The emergence of COVID-19 has had widespread effects throughout the court system and quarantine orders slowed operations. The Supreme Court of Ohio anticipated an influx of evictions and foreclosure filings in Ohio’s trial courts, as well as a backlog of civil cases. Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor directed the Office of Court Services to convene stakeholders to analyze projected caseloads, create strategies for backlogs, and modernize court operations through technology. The Evictions Report and Recommendations and Foreclosures and Civil Justice Report were developed, both recommending the use of online dispute resolution (ODR). Subsequently, through a grant from the State Justice Institute, ODR was expanded in Ohio.
OH-Resolve, a vendor hosted ODR for 15 pilot sites, is a court-monitored messaging system designed to help parties resolve evictions, small claims, foreclosures, and family law cases. ODR increases access to justice for self-represented litigants and is a convenient way for litigants to resolve disputes from a computer or smartphone.
Tools were developed to assist courts with implementation on the Supreme Court’s webpage. FAQs for Courts, FAQs for Public, court user instructions, a legal glossary, the ODR Toolkit and instructional videos were created to help guide parties and the courts through the ODR process.
As Ohio continues to explore ODR best practices in different types of cases, it will be an ongoing opportunity to provide courts with another method to resolve legal issues while providing citizens of the State of Ohio an additional way to access the court system by utilizing technology.
King County, Washington, was ground zero for the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The Washington State Supreme Court suspended most court operations in all courts on March 18, 2020. Acknowledging access to justice is of critical importance, King County Superior Court (KCSC) leadership vowed to continue to hold matters on all case types, including jury trials, at the earliest time possible.
With adapted operational procedures, new court technology, a public health plan, and legal community support, KCSC held over 300 jury trials, 1,000 bench trials, and countless hearings between July 2020 and December 2021.
Evaluating and institutionalizing best practices initiated during the crisis. In October 2020, KCSC was awarded a SJI Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant to 1) develop a values-based evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness and impact of pandemic implemented new practices; and 2) use the results to inform and/or shape future court policy, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the court, and ensure new service delivery approaches and innovative practices were refined and normalized post-pandemic.
Under the expert guidance of Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey, KCSC’s project spanned 19 months and included workshops, focus groups, and surveys. From a lengthy list of new practices implemented during the pandemic, three were selected for evaluation:
Virtual court proceedings including virtual interpreting and electronic exhibits
Virtual jury selection
Remote work (excluding courtroom personnel)
Check out the findings and recommendations from this study. KCSC’s experiences may help shape the future of virtual processes and practices in your Court.
Juvenile court judges are the most important public figures in the juvenile justice system–their decisions impact whether hundreds of thousands of youth each year become court involved and for how long, whether they are involuntarily removed from their homes and communities, and the services they receive. Despite the importance of these judges, states and locales have generally not assessed whether and how the structure, roles, and operations of their juvenile courts support or hinder public safety and positive youth outcomes.
Establish specialized and dedicated juvenile and family court judges
Ensure that judges hearing delinquency cases have the tools and resources necessary to adjudicate delinquency cases in a developmentally appropriate way
Require all judges who hear delinquency cases to receive ongoing training on juvenile justice
Establish dedicated forums focused on strengthening and supporting juvenile court
Identify statewide performance measures for juvenile court
An accompanying tool, which highlights key juvenile court metrics, can be found at the Juvenile Justice GPS. Additionally, NCJFCJ passed a resolution on the importance of juvenile court specialization which can be found here.
Each county in Mississippi contains its own Justice Court where community members bring legal actions to settle local, small-dollar disputes. Court regulations and policies vary in each county, and they can be incredibly confusing for Mississippians to navigate, almost all of which are pro se litigants. The COVID-19 pandemic created more variation as judges and court staff introduced and adapted procedures and policies over the last two years. The Mississippi Center for Justice, through funding provided by SJI, created the Justice Court Access Program (“JCAP”) to build internet resources for community members to access crucial information ahead of their hearing. JCAP first identified the needs of the Justice Courts across the state by conducting a survey and reaching out community members to identify what tools and resources could best serve the people of the court. JCAP then created resources to fit with the results.
The JCAP website, www.msjusticecourthelp.com, offers visitors a convenient way to access guides on justice court procedures and policies, forms and filings, information on local law libraries, and other helpful references and links. The project also involved the creation of six self-help videos on issues ranging from preparing for court, post-hearing procedures, and how to dress for your court date. In addition, JCAP also created a virtual court navigator, “Lex,” who is hosted on the website and helps users navigate www.msjusticecourthelp.com in real time.
Participating in the judicial system can be traumatic and stressful. Mediation is a tool used for resolving many judicial matters, thus mediators often encounter disputants experiencing the worst time of their lives. With this in mind, Texas Dispute Resolution System™ (TDRS) began a process to enhance their mediators’ skills and knowledge when engaging disputants during their traumatic journey. Unfortunately, this nationwide search identified very few resources. As such, TDRS endeavored to fill this void.
With extensive collaboration with the National Center of State Courts and the generous funding from the State Justice Institute, TDRS provided a national 6-hour webinar in July 2021 with dynamic speakers from across the United States. The knowledge gleaned from these speakers was instrumental in developing the “Mental Health and Mediation Best Practices Handbook”, a first of its kind. This Handbook is now available to all mediators with the intent to continue assisting mediators in improving and building their toolboxes. The handbook is available online via the National Center for State Courts website at Mediation and Mental Health Best Practices Handbook – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – National Center for State Courts (oclc.org). TDRS welcomes feedback and ideas on how to expand this educational resource. Emails may be sent to odr@lubbockcounty.gov.
The State Justice Institute awarded a key grant to the District of Columbia Courts’ Office of Court Interpreting Services to launch the Courts’ Interpreter Registry and the first-ever Amharic Court Interpreter Certification Examination. These initiatives demonstrate the Courts’ commitment to increase access for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals to the judicial process and court services.
Interpreter Registry Demonstrates Quality and Excellence
The D.C. Courts Interpreter Registry launched on October 1, 2019. It is a formal court interpreter testing and training program designed to improve the quality of interpretation services at the Court by standardizing interpreter testing, training, responsibilities, and scheduling.
The registry includes over 160 freelance interpreters who typically provide interpretation services in over 40 spoken languages and American Sign Language in any given year. The Office of Court Interpreting Services (OCIS) manages the registry and coordinates the activities of the freelance interpreters, along with a federally certified Spanish staff interpreter and a nationally certified ASL staff interpreter to fulfill the Courts’ daily need for interpreters.
Interpreter Services by the Numbers
In calendar year 2019, the Courts provided 8,162 spoken and sign language interpreters for 6,506 court events and services. In 2020 and 2021—the COVID-19 public health emergency years—cases decreased dramatically. However, 2022 sees a significant uptick in activity. The most frequent language requests for court interpreters are:
Spanish – 70%
ASL – 9%
Amharic – 8%
Interpreters assist in-person and online due to the increasing number of ways the Courts now deliver their services and manage hearings.
New Exam Signals Inclusion of Amharic Speakers
All Spanish and ASL interpreters on the Interpreter Registry are certified. The Courts have approximately nine Amharic interpreters who are qualified to provide interpreting services. None, however, are certified because, before the development of the Amharic Court Interpreter Certification exam in 2021, there was no certification standard that existed for the language. It was essential to develop an Amharic court interpreter certification examination to provide the Courts’ third most requested language interpreters a path towards certification. A certification exam ensures the Courts provide the best possible service to our growing Amharic-speaking public, and establishes a standard of excellence for Amharic interpreters consistent with those set by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and other interpreter testing authorities.
The Courts contracted the NCSC to design all the sections of the comprehensive court interpreter certification exam. The NCSC also developed an Amharic legal glossary and recruited Amharic subject matter experts to rate the exam. The exam took approximately one year to develop and was first offered in June 2021. The Courts plan to give the next exam in June 2022.
To support the Amharic interpreters’ path toward certification, the OCIS developed an Amharic skills building workshop. The workshop provides the interpreters with instruction, materials, and practice exercises, and helps deepen their understanding of interpretation methodology, hone their court interpreting skills, and discuss legal terminology and concepts. The annual workshop will help the interpreters better prepare for the certification exam and improve their overall skills.
New Exam’s Nationwide Impact
The Courts donated the exam to the NCSC to make the exam available for use across the country. The Amharic-speaking Ethiopian diaspora is not limited to the District of Columbia—large populations in California, Minnesota, New York, and other areas of the country also speak Amharic.
The exam establishes a standard of excellence in Amharic court interpretation, creates a path toward certification for Amharic interpreters, and assures the public and the Courts throughout the country that the Amharic interpreters working for the Courts are qualified to do so.
Mr. Hailu Gtsadek, Amharic interpreter and translator and owner of African Translation LLC, best describes the importance of the exam development effort:
“I am expressing my heartfelt appreciation for your dedication and hard work in organizing this Skills Building Workshop and creating a path to certification for practicing and aspiring Amharic interpreters … It is my understanding that no institution offers formal translation and interpretation training on both sides of the Atlantic in Amharic language. This makes your office a trail blazer in training and certifying Amharic interpreters … The Amharic interpreters of the past, along with me, praise you and honor you for elevating Amharic interpretation as a profession.”
Language Access is Access to Justice
The District of Columbia Courts have always dedicated many resources to ensure that professional interpretation and translation services are available to LEP and deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals at the Courts. Understanding and addressing the diversity of our metropolitan area speaks to who we are as a court system – and thanks to the crucial support of SJI, we’re able to continue to do so with innovative efforts like these.
Our promise to deliver language access is proof of our commitment to our vision: Open to All, Trusted by All, Justice for All.
In November 2020, the Family Center of the Conciliation Court (FCCC) within the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, was awarded a Pandemic Response and Recovery grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI) to implement the Court’s vision of converting what was an employee-led, in-person parent education course to an on-demand, online, and self-paced e-Learning program. Grant funds were used to design, launch, and evaluate the e-Learning program and the process used to convert the course from an in-person format to an on-demand, virtual platform. In addition, doing so would enhance access and convenience to parents in the long-term, post pandemic. The Court also anticipated cost savings, gaining efficiencies, and building internal capacity (e.g., to convert other curricula to virtual, self-paced formats) as a result of this project.
FCCC began providing the state mandated Domestic Relations Education on Children’s Issues Course (A.R.S. §25-351), Microsoft Word – 2012-08.doc (azcourts.gov), known more commonly as the Parent Education Program, in house as of July 2007. Parent Education (pima.gov). The course is required for all parents going through a legal separation, divorce or paternity action who have minor children. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, Parent Education classes were delivered in both English and Spanish by FCCC staff during the week, some evenings, and on weekends. More than 3,700 parents annually participated in these in-person classes.
In March 2020, mandatory parent education classes offered by the FCCC were suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic. This disruption gridlocked Family Law calendars because, pursuant to Arizona statute, parties involved in domestic relations cases are required to complete parent education training before legal processes can advance. Though course delivery was re-instated in July 2020 using Microsoft Teams, access limitations remained, resulting in continued domestic relations case backlog.
An interdisciplinary committee of Superior Court staff was involved in the design, development, and pilot implementation with the support of the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The Court and PRAXIS/Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey collaborated on the project with PRAXIS taking the lead on the evaluation. At the inception of the pilot, one hundred and sixty-nine parents enrolled in the on-demand course between August 12th – October 14th, 2021. They comprised the pilot population; their responses to the end-of-course evaluation were used in this evaluation.
Superior Courts in Arizona use a standard set of questions developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to assess the quality and effectiveness of parent education programs presented across the state, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes and the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration. A few additional questions were added to the evaluation for purposes of this project and the pilot. They included:
Convenience of completing the online, e-Learning parenting class.
Ease of logging in to and navigating the e-Learning parenting modules.
Efficiency of completing the Court mandated requirement through the e-Learning parenting class.
Likelihood of recommending the e-Learning parenting course to a friend or colleague who also is required to complete the course.
Experience of Parents – Detailed Results
Parents who opted into the pilot and completed the e-Learning course overwhelmingly rated their experiences positively.
Relevance: 87% agreed that the class material was relevant to their personal situation
Easy to Understand: 96% agreed that the class materials were presented in a manner that was easy to understand
Convenience: 95% agreed they were able to complete the class modules at times that were convenient for them
Easy to navigate: 86% agreed it was easy to log-in/ navigate through the e-Learning modules
Efficiency: 95% agreed the e-Learning class was an efficient way to complete the Court mandated requirements
Key Finding: Parents were very satisfied with their experience, and most are extremely likely to recommend the e-Learning course to others.
All parents who completed the on-demand E-Learning parenting class were required to complete the course evaluation before receiving a Certificate of Completion. The course evaluation was built into the on-line program and parents were automatically directed to the evaluation questions upon successfully passing the end-of-course quiz (with 80% accuracy).
In addition to the above, in October 2021, Dr. Joi Hollis, FCCC Director, and committee co-chair, shared progress and demonstrated the e-Learning course to Arizona (AOC) staff, judicial officers, court administrators and Conciliation Court directors across Arizona. The presentations and updates to multiple audiences generated considerable interest in this project, with many other Arizona Courts expressing an interest in making it available to their court users. The Court is now working with the AOC as it plans to expand the e-Learning program to counties across Arizona and invest in developing a Spanish-speaking version.
As of February 2022, with the pilot now complete, the on-line version of the parent education program remains in high demand and has over 900 registrants since its inception in August 2021. For additional questions regarding the evaluation results, contact PRAXIS Consulting/Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey at bwagen@praxisconsulting.org.
SJI awarded grant funding to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“Court”) to produce a jury orientation video for its unified court system. The video replaced a 30-year-old video featuring actor Raymond Burr. The Court drafted, produced, and disseminated a timeless video to be used during jury orientation to explain the basics of the justice system and the function of the jury as the finders of fact. The 10-minute video, along with a companion handbook, is anticipated to benefit judges, magistrates, court personnel, and the public for many years. The project was scheduled to film March 16-20, 2020, but was postponed for over a year due to the pandemic. The video was shot and recorded during a brief pause in COVID-19 concerns in West Virginia during the summer of 2021 when masks were not required in the judicial building where the video was filmed. It is critical that jurors are provided a concise but thorough introduction before performing their constitutional and civic obligation. The video provides an introduction into the significance of jury service and answers many FAQs.
The script of the 10-minute video went through several drafts with the help of representatives of the Circuit Clerk Liaison Committee and the West Virginia Judicial Association. Both groups had extensive input on the details of the script. The video was publicly released in November during an event announcing West Virginia’s first Juror Appreciation Month. In conjunction with the video, staff from the West Virginia Administrative Office of the Courts updated an existing jury handbook, a plain language instructional manual for prospective jurors. There are links to both the video and the handbook on the West Virginia Judiciary website: http://www.courtswv.gov/public-resources/jury-information.html.
“We are releasing a really important video that will be a tool to help build public understanding and awareness of what jury duty and service is all about and what happens in a trial. And we have a manual that circuit judges, magistrates, and circuit clerks can use as an education tool,” said Chief Justice Evan Jenkins.
Justice John Hutchison said, “The judiciary is the only branch of government that requires our citizens to participate so that we can do our job. If they don’t participate, then we don’t have the ability to resolve criminal issues. We don’t have the ability to resolve conflicts between our citizens. The jury system is the lynchpin of our type of government. The citizens decide disputes, not judges or other elected officials.”
Fifth Judicial Circuit (Calhoun, Jackson, Mason, and Roane Counties) Judge Anita Ashley led a team of circuit judges who provided input on the video script:
“The right to a jury trial is like so many other rights, it comes with responsibilities. We all hope we never need a jury of our peers, but someone needs one every day. We all owe it to our fellow Americans to answer that call. Being on a jury is a rewarding experience,” Judge Ashley said. “I have had countless jurors tell me after they have completed their service what a good experience it was to be a juror and how interesting the process is.”
We have long known that family matters challenge a court system that assumes people will be represented by attorneys and that proceedings should be adversarial.
The Cady Initiative for Family Justice Reform (formerly “Family Justice Initiative”) exists to guide courts towards improved outcomes for families, while managing costs and controlling delays. First funded by the State Justice Institute (SJI) in 2017, the Cady Initiative represents a partnership between National Center for State Courts (NCSC); IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System; the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC); and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ).
In 2018, The Cady Initiative for Family Justice Reform released the Landscape of Domestic Relations showing that either the petitioner and/or respondent are self-represented in as many as 86% of cases. Three years later, courts report amplified challenges, in part due to pandemic conditions. Caseload backlogs have increased while staffing has decreased due to vacancies or changes in responsibilities. Arkansas, Wyoming and South Carolinaare three courts that, over the last year, have overseen family law trainings intended to address the reality of how families are using courts, and to provide a path forward. Below follows a description of each state’s efforts.
Arkansas
In May 2021, the Arkansas Office of the Courts held its annual conference on children and family matters via Zoom. Attendees were primarily guardians ad litem for child welfare and domestic relations, with attendance also from judges, parents’ counsel, and other attorneys in private practice. This training event was an opportunity to consider the nature of family law, and to begin a conversation about some of the Family Justice Principles.
Wyoming
In July 2021, Professor and Director of the Family and Child Legal Advocacy Clinic at the University of Wyoming College of Law, Dona Playton, hosted a session on Innovations in Family Law at the Wyoming Trial Lawyers statewide conference to consider innovations in Access to Justice and family law reform. Attended by judges and attorneys statewide, the session focused on processes that promote healthier outcomes for families in the courts.
The session discussed examples from courts across the country on how to successfully implement pathways and innovations in family law, including in-person and virtual services, ensuring that court users can access services in the manner that is most appropriate to their needs. Examples can be found in IAALS’ Pandemic Positives: Extending the Reach of Court and Legal Services a report that highlights a number of these courts and their journey toward providing both in-person and virtual services as well as other documents published by the Cady Initiative partners (NCSC, AFCC, IAALS and NCJFCJ).
South Carolina
The South Carolina Bar has recently hired a Pro Bono Program Director, Betsy Goodale, and the South Carolina Supreme Court hired a new Executive Director of the South Carolina Access to Justice Commission, Hannah Honeycutt. During their statewide listening tour, Family Court Judges and Clerks of Court across the states reported that the Family Courts have been heavily impacted by the number of self-represented litigants. A committee began planning a Family Court Summit to take place in March 2022. The goals of this initial gathering are to recognize the issues the Family Court is facing in order to brainstorm potential solutions, and to discuss next steps.
The announcement of the Family Court Summit has been met with appreciation from the South Carolina Supreme Court, South Carolina Court Administration, Family Court Judges, Clerks of Court, and practitioners, both private sector and from legal aid organizations.
1. Ensure that family law matters receive the same level of prestige and respect as other court matters by providing them with appropriate recognition, training, funding, and strong leadership.
2. Aggressively triage cases at the earliest opportunity
3. Simplify court procedures so that self-represented parties know what to expect, understand how to navigate the process, can meaningfully engage in the justice system, and are treated fairly
4. Ensure that self-help information and services are available both in person and remotely so that all litigants can access the full range of court self-help in the manner that is most appropriate for their needs
5. Offer families a choice of dispute resolution options to promote problem-solving and to minimize the negative effects that the adversarial process has on families during the court process and afterwards
6. Promote the well-being of families, including implementation of trauma-responsive practices for families and staff, throughout the life of their case and as the primary desired case outcome
For successful implementation of the Family Justice Principles, court leaders must drive improvement efforts, acknowledging that the road may be long and that the court needs support from the larger community. The family court needs judges who exhibit strong leadership, advocate for ample training and resources and work with family law professionals for the benefit of children and families coming before the court. As a joint effort between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), courses on the concepts above are available at no cost to courts as part of these organization’s commitment to help courts realize change. For more information on how your court can take part in these opportunities, please contact Alicia Davis (adavis@ncsc.org).
Twelve courts from around the country have completed a six-month pilot as part of LaGratta Consulting’s Court Voices Project, where they asked both court staff and court users for their feedback on courts’ pandemic responses. While most of the pilot courts had little to no experience collecting feedback from court users in the past, all were able to use tablet kiosks, web links, and/or QR codes to solicit insights. All in, over 275 court staff and over 3,000 court users participated. A complete project report is forthcoming in early 2022, but included here are some initial findings.
The range of feedback methods and contexts was vast, from links within Zoom hearings or court chat functions to in-person feedback kiosks as court users left the clerk’s window area or a particular courtroom. Most courts utilized more than one method to compare feedback between remote versus in-person services, as well as by different touchpoints of the court process, for example, at arraignments versus after status hearings.
The most common feedback topic among pilot courts was court users’ preferred mode of service: essentially, would you have rather handled your court business differently and why? Court user perspectives on these questions ranged dramatically from site to site based on court type, jurisdiction type and size, case type, and geography, to name a few factors. About half of court users appearing in-person in most courts said they prefer in-person service over remote alternatives (e.g., virtual court, phone, or email). In one court, the preference for in-person court was as high as 75%. But when the same question was asked of court users after utilizing a remote alternative, the responses show a more complex picture: even in a court where over half of in-person users prefer in-person, up to 100% of court users appearing remotely said they prefer remote. This suggests that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, and when given a choice, court users might self-select into the service type that is best for them.
Preferences on specific types of remote alternatives varied too. In one court, 29% of court users said they’d prefer a “by phone” remote option; in another court, no one preferred that alternative. Regarding the rationale for these preferences, project findings add nuance to the conventional wisdom that convenience equates to remote services. While pilot feedback confirmed that most court users who prefer remote services identify ‘convenience’ as the main reason for that preference, ‘convenience’ is often cited as the reason court users prefer in-person service, as well. In one court, it was the top reason court users preferred in-person services.
Write-in comments from court users provide dimension to these findings, such as:
“It was very helpful coming in person actually talking to someone getting to know the many options,” “don’t trust unless in person,” and “Quiero ver la juez y explicar” [translation: I want to see the judge and explain]).
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, Spanish-speaking court users were most likely to name “ease of understanding” as their reason for preferring in-person services.
Other court user comments alerted court leaders to potential deficiencies in their service delivery:
“I called and couldn’t get a live person so emailed which of course was easier.“
“Email address was on citation, would have liked to have been provided a phone number to contact“
Two main take-aways so far: (1) Courts should offer a menu of service options informed by local feedback, and (2) Tailored feedback should be invited in a range of contexts to ensure representative and useful insights. Simply importing the lessons from other courts or national studies may lead court leaders in the wrong direction.
