Justice Campaign

Transcription

1

2

3 Justice Campaign

4 To promote the rule of law and to improve the administration of justice in the state courts and courts around the world. 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA (800) ncsc.org

5 Introduction A system of justice cannot be genuinely fair and responsive to public need if it is not efficient. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Since its founding in 1971, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has served as a frontline pioneer to improve the administration of justice. Challenges facing the courts have evolved over the years, but the mission of the NCSC developing solutions to the shared business problems of the court community remains as sharply focused today as it was at its founding. Mission: To promote the rule of law and to improve the administration of justice in the state courts and courts around the world. In executing its Strategic Plan, the National Center has worked closely with the court community to address many challenges. NCSC has tracked how state courts have responded to the economic situation with its Budget Resource Center. The Center for the Elders and the Courts was created to provide leadership and resources to courts on issues affecting the elderly. The High Performance Court Framework was introduced to offer a comprehensive way for court leaders to manage their complex organizations and use performance measures to continually diagnose and improve their administrative processes. NCSC s Institute for Court Management (ICM) worked with a consortium of state courts to launch the Court Management Programs Licensee Program that allows ICM courses to be taught locally. These are just a sample of the products that the National Center developed between 2009 and 2012 to help courts solve their business problems. Looking into 2013 and beyond, the nation s courts continue to face tremendous challenges. Courts in virtually every state have faced debilitating budget reductions. Hiring has been frozen, salaries have been reduced, judgeships left unfilled, staff furloughed and laid off, hours of operation reduced and in some instances, jury trials postponed. The infrastructure needed to support the resolution of disputes facilities, equipment, and technology is aging. Court leaders must address an increasing demand for performance accountability; find ways to fund and integrate rapidly emerging information, telecommunication, and networking technologies into their organizations; Vision: Find solutions that will help courts significantly improve efficiency while maintaining or improving services to the public. Justice Campaign:

6 and ensure access to justice not only for individuals with limited English proficiency but also for all litigants regardless of their level of income. Meanwhile, too many citizens misunderstand the role of the courts in our democracy. The public believes cases take too long to resolve and that the process is too expensive and bureaucratic. Distrust with government institutions dissatisfaction far more trained on the executive and legislative branches spills over into the judicial branch, sapping public support for improvements. To meet the growing challenges to America s courts, NCSC is adopting a campaign approach to its strategic plan. Rather than the traditional model based upon a lengthy list of goals, this approach to strategic planning emphasizes four major outcomes or justice campaigns: Online support to solve court business and performance problems Strategies, advice and tools necessary to secure adequate and stable resources of areas not captured within these four campaign themes. A complete list of NCSC priorities is maintained on our website at ncsc.org/priorities. These campaigns provide focus. They reflect the priorities of the court community. And they provide an ability to organize and galvanize the collective efforts of the judicial community around institutional outcomes that will result in tangible improvements in the administration of justice. Another critical component of a major campaign is accountability. How will NCSC measure itself? To gauge success, each campaign objective has been assigned a performance measure. Underpinning the Justice Campaign will be the alignment of the Center s resources and operations to support new program initiatives undertaken to achieve the campaign s objectives. The Center recognizes that revenue streams may affect the ability of the Center to perform its operations and may require that resources be repositioned to meet ongoing requirements of the campaign. Solutions for enhancing access to justice for all Structures for aligning court leadership and governance to effectively administer the state courts These four focus areas have emerged from an intensive listening and surveying process conducted with NCSC s staff, board, advisory committees, and association leaders. While they represent the most pressing areas that the court community has identified as requiring additional focus, they should not be interpreted as circumscribing or limiting the work of the National Center. NCSC will continue to provide research, training, services to associations, and technical assistance in a wide variety 2 National Center for State Courts

7 Online support to solve court business and performance problems What you measure is what you get. Dan Ariely, Harvard Business Review You can t manage what you don t measure. F. John Reh, Management Consultant Courts are facing unprecedented business problems as they try to carry out their constitutional mission with ever-dwindling resources. These constraints are forcing courts to pay close attention to any existing or emerging performance issues. When those issues stem from problems with their business processes, they can access a rich collection of business solutions and good practices on the NCSC website. Like most knowledge-based institutions, the NCSC website requires users to first identify the correct topic before linking to a business solution that is embedded in a series of sizable documents. This search can be both time-consuming and challenging. Courts have many different kinds of business problems and access to an equally large set of potential solutions. Examples of more user-friendly approaches abound on the Internet. At the WebMD website, for example, users quickly identify their symptoms, and the website suggests possible problems and solutions to investigate. Users then drill down into those possibilities. The same capability can be provided for courts using the organizing structures of the High Performance Court Framework, its Quality Cycle, and the Court Technology Framework. Using an interactive interface, the user diagnoses their business problem, preferably using performance measure data to objectively verify the problem. The website then guides the user through an analysis of possible problems and solutions and makes recommendations about what the most promising place to start might be. Just as everyone s body is different and the WebMD site must offer only advice on what might help, each court is also different. So, the advice the website provides is based on what is known about the problem and cannot be treated as a definitive recommendation for action. Other types of NCSC assistance will be used to support the website and its advice. Users will be able to access education and training resources, consultants, and researchers as needed. An equally difficult dilemma for many courts is choosing which problems to address with the scarce resources available. The High Performance Court (HPC) Assessment Tool enables courts to identify their weak performance areas and focus resources on improving those capabilities. The HPC Court Certification Workshop teaches court leadership teams how to systematically identify performance problems and eliminate them using a repeatable business process. Together, these tools help courts to improve their performance in measurable ways. Justice Campaign:

8 Objectives Construct protocols for guiding users from business problems to business solutions. Create a website that implements the business solution protocols. Provide tools for improving court performance. 4 National Center for State Courts

9 Strategies, advice, and tools necessary to secure adequate and stable resources There is an audience for a new debate about the role of the courts; the challenge is engaging this audience, with so many other issues competing for their limited attention, and putting enough resources behind a consistent message to break through. The True Cost of Justice GBA Strategies final report on public attitudes to court funding First, we must establish a predictable and adequate funding system. Second, we must create a more efficient and effective system of delivering justice. Third, we must establish a means of communicating the importance of the justice system to the public and political decision makers. David Boies and Theodore Olson, Co-Chairs, ABA Task Force on the Preservation of the Justice System Courts in 47 states absorbed budget cuts between 2010 and Even though a majority of states raised filing fees to offset some of these budget cuts, they still had to furlough or lay-off staff, freeze or reduce salaries, close courthouse doors, and postpone jury trials. Courts will continue to do their part to meet shortfalls responsibly. However, there is great concern whether courts can secure adequate and stable resources in the long-term, and how to manage their dwindling resources in the interim. To provide a useful lens on decision making in tough times, the National Center has developed the Principles for Judicial Administration. This is a set of 25 operational principles to guide courts as they struggle to make difficult choices as to how to manage their resources most efficiently. Too many courts continue to work with business processes based on outdated assumptions about technology, people, geography, and structure. In recent years, the National Center for State Courts has assisted 10 states and 14 localities in reengineering their services to court users. This reengineering helps better reflect and integrate ongoing advances in information technology. Courts face a new normal both in how they manage with limited resources and in how they pursue adequate and stable funding. Research conducted in 2012 by NCSC and Justice at Stake provides the intellectual framework to allow court leaders to make a stronger and more persuasive case to both Justice Campaign:

10 the public and budget writers. Arguments that the courts are entitled to a lump sum by virtue of their existence have failed. New arguments must be built around courts as good stewards of public resources, by demonstrations of accountability and performance measures, by taking action on reengineering to improve customer service, and by connecting court services to the overall health of the economy. In addition, the rules and methods of procedure for civil litigation in the United States protect access to justice, public trust and confidence, and the constitutional role of the courts. To that end, the Conference of Chief Justices has established a committee to develop guidelines and best practices for civil litigation and make recommendations in the area of caseflow management to improve the civil justice system in the state courts. Objectives Continue to provide national and international expertise on reengineering best practices and civil justice reform. Enhance and expand the online Budget Resource Center to allow court constituents to interactively access budget information. Widely disseminate public opinion findings so courts are on message when arguing for stable funding. 6 National Center for State Courts

11 Solutions for enhancing access to justice for all The American justice system cannot be left to sit idly by with the expectation that it will remain relevant, well-functioning, and indefinitely respected. In this new century, impatience is up, immediacy is king, and interconnection is essential. Yesterday is not tomorrow s answer. John T. Broderick, Jr., Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire The ability to go to court is a fundamental right. Courts are required to accept and resolve disputes for all litigants, including those that are selfrepresented, persons with limited English proficiency, those of limited financial means as well as the middle class, and individuals with mental or physical disabilities. Court leaders have an obligation to structure their operations in a manner that promotes public access to the courts for all. The United States court system has been a model for the world. Our court system stands out for being fair and impartial, for its accountability, and for guaranteeing civil liberties. However, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index suggests that our court system s preeminence in the civil justice arena may be changing in the eyes of other countries. It remains inaccessible to many disadvantaged groups. Legal assistance is expensive or unavailable, and the gap between rich and poor individuals, in terms of both actual use of and satisfaction with the civil court system, remains significant. If state courts are to remain viable they must overcome numerous challenges. None may be more important than providing access to courts for all citizens. Failure to solve this problem may relegate courts to a diminished role in our democracy. There are four aspects to this problem. First, current services for litigants with limited English proficiency are woefully inadequate. Second, courts must find ways to accommodate the growing number of self-represented litigants. Third, it is no longer just the poor who cannot afford lawyers. Most middle-income people find it difficult to hire a lawyer for anything other than a specific task. And fourth, under current court rules and procedures, the legal process for most civil litigants is too complex, lengthy, and expensive. Justice Campaign:

12 Objectives Use cloud technology to provide remote court interpreters across the country and develop a process for state courts to crosscertify court interpreters. Help courts simplify and streamline their rules of civil procedure. Increase convenience for court users by developing models to allow appropriate transactions to be completed online. 8 National Center for State Courts

13 Structures for aligning court leadership and governance mechanisms to effectively administer the state courts Modern state courts are complex organizations with multi-million-dollar budgets. Management of these enterprises requires requisite leadership, governance, and management skills on a par with the corporate world. Yet unlike the private sector, courts do not have a structured chain of command with the attendant personnel authority nor do they measure success by the balance sheet. The nucleus of a court s governance structure is the chief justice or presiding judge who works with the court executive to administer the operations and policies of the court. Chief justices and presiding judges working with the court administrator make judicial assignments, coordinate judicial schedules, and supervise the overall caseload. Administratively they are responsible for personnel, training, facilities, budget, technology, policy formulation, strategic planning, and liaison to outside agencies, the media, and stakeholders. Chief justices and state court administrators have varying responsibilities for developing and managing judicial branch budgets, operations management, technology, policymaking through its rulemaking authority, and judicial training. These judicial leadership teams must possess the skills to lead the system while at the same time protecting it from undue outside influence The culture of judges being equals and a presiding judge being only a first among equals, frequently results in a lack of appreciation for the qualities needed in a leader. Christine Durham, Justice, Utah Supreme Court Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, Utah or attacks on judicial independence. They must lead in a culture that does not reflect or endorse a traditional hierarchy for managing its members. Understanding the cultural challenges judicial leaders face is key to developing effective governance structures needed to solve the problems courts face. Those challenges include: Individual independence that significantly competes with creating an organizational identity. Tension between an individual view of workload my cases and commitment to broader goals of judicial administration. Leadership terms that are too short to effectively address the problems facing the court system. Lack of recognized administrative authority to effectively manage daily operations. Competing interests between different court levels and state versus local orientations. Justice Campaign:

14 Judicial leadership must develop governance strategies that take into consideration these cultural challenges. Those strategies include soliciting input; providing an opportunity to be heard and a forum for debate; explaining the importance of the issues, as well as why a decision was made; and ensuring effective lines of communication. This court culture requires that court executives and presiding judges, and state court administrators and chief justices, function as a management team. The National Center has developed a model rule addressing the role of the presiding judge and the Principles for Judicial Administration to provide guidance in establishing effective court governance structures. However, additional tools to assist judges and court executives to effectively lead and solve the problems facing state courts need to be developed. Objectives Establish a judicial leadership forum to meet once a year to develop tools to improve local judicial governance. Provide technical assistance to state judicial leadership teams to assess and improve their governance structures. This includes providing leadership and governance training to local leadership teams. Work with associations, including the Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, American Judges Association, Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal, National Association for Court Management, National Conference of Metropolitan Courts, and International Association for Court Administration, to develop training programs to improve the skills of judicial leadership teams. 10 National Center for State Courts

15

16