The National Center for State Courts just published its annual “Trends in State Courts” Trends in State Courts | NCSC. As stated in the preface, “NCSC publishes the Trends in State Courts series not only to share what individual courts have done to improve their services and operations, but also to inspire courts to look ahead and face the challenges to come.”  The articles are excellent, and in this blog post I highlight a few of them.  I highly recommend reading this year’s Trends in State Courts to see how courts in the United States are making strides in better serving the public.

Here are direct excerpts from the articles that caught my eye:

  1. Accessible Courts: Toward Universal Design

Universal design is a term used to describe the design of environments, including buildings and services, that are accessible to every person, regardless of age or disability.  The principles of universal design are:

  1. Equitable Use
  2. Flexibility in Use
  3. Simple and Intuitive Use
  4. Perceptible Information
  5. Tolerance for Error
  6. Low Physical Effort
  7. Size and Space for Approach and Use

Accessible courts are necessary for many individuals. Adhering to principles of universal design to offer accessibility increases access to justice and helps all court users.

  1. Measuring Access and Fairness in Remote Court Proceedings

As remote court services grow from a temporary emergency provision to a permanent part of court infrastructure and services, it is becoming increasingly important for courts to understand court user experiences in these settings. Remote proceedings have the potential to increase the accessibility of the courts if implemented well, and evidence from the development of the new CourTools Measure 1 suggests that they are having an overall positive effect. Courts should continue to develop and expand their remote court services. However, because remote proceedings may be more accessible and effective for some litigants than for others, it is vital that courts monitor user experiences for signs of disparities. The new access and fairness survey equips courts to efficiently gather actionable information from their court users and to ensure that their services are equally accessible and fair for all.

  1. SANDI: Improving Court Access and Service in Miami with an Advanced Artificial Intelligence Chatbot

SANDI answers frequently asked questions about the court’s self-help program, points users to the information and forms they need, and can connect visitors real-time to a live chat with a staff member when needed.  Requirements for the project were specific. The technology should speak in multiple languages, provide interactive access, answer questions, and take web visitors directly to the page they need. If the technology does not have the answer, its knowledge base should “grow” based on interactions with the public.

  1. Engaging Communities for Equal Justice

To help advance equal justice under law for all, the Maryland Judiciary hosts facilitated community forums for judges, court leaders, and justice partners to engage community members on issues of access, fairness, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We offer information and hopefully inspiration for reimagining court-community engagement strategies.

Effective community outreach should be part of any judiciary’s equal justice strategy.  Ninety[1]five to 100 percent of those who complete post-forum surveys agree or strongly agree that “forums like this can help promote the interests of justice,” increase “understanding of court services,” and “included a productive conversation with court and community leaders.”

  • User Feedback Is Essential

Amid frequent policy change and public demands for accountability, savvy court leaders are using strategic listening to both build trust and inform changes.

  • Listening takes some guesswork out of improving court practices and policies
  • Listening helps courts measure key court goals, like fairness
  • Listening helps courts build public trust and confidence (and cooperation)
  • Disarming Disinformation— Guidelines for Courts to Combat Threats

Every court will likely have to respond to a disinformation threat at some point. By adopting practices that reinforce consistent community engagement and communication and excellent customer service, courts can establish themselves as a trusted source of information to effectively combat disinformation when it arises.

Disinformation poses a significant threat to the fairness, impartiality, and credibility of the judicial system. By building strong and authentic relationships based on trust and credibility with the public, media, and stakeholders and implementing effective communication strategies that cater to the needs of court users, courts can increase their resilience to these threats and attacks. This will minimize the susceptibility of those with whom the courts have developed relationships from falling prey to believing and propagating disinformation and false information when it arises.

Many thanks to the NCSC for continuing to publish the Trends in State Courts series.  I look forward to its publication every year, and always learn something new.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Norman Meyer

After 38 years as a trial court administrator in the state and federal courts in the U.S., Norman continues to write, teach, and otherwise participate in judicial administration activities world-wide. In particular, he is active in the International Association for Court Administration (IACA) as a past Regional Vice President and Advisory Board member, in the National Association for Court Management (NACM) as a Past President (having received NACM's Award of Merit), and as an Associate of the Justice Speakers Institute. Norman has extensive experience working on international Rule of Law projects, particularly in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania. Norman is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of New Mexico (Political Science and Russian Studies), and he received the Master of Science in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver College of Law.

Leave a comment