Doris Marie Provine School of Justice & Social Inquiry Arizona State University

Doris Marie ProvineSchool of Justice & Social Inquiry

Arizona State University

Where I’m from….

Goals of this conference: Reaffirm the enduring

purposes and continuing responsibilities of courts

In order to….• Achieve impartial and independent judiciaries

• Not get lost in trivial issues and demands

• Provide world leadership

• Survive the current economy!

Access to Justice =Access to Courts?

Commitments to access to courts as access to justice:

• 6th Amendment right to public trial in US Constitution

• “All courts shall be open” in 17 state constitutions

• “Judgment shall be pronunced publicly” in European Convention on Human Rights

• “Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing” Int’l Cov. Civil & Political Rights

Google’s perspective

• 57,900,000 images of justice–3,280,000 of Lady Justice–298,000 of the scales of justice

versus

• 1,720,000 images of courtrooms• 3,450,000 images of courthouses• 9,900,000 images of the US Supreme Court• 12,000,000 of court administrators!!

But note that Google defines “Court administrator” broadly….

And this one, entitled “court administrator’s office”

Our problem: How to enhance access to courts in order to enhance access to justice?

But first we need to know ….…..–What we mean by “access”– Whether “access” a problem with a solution

or a conundrum that must be “navigated” because there are conflicting values at stake

In order to determine..... What courts can/should do, practically speaking, about improving access to courts ---and therefore, hopefully access to justice.

Note how concepts of justice in courts have changed

….• The tradition of local justice – of juries, local

courts, and election of judges….• Progressivism – Courts must professionalize!• Managerialism – Courts must be efficient.• The age of accountability - Courts must

demonstrate results, engage communities and stake-holders.

Current recipes for justice include:

• Problem-solving courts – drugs, mental health, housing, homeless …

• Engaging stakeholders • More aggressive public education • Community courts• Performance indicators, metrics• Data gathering

Cf concerns about losing “public dimension” of adjudication:

• “Bargaining” has become a requirement of the law of conflict resolution – less than 2% of all civil cases go to trial (v. 20% 50 years ago).

• Oral argument may require court permission• Decisions may not be published• Mandatory mediation with non-judges• Growth of administrative proceedings• Arbitration requirements in service contracts

Access in our contemporary world involves

• efficiency and attention to individual needs• access to judges and cost savings to litigants• uniform rules and flexibility• working with stakeholders and avoiding

favoritism• attention to local communty needs and

professionalism• AND accountability with all of the above

Access is complex, contextually specific, and time-bound

(Goose waiting for access to Salem, OR prison)

The NCSC Trial Court Performance Standards

A good starting point for thinking about how to improve access to

courts…. and justice

Quick introduction to this project

• Replaces previous focus on structure and machinery with performance-oriented standards

• Shifts emphasis from resources and processes to responses

• Offers accountability and means for continually improving performance

What the performance standards are NOT

• A means to accredit courts• A means for comparing courts with each

other• A vehicle for appellate-court oversight• A way to guage performance of

individual judges or staff

The idea is self-assessment

Because:– Courts need diagnostic tools to assess processes– Publicity often leads to posturing, covering up etc.– Appellate courts don’t know much about trial cts.– Courts are organizations– All of the above…

The Project

• Advised and guided by NCSC and Bureau of Justice assitance of US DoJ.

• 8-year initiative begun in 1987• Standards developed by a 16-member

commission of state and federal judges, court administrators, and academic personel (me)

• Many iterations of standards and measures that were tested in 12 courts in various states

For details see:

TCPS – Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (Natl Center for St. Cts.):

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/tcps/index.html

The five overall standards are:

• Access to Justice• Expedition and Timeliness• Equality, Fairness, and Integrity• Independence and Accountability• Public Trust and Confidence

Access to justice includes:• Public proceedings: includes audibility for all.• Safety, accessibility, and convenience:

includes accomodation, parking, access to public transit, security in and around court.

• Effective participation: requires assistance to overcome language, hearing, etc. barriers.

• Courtesy, responsiveness, and respect: respect and assist all who come.

• Affordable costs of access: minimize costs through simplication, scaling, controls.

Note that these standards pre-date

• High-speed internet• 9/11 • The current economic crisis

Which have created additional challenges and opportunities…..

So at this point, our question is:What can you do to enhance access

to your court?

Break-out session

• Form into groups of 5 – 10 and appoint a spokesperson for the group.

• Please determine: –Which standard(s) are most difficult to

reach in your court and why.– Possible improvements–How to determine effectiveness of changes

Thanks very much for your participation!