven approaches that examine statutory requirements, policies, and practices that result in disparities for justice-involved persons.  These disparities can be because of inequities in socio-economic, racial, ethnic, gender, age, health, or other factors.  In addition to identifying disparities, SJI promotes systemic approaches to reducing disparities.

Advancing Justice Reform
Criminal Justice Reform
SJI assists state courts in taking a leadership role in reviewing fines, fees, and bail practices to ensure processes are fair and access to justice is assured; implementing alternative forms of sanction; developing processes for indigency review; promoting transparency, gover­nance, and structural reforms that promote access to justice, accountability, and oversight; and implementing innovative diversion and re-entry programs that serve to improve outcomes for justice-involved persons and the justice system. 
Juvenile Justice Reform
SJI supports innovative projects that advance best practices in handling dependency and delinquency cases; promote effective court oversight of juveniles in the justice system; address the impact of trauma on juvenile behavior; assist the courts in identification of appropriate provision of services for juveniles; and address juvenile re-entry.
Family and Civil Justice Reform
SJI promotes court-based solutions for the myriad of civil case types, such as domestic relations, housing, employment, debt collection, which are overwhelming court dockets. 

Transforming Courts
Emergency Response and Recovery
Courts must be prepared for natural disasters and public health emergencies, such as pandemics.  SJI supports projects that look to the future of judicial service delivery by identifying and replicating innovations and alternate means of conducting court business because of pandemics and natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires.
Cybersecurity
Courts must also be prepared for cyberattacks on court systems, such as denial of service and ransomware attacks on court case management systems, websites, and other critical information technology infrastructure.  SJI supports projects that assist courts in preparing for, and responding to, these attacks, and share lessons-learned to courts across the United States.
Technology
SJI promotes and supports innovative technology projects that will improve court processes and procedures, including technology projects that: streamline case filing and management processes, thereby reducing time and costs to litigants and the courts; provide online access to courts to litigants so that disputes can be resolved more efficiently; make structural changes to court services that enable them to evolve into an online environment. 
Training, Education, and Workforce Development
State courts require a workforce that is adaptable to public demands for services.  SJI supports projects that focus on the tools needed to enable judges, court managers, and staff to lead their courts in future reform efforts.

On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an order to halt most evictions through December 31, 2020, in order to curb the spread of COVID-19 by keeping evicted people from becoming homeless, or crowding into apartments with friends and relatives.

Under the order, “a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory action, shall not evict any covered person from any residential property in any jurisdiction to which the order applies.”  The Order does not apply to an area with a moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of public health protections, and does not preclude jurisdictions from imposing additional requirements that provide greater public-health protections.  The order does not relieve the individual of the obligation to pay rent, make housing payments, or comply with other obligations under the housing contract, nor does the order preclude fees, penalties, or interest as a result to pay on time under the applicable contract.

To halt an eviction the tenant, and each adult listed on the lease or housing contract, must provide an executed Declaration Attachment A of the Order, to the person or entity with the right to have them evicted or removed from the property.

The tenants are required to pay rent and abide by the rest of the terms of the lease or housing contract, and can be evicted for reasons other than not paying rent or making a housing payment, including:

(1) engaging in criminal activity while on the premises;

(2) threatening the health or safety of other residents;

(3) damaging or posing an immediate and significant risk of damage to property;

(4) violating any applicable building code, health ordinance, or similar regulation relating to health and safety;

(5) violating any other contractual obligation, other than the timely payment of rent or similar housing-related payment (including non-payment or late payment of fees, penalties, or interest).

Across the country, judges and court administrators are responding differently, and state court leaders have been asked to provide guidance on how best to apply the order.

NCSC Principal Court Management Consultant Danielle Hirsch who is monitoring how states are implementing the CDC order, said courts must strive to ensure consistent and uniform application of the law.

“Given the pressing and serious nature of the eviction crisis facing the country,” Hirsch said, “court systems should promulgate court orders, education and training, self-help resources, and procedures to assist with handling eviction filings in accordance with the CDC order.”

NCSC recommends the following steps for implementing the order:

• Supplement the CDC order with a state or local order. The order can include changes to pleading and summons requirements, amendments to eviction forms, and instructions regarding the declaration forms that the CDC order requires tenants to submit. Orders that may be considered models come from theTexas Supreme Court and Rhode Island District Court.
• Devise a plan to educate judges and other court employees about the CDC order. 
• Communicate with landlords and tenants about the order. Alaska and Utah, for example, have done a good job of providing information to tenants who are not represented by lawyers.
• Reach out to lawyers and other stakeholders. Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Texas have held large stakeholder meetings to address this issue.
• Set up eviction diversion programs. This is happening in many places nationwide, such as Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Washington, and Kentucky.

For more resources on navigating the novel coronavirus visit the NCSC Pandemic Resource Center.

As part of SJI’s ongoing commitment to support court access to federal grant funds, we are pleased to announce that 16 courts have been selected to participate in an intensive federal grant application development series.  This series is sponsored by SJI in collaboration with Rulo Strategies.  The virtual training series will integrate traditional grant training and technical assistance (TTA) with intensive, one on-one support to assist selected sites in the development of a federal application for the FY 2021 grant season.  Courts from the following states/territories will be participating in this initiative:

Arizona

Delaware

Georgia

Hawaii

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Wisconsin

Congratulations to these courts on their selection!  If you missed the deadline to apply, but are interested in this grant training, some of the course materials will be made available on the SJI Funding Toolkit in mid-November.  Stay tuned for additional details.

The State Justice Institute (SJI) is seeking to fund projects that assist state courts in their response to, and recovery from, COVID-19, with a look towards the future of court operations. In addition to meeting all other application requirements, SJI will give priority consideration for funding to projects that focus on institutionalizing and/or replicating practices that were implemented during the pandemic. Read the formal solicitation here.

Applications for this opportunity must be submitted via the SJI Grant Management System (GMS). Applications will be reviewed, and if approved, awarded on a rolling basis in FY 2021. Visit the Virtual Learning section of the Funding Toolkit for State Courts and Justice System Partners to learn more about SJI funding, including a podcast about this funding opportunity. Email contact@sji.gov with questions regarding this solicitation.

Special Note on Prohibited Costs for this Solicitation:

No grant funds or cash match may be used to pay the salary and related costs for a current or new employee of a court or other unit of government because such funds would constitute supplanting state or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706(d)(1); this includes new employees hired specifically for the project. Grant funds cannot be used for the purpose of purchasing software and/or equipment, such as software and/or equipment for conducting remote hearings, as these are considered basic court operations.

Despite presenting challenges to numerous court processes, the pandemic also afforded opportunities for courts to implement innovations that are making family courts more accessible, efficient, high priority – and less adversarial.  The innovations are part of the Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators Family Justice Initiative (FJI), which is celebrating many milestones:

• Passage of a CCJ/COSCA resolution that supports FJI’s “bold, national recommendations”
• Release ofan online report that serves as a repository for courts that have effectively responded the needs of families before, during, and after the pandemic
• The launch ofredesigned web pages that provide guidelines, recommendations, and best practices

FJI, established in 2017 with funding from SJI, is supported by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ).

The project’s first phase included a national assessment of domestic relations case processing in urban courts.  Phase two included the development of national Principles for Family Justice Reform.  Following CCJ’s approval of the Principles, project partners launched Phase Three to implement the Principles in four pilot jurisdictions: Miami-Dade, Florida; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Pima County, Arizona; and King County, Washington.

Soon after the pilot sites began improvement efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic hit.  The four sites met virtually in June 2020 to share progress and reevaluate needs as a result of the pandemic.  Some of the “silver linings” the sites identified include: improved communication with parties as court staff walked parties through the processes remotely; improved scheduling options, giving parties autonomy to schedule their hearings online; and increased use of remote proceedings that resulted in improved appearance rates and party satisfaction.  Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Marion County, Indiana have since joined the FJI implementation efforts.

The FJI team – taking into consideration adaptations courts made as a result of the pandemic –identified supplemental recommendations, which CCJ and COSCA endorsed in Resolution 4 in July.  The new recommendations include:

• Affording family cases the same prestige and respect as other court matters
• Aggressively triaging cases as early as possible
• Simplifying court procedures to allow self-represented litigants to engage in the justice system and are treated fairly
• Ensuring that self-help information and services are available both in person and remotely
• Offering families a choice of dispute resolution options
• Promoting the well-being of families through the life of their case as the primary desired case outcome

Alaska Chief Justice Joel Bolger, FJI chair, said he hopes this resolution “will help family courts respond to the common barriers presented by high caseloads, limited staffing, complex procedures, and narrow service options, and increased numbers of self-represented litigants. The COVID-19 pandemic brings new urgency around the need for family courts to implement positive adaptations and support continuous innovation.”

“We all recognize the strains brought on by the pandemic,” said Alicia Davis, FJI project manager and NCSC principal court consultant. “It is encouraging to see how these courts and others are redesigning processes to meet the needs of families.”