

2 0 1 9 N A T I O N A L CE N T E R F O R S T A T E C O U R T S NCSC.ORG

Trends in State Courts

#### 2019 Review Board & Trends Committee

Trends in State Courts 2019 articles have been through a rigorous review process. The members

of the 2019 Review Board and Trends Committee have provided valuable feedback on this edition. The patience and commitment of the Review Board and Trends Committee are greatly appreciated.

Howard H. Berchtold, Jr. Trial Court Administrator, Atlantic City, New Jersey

Heidi Carstensen Dakota County Court Administrator, Minnesota Pam Casey Vice President, Research, National Center for State Courts Claudia C. Johnson Court Collaboration Circuit Rider, Pro Bono Net

Laura Klaversma Director, Court Services, National Center for State Courts Karen Kringlie Director of Juvenile Court, Admin Unit 2, Fargo, North Dakota Hon. Brenda S. Loftin St. Louis County Circuit Court, Missouri

Neil Nesheim Area Court Administrator, First Judicial District, Juneau, Alaska

Beth Riggert Communications Counsel, Supreme Court of Missouri

Alyce Roberts Special Projects Coordinator, Alaska Court System

Hon. John J. Russo Administrative and Presiding Judge, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Cleveland, Ohio

Jeff Schrade Director, Education Services Division, Arizona

Alison H. Sonntag Kitsap County Clerk, Washington

Suzanne H. Stinson Court Administrator, 26th Judicial District Court (ret.), Louisiana

Robert D. Wessels County Court Manager (ret.), County Criminal Courts at Law, Houston, Texas

Robert A. Zastany Executive Director (ret.), Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois

#### Call for Article Submissions

Trends in State Courts is an annual, peer-reviewed publication that highlights innovative practices in critical areas that are of interest to courts, and often serves as a guide for developing new initiatives and programs and informing

and supporting policy decisions. Trends in State Courts is the only publication of its kind and enjoys a wide circulation among the state court community. It is distributed in hard copy and electronically.

Submissions for the 2020 edition are now being accepted. Please email abstracts of no more than 500 words by October 14, 2019 to John Holtzclaw at jholtzclaw@ncsc.org. Abstracts received after this date are welcome and will be considered for later editions or for our online version of Trends.

Visit the Trends in State Courts website at www.ncsc.org/trends for more information and detailed submission guidelines.

2 0 1 9 N A T I O N A L CE N T E R F O R S T A T E C O U R T S NCSC.ORG

Trends in State Courts

Edited by

Charles Campbell Publications Specialist, National Center for State Courts

John Holtzclaw Librarian, National Center for State Courts

Contributing Editor

J.D. Gingerich Director, State Courts Partnership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

### To promote the rule of law and improve the administration of justice in state courts and courts around the world.

#### Trusted Leadership. Proven Solutions. Better Courts.

Acknowledgments

Trends in State Courts 2019 was truly a team effort. Without the support and dedication of the court community this publication would not have been possible.

     The editors would like to thank VisualResearch

     —Neal Kauder, Patrick Davis, and Kim Small—for       infographics, layout, design, and production of Trends.

 The Trends in State Courts 2019 editors also recognize Thomson Reuters for their ongoing provision of online legal resources and research support.

The editors also recognize the contributions of two former staff members of the National Center for State Courts' Knowledge and Information Services, Deborah Smith and Blake Kavanagh, who "started the ball rolling" for Trends 2019 last year as members of the editorial staff.

Their preparatory work was essential to this year's edition.

This report is part of the National Center for State Courts' "Report on Trends in the State Courts" series.

Opinions herein are those of the authors, not necessarily of the National Center for State Courts.

Copyright 2019

National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 Web site: www.ncsc.org ISBN: 978-0-89656-313-1

#### Suggested Citation

C. Campbell and J. Holtzclaw, eds. Trends in State Courts 2019

(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2019).

#### Table of Contents

Preface 1

Mary Campbell McQueen

Massachusetts Trial Court: Using Sequential Intercept Mapping in Response to the Opioid Crisis 2

Hon. Paula M. Carey

Pima County's Dependency Alternative Program: Preserving Families and Promoting Access to Justice 8

Hon. Kathleen Quigley and Stacey N. Brady

Engaged Employees = Satisfied Court Customers? 14

Eric Brown and Mindy Masias

Human Capital: Connecticut's Judicial Branch Is Investing in Its Workforce 21

Heather Nann Collins

Court Employees: Investing in Your Human Capital 29

Hon. John J. Russo

The Court's Technology Communication Challenge 33

James E. McMillan

Beyond Buzzwords: Building an Information Security Foundation 37

Sajed Naseem and Brian J. McLaughlin

Improving Child Support Enforcement Outcomes with Online Dispute Resolution 43

Kevin Bowling, Jennell Challa, and Di Graski

The Importance of a Legal Ecosystem 49

Tom Clarke

Evaluating Remote Technology Options to Increase Self-Help Center Access 54

Sheldon Clark

Preface

Mary Campbell McQueen President, National Center for State Courts

Courts play an essential role in our society, yet many members of the public find them intimidating, with their imposing architecture, security procedures, and seemingly arcane rules and legal language. Yet, for many members of the public, courts represent their only one-on-one contact with government, at least outside of a voting booth. As intimidating as courts can seem, access to justice is critical; therefore, state courts are working to make their processes more understandable and relevant to the public.

Courts also provide a crucial gateway to other essential services, such as drug treatment and rehabilitation. For example, the lead article in this year's edition of Trends in State Courts discusses how the Massachusetts Community Justice Project uses Sequential Intercept Mapping to confront the state's opioid-abuse crisis. This mapping process shows

how the opioid crisis impacts the courts and points out gaps in community services to addicts that need to be filled.

The attitudes of court employees also affect access to justice, as well as public perceptions of the justice system.

Engaged employees tend to be more efficient and devoted to the mission of the courts. A group of articles in

this year's Trends examines the importance of courts investing in human capital, with a focus on such investment in the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio.

Such investments pay dividends in improved operations and public perceptions of the courts' role in society.

Another section of Trends 2019 looks at the role of technology in promoting the rule of law. One such article describes the 2019 Innovating Justice Forum at The Hague, which brought together court technologists and demonstrated the best justice-related apps from around the world, including India, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Other articles show how technology can improve outcomes in child support enforcement and increase access to a court self-help center. Another takes up the importance of building a foundation for information security.

Increasing access to justice is essential to a functioning democracy. We hope you find the articles collected for Trends in State Courts 2019 both useful and thought provoking. You can read more about Trends online at www.ncsc.org/trends.

#  Massachusetts Trial Court: Facilitating a Community Response to the Opioid Crisis

 Hon. Paula M. Carey Chief Justice, Massachusetts Trial Court

###### The opioid crisis has affected the lives of citizens nationwide— with a resulting impact on courts. The Massachusetts Community Justice Project uses Sequential Intercept Mapping to gauge the impact of opioid-related cases on courts and

to improve services to victims of this health crisis.

Framework of the Massachusetts Community Justice Project: The Sequential Intercept Model

  © 2016 Policy Research Associates, Inc.

Sequential Intercept Mapping Workshop Participants

  Pima County's Dependency Alternative Program: Preserving Families

and Promoting Access to Justice

Hon. Kathleen Quigley Juvenile Court Presiding Judge, Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Tucson, Arizona

Stacey N. Brady Director, Court, Children, and Family Services Division, Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Tucson, Arizona

###### In 2017 the Arizona Supreme Court recognized Pima County's Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) with the Strategic Plan Award for Protecting Children, Families, and Communities. DAP was born out of a recognized crisis that significantly impacted families' timely access to justice; DAP averts significant dependencies

and mitigates trauma to families.

Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) Case Outcomes

 July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2018

Third-Party Rights |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 | 36%

---|---|---|---|---|---

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

Legal Decision Making/Parenting Plan |   
 |   
 |   
 | 34%

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

Guardianship-Title 14 |   
 |   
 | 15% |   
 |

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

Temporary Family Law Orders |   
 | 6% |   
 |   
 |

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

Title 8 Guardianship: Successor/Revocation |   
 | 3% |   
 |   
 |

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

Dismissed Private Dependency Petition |   
 | 3% |   
 |   
 |

 |   
 |   
 |   
 |   
 |

DCS Voluntary In-Home |   
 | 2% |   
 |   
 |

Power of Attorney |   
 | 1% |   
 |   
 |

   Dependency Alternative Program: Days from Referral to DAP Resolution

86

46 |

43 |

26 |

22

---|---|---|---

 | 10 | 7 | 8

2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018

  Mean Days Referral to Resolution Median Days Referral to Resolution

Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) Participant Satisfaction Survey Results

Results of 217 DAP surveys from: Parents, Children, Relatives, Friends, Legal Guardians, DCS Caseworkers July 1, 2015-July 1, 2018

Advisory Council

 Did the lawyer listen to you?

 Pima County, Arizona

   Engaged Employees Satisfied Court Customers?

Eric Brown Chief Human Resources Officer, Colorado Judicial Department

Mindy Masias Chief of Staff, Colorado Judicial Department

###### The combination of employee happiness and motivation produces engagement—an important, if elusive, workplace attribute. Employee engagement has a significant impact on the public's experience with the courts, and this article focuses on how to assess and improve your employees' level of engagement to improve the court user experience.

 Conditions for Engagement Engagement Opinions Employee Behaviors

Source: SHRM

 Harter, J. (2018). "Employee Engagement on the Rise in the U.S." Gallup, August 26. Online at http://tinyurl.com/y2ed8td2.

Hartzell, S. (n.d.). "Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: Hygiene Factors and Motivation." Video, Study.com. Online at http://tinyurl.com/y4n2cqpl.

HR and Employee Engagement Community (2016).

"The Top 3 Employee Engagement Drivers." Website, June. Online at http://tinyurl.com/y53bcva9.

Kruse, K. (2013). Employee Engagement for Everyone. Philadelphia: Center for Wholehearted Leadership.

Mind Tools Content Team (n.d.). "Herzberg's Motivators and Hygiene Factors—Learn How to Motivate Your Team." Website, MindTools—Essential Skills for an Excellent Career. Online at http://tinyurl.com/os5d9ag.

Sorenson, S. (2013). "Don't Pamper Employees—Engage Them." Gallup, July 2. Online at http://tinyurl.com/y27j8vjr.

#  Human Capital: Connecticut's Judicial Branch Is Investing in Its Workforce

 Heather Nann Collins Court Planner II, Connecticut Judicial Branch, Project Management

and Administration Unit, Superior Court Operations Division

###### The Connecticut Judicial Branch spent ten years implementing a strategic plan to improve services to the public. Now it is implementing a multiyear plan to improve employee satisfaction by focusing on communications, well-being, training, connectivity, and professional growth and opportunity for its biggest asset: its human capital.

The Plan | Strategy | Action Steps

---|---|---

Communication | Utilize effective mechanisms to disseminate | Ensure that temporary and part-time

 | timely and consistent communication on | employees are included on all

 | all matters of personal and professional | Branch-wide emails.

 | concern to Branch employees. |

1 Other members of this committee included Chief Court Administrator Judge Patrick L. Carroll III, then-Deputy Chief Court Administrator Judge Elliot N. Solomon, Chief Appellate Court Judge Alexandra D. DiPentima, the executive directors of each division, and the chief executive officer of the supreme and appellate courts.

2 See the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch website, "About Connecticut Courts," at https://jud.ct.gov/ystday/history.html.

 Court Employees: Investing in Your Human Capital

Hon. John J. Russo Administrative and Presiding Judge, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Cleveland, Ohio

###### How can a court invest in human capital? Here is an administrative judge's answer to that question.

 The Court's Technology Communication Challenge

James E. McMillan Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts

###### The Hague's Innovating Justice Forum is dedicated to improving access to justice

via technology. The 2019 forum stressed the importance of improving communication between courts and citizens using mobile devices.

Let's look at some of the finalist solutions presented at the conference:

  1.   S. Mitroff, "What Is a Bot? Here's Everything You Need to Know," cnet (May 5, 2016),

available at https://www.cnet.com/how-to/what-is-a-bot/.

  2. A2J, available at https://www.a2jauthor.org/. LegalZoom, available at

https://www.legalzoom.com/.

####  Innovating Justice Awards Winner

 Beyond Buzzwords: Building an Information Security Foundation

Sajed Naseem Chief Information Security Officer, New Jersey Judiciary

Brian J. McLaughlin Court Executive 2a, New Jersey Judiciary

######  Cybersecurity is no longer just a buzzword, but a stark reality where an attack can debilitate organizations. This article discusses steps to build an information security foundation for courts, ideally supported by leadership and integrated into every level of the organization.

Cyberattacks are a reality for every public organization, including state courts. During these challenging times, it is critical to update court operations to incorporate information security requirements and to develop a plan to methodically respond to cyberattacks. This article

discusses steps a judiciary can take to prioritize information governance and to build a foundation of cybersecurity best practices in every level of the organization.

Cybersecurity awareness is critical for developing a vibrant information security culture. The goal is to instill in all employees an understanding of the

role of information security in their daily work and to reinforce the impact of their daily conduct in this area. Management guru Peter Drucker once said, "You can't manage what you can't measure" (Wolcott, 2016).

Courts may use various methods to measure the levels of employee cybersecurity awareness. These tools could include surveys or quizzes that can help the information security unit tailor relevant trainings to achieve the organization's objectives.

#  Improving Child Support Enforcement Outcomes with Online Dispute Resolution

Kevin Bowling Circuit Court Administrator for Michigan's 20th Circuit, Ottawa County

Jennell Challa Friend of the Court Administrator, Michigan's 20th Circuit, Ottawa County

Di Graski Court Technology Consultant, National Center for State Courts

###### Court appearances in family cases can be traumatic for many citizens—particularly those who have endured adverse childhood experiences, such as parental abuse or divorce. Ottawa County, Michigan, has been experimenting with online dispute resolution techniques, particularly in communications, to improve child support outcomes outside of courtrooms.

1 Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), prohibits the incarceration of a party for failure to pay unless there are procedural safeguards for determining the party's ability to pay. Ottawa County's FOC team is helping the court comply with Turner by investigating noncustodial parents' ability to pay.

 The Importance of a Legal Ecosystem

Tom Clarke Principal Research Associate, National Center for State Courts

###### Not all legal problems require the services of a lawyer or all the processes of a court. The concept of a "legal ecosystem" might be an effective way of increasing access to justice, especially for self-represented litigants.

1 Justice for All grants have been received to date from the Public Welfare Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, and the JPB Foundation. Thirteen states have been funded to create action plans for achieving 100 percent access and implementing the first several projects of those action plans. The National Center for State Courts and the Self-Represented Litigation Network maintain a JFA website (https://tinyurl.com/yyodcbqz) with resources and provide technical assistance to both grantee and non-grantee states on their access-to-justice efforts.

  2. The first round of JFA states included Hawaii, Alaska, Georgia, New York, Minnesota, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

  3. One such example is a proposal made several years ago in Washington State to establish a new water court. Numerous states have modified the maximum and minimum amounts in controversy for their general- and limited-jurisdiction civil- court cases. Many states have also decriminalized large numbers of traffic cases.

4 It is difficult to cite many examples yet, since some of these dialogues occur behind the scenes. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the state regulation of dental services in North Carolina was an event that sparked conversations in a number of states. Utah and Arizona are states where those conversations resulted in projects to address changes in how legal services are regulated.

 Evaluating Remote Technology Options to Increase Self-Help Center Access

Sheldon Clark Litigant Services Manager, Tenth Judicial District, Ramsey, Minnesota

###### Providing meaningful access to justice should be at the top of every court's goals, and remote technology is a means to increase meaningful access for self-represented litigants. This article discusses how Minnesota's Tenth Judicial District determined which type of remote technology was appropriate for their jurisdiction.

Meaningful Access to Justice

Courts have an obligation to provide not just access to justice for self-represented litigants, but meaningful access to justice. Most would agree it is something more than unlocking the courthouse doors but something less than providing legal counsel to every litigant in every case. (For a situation describing what happens without meaningful access to justice, see the story of Marley on p. 58.)

1 Those sites are Alaska Court System Family Law Self-Help Center; Butte, Lake, and Tehama counties, California SHARP Shared Services Model; Idaho Judicial Branch Court Assistance Office and Idaho Legal Aid Services; Maryland District Court Self-Help Center; Minnesota Courts Self-Help Center; Montana Court Help Program and Montana Legal Services Association; Orange County, California Self-Help Services; and Utah State Courts Self-Help Center.

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Made Special Arrangements

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Use Remote Technology

Number of Text Messages Sent by Percentage of Survey Respondents

 0-4 Texts 31%

 5-9 Texts 23%

 10 or More Texts 46%

##### 58 Evaluating Remote Technology Options to Increase Self-Help Center Access

#### Board of Directors, National Center for State Courts, 2018-2019

Paul L. Reiber Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Vermont, Chair

Sally A. Holewa State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of North Dakota, Vice Chair

Mark S. Cady Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Iowa, Chair-elect

J. Joseph Baxter State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Vice Chair-elect

Mary Campbell McQueen President, National Center for State Courts

Jerome B. Abrams District Court Judge, First Judicial Court, Hastings, Minnesota

Elena R. Baca Paul Hastings, Los Angeles

Jennifer D. Bailey Circuit Court Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami

Barry P. Barbash Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, D.C.

Luther J. Battiste III Johnson, Toal & Battiste, Columbia, South Carolina Russell R. Brown III Court Administrator, Cleveland Municipal Court Deborah J. Daniels Krieg DeVault, Indianapolis

Russell C. Deyo Vice President & General Counsel (ret.), Johnson & Johnson Laurie K. Dudgeon Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Kentucky Randall M. Ebner Vice President & General Counsel, Exxon Mobil Corporation Jimmie M. Edwards Circuit Judge, 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri

Michael J. Harrington Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Eli Lily and Company, Indianapolis

Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas

Stephanie E. Hess Director of Court Services, Supreme Court of Ohio Gary W. Lynch Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Dan Mozena U.S. Ambassador (ret.), Washington, D.C.

Maureen O'Connor Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio Thomas W. Ross President, Volcker Alliance, Inc., New York City Toko Serita Judge, Queens Criminal Court, New York

Clifford M. Sloan Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C.

Todd A. Smith Power Rogers & Smith, Chicago

#### NCSC Officers and Management Staff

Mary Campbell McQueen President

Robert Baldwin Executive Vice President & General Counsel Michael Buenger Executive Vice President & Chief of Operations Jeffrey Apperson Vice President, NCSC International

Pam Casey Vice President, Research

Daniel Hall Vice President, Court Consulting Services

John Meeks Vice President, Institute for Court Management

Jesse Rutledge Vice President, External Affairs

Gwen M. Whitaker Chief Financial Officer & Vice President of Finance

#### National Center for State Courts

Headquarters

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

Denver Office

707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900

Denver, CO 80202

Arlington Office

2425 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350

Arlington, VA 22201

Washington, D.C. Office

111 Second Street NE Washington, DC 20002

