The public is willing.

• Author: Lindsay, Margot
• Position: Public outreach and education on access to justice

INTRODUCTION

Public outreach and education are critically important for the courts. (1) When it comes to conveying information about pro se litigation and pro bono services, public outreach (2) benefits both the courts and the public. The criminal justice and court systems enhance their ability to solve problems and the public gains insight into the court system. (3)

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recognized the importance of public trust and court outreach in his keynote speech at the Public Trust and Confidence Conference: "Next to doing right, the great object in the administration of justice should be to give public satisfaction." (4) Over the past decade, community education or outreach projects have been undertaken in thirty-three states and many localities. (5) Many New York courts (6) created education programs to correct misperceptions about the court system. (7) Other states are developing such programs as well. (8)

While public education is largely acknowledged as fundamental to providing access to justice, (9) outreach that involves in-person interaction with the public (10) is a more recent development less familiar to the courts. Why so? According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,

Sometimes, in the pressure of doing what judges have to do and running a tight ship in the courtroom and deciding tough issues, we might forget that, in the last analysis, it is, after all, the public we serve and that we do care how the courts are perceived generally. (11) All too often courts have operated independently and without the knowledge of the communities (12) they serve.

Some contend that judicial neglect of community outreach has contributed to a decline in public confidence in the courts. (13) Even if this is true, the traditional constraints of judicial independence must be preserved. Hillary Efkeman and David Rottman of the National Center for State Courts believe that while the need to preserve judicial independence affects the nature of collaborations with the community, a balance has been achieved in the collaborative programs they have studied. (14) They suggest the following principles to guide collaborations: (1) there should be clear and identified ground rules and boundaries; (2) community participation should be inclusive and open; (3) attention should be given to observing judicial canons and ethics with respect to private funding for a project; (4) collaborations should be evaluated for effectiveness; and (5) court budgets and staffing allocations should not restrict court and community collaborations. (15)

Given ethical considerations, it is understandable that courts have proceeded cautiously with community outreach programs. While a difficult and murky term, community outreach is best described as problem solving with the community around mutual interests--a collaboration between court and community within certain constraints. (16) In describing the concept of collaboration, Efkeman and Rottman incorporate a statement by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of Wisconsin:

Court and community collaboration is a sustained, two-way commitment to ensuring that the justice system is open and effective. The process of court and community collaboration is integral to the fair administration of justice. It is not a one-shot event aimed at solving one isolated problem or satisfying one special interest group. (17) Building and strengthening community problem-solving and collaborations take time, leadership, and agency resources. (18) Until recently, neither academic lessons, professional judicial experiences, (19) nor institutional help (20) prepared court personnel to engage with the community. This is beginning to change.

New Jersey courts began to focus on community problem-solving in 1952. (21) A number of other states quickly followed with innovative programs using volunteers. (22) By 1978, the National Center for State Courts and Arthur D. Little had studied the use of juvenile court volunteers in thirteen sites. (23) The findings noted that most of the programs were helpful although they varied widely. (24) Collaboration involves members of the business sector, the social service sector, and the public at large. (25) These members are involved as volunteers, professionals, advisers, and mentors in a variety of projects. (26) Such projects include therapeutic courts, such as drug courts and family courts, restorative justice panels, and sentencing circles. (27) Although recognition of community outreach's importance is growing, (28) it is not yet an accepted fact of life in all states. (29)

Efkeman and Rottman of the National Center for State Courts distinguish between programmatic and systematic applications: (30)

On the programmatic level, collaboration is a blueprint for establishing court programs or special courts, or for dedicating a judge and courtroom to a particular set of cases. Trial courts gain the resources needed to adjudicate new types of disputes in criminal and civil law, enhance public understanding and support, and generate energy and enthusiasm among volunteers. Communities gain a unique vehicle for addressing local problems by combining the teeth of court sanctions with the power of community networks and knowledge. Thus far, such collaborations have been forged primarily between communities and courts of limited jurisdiction that process misdemeanor criminal and juvenile delinquency cases. (31) I. THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE AND THE COMMUNITY CONNECTION

In Erie County, New York, the court works with the incarceration board to develop community-wide treatment options for drug court clients. (32) The program resulted in more community support for treatment options as well as increased links between program planners and treatment professionals. (33) Drug courts and community justice approaches are but two examples of a jurisprudential shift toward court outreach. (34) Some claim that a fundamental shift in jurisprudence has changed the role of the courts toward therapeutic justice. (35) Therapeutic courts form collaborations with social service and health agencies in the community. (36) Community and therapeutic courts necessitate a shift in judicial leadership and thinking toward problem-solving. Drug court judges unite prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, and treatment providers into a single team. (37) When more resources are needed for treatment, education, or family support, the drug court judge assembles the people who can make those resources available. (38)

1. Outreach for Volunteers

   The ideals behind public outreach stem from the same goals as those of the therapeutic courts; (39) namely the significance of citizen contact with the courts for problem solving purposes. The New Mexico Courts Volunteer Program, for example, has developed an outreach to retirees. (40) Since 1984, some New Mexico courts have engaged volunteers in probation to assist probation officers. (41) New Mexico Supreme Court Policy Directive No. 10, adopted in 2001, was instituted to recognize the importance of this outreach. (42) New Mexico courts also recruit volunteers to serve on Citizen Advisory Boards and as court appointed special advocates for abused and neglected children. (43)

   Other court systems including those of Alabama, (44) Alaska, (45) Nebraska, (46) New Jersey, (47) Maine, (48) Massachusetts, (49) Washington, (50) and Virginia, (51) involve citizen input as part of their strategic planning process for the courts and criminal justice system.

   Since 1952, the New Jersey Courts have recruited volunteers to develop the Juvenile Conference Committee program to screen and divert non-violent juvenile offenders to a citizen committee. (52) In New Jersey, there are over 2000 volunteers a year participating in over 10,000 juvenile cases. Another 1000 volunteers participate in a Community Dispute Resolution program. (53) More than 400 volunteers do child placement review. (54) There are 250 court appointed special advocates to represent abused children; another 100 volunteers assist in supervised visitation of children by non-custodial parents. (55) There are hundreds of...