News • JERITT Is Still Alive • SJI Update • Transitions • From the President • NASJE SE Region Minutes

News
JERITT Is Still Alive
by Catharine M. White

This fall, the JERITT Project was pleased to present to the field two significant publications that evaluated contemporary judicial branch education policies, procedures, and practices. The highly anticipated Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005, coauthored by Maureen Conner and Catharine White, assessed the personnel, budget and finances, programs and services, and organization and governance structures of seven national and forty-two state judicial branch education organizations. In addition, An Evaluation of the Judicial Branch Education Programming Response to Contemporary Court Challenges (JERITT Monograph Fourteen), authored by Catharine White with contributions from Maureen Conner, presented a critical, qualitative appraisal of this particular field’s response, through the medium of programming, to internal and external challenges that have and will continue to plague this nation’s courts.

Collectively, these publications provide a “holistic” or dynamic image of judicial branch education. This presentation of a “holistic” or dynamic image is certainly not limited to the mere conveyance of a past-oriented overall performance appraisal or review. The general intention of these individual works, as exemplified in the undertaken holistic or dynamic approach, was to offer to the field those tools, in the form of information and knowledge that are ultimately necessary for the initiation of change. As such, we encourage all parties with a vested interest in advancing the field of judicial branch education to allocate shelf space for these two publications in their individual or agency libraries. To tantalize your interest in either procuring these important pieces and/or to receive an initial, yet partial glimpse into our research findings, we devote this article to highlighting both the satisfactory and unsatisfactory areas of judicial branch education.

Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005 certainly illustrated the triumphs and shortcomings of judicial branch education functioning over the course of the last two to three years. In regards to personnel, both national and state organizations were found to share the same serious pitfalls such as the lack of inclusion of minorities and younger individuals in management positions. Only three state and national organizations indicated minorities were in possession of a position considered to be at a management level. There also exists a trend in both organization types to have older persons (Baby Boomers and beyond) function within these management positions and subsequently a lack of youthful (e.g. Gen X) representation. For example, among both organization types (national and state), the mean or average age of judicial branch education management personnel was fifty years. While there exits a lack of diversity based race or ethnicity however, both national and state organizations have recognized and/or acknowledged the contributory value of gender diversity. Both men and women maintain strongholds on adequate management representation.

National and state operating budgets substantially varied. For national organizations, operating budgets ranged from approximately $142,153 to $5,789,514 while state organizations ranged from approximately $7,500 - $10,800,000. While all national and state judicial branch education organizations should be rightfully commended for their exemplary work, those organizations who continue to perform the tireless work necessary to accomplish the fundamental goals of judicial branch education with such “emaciated” budgets warrant a special acknowledgement. To you we say thanks! Equally impressive was the finding that with no extraordinary financial resources at their disposal, these organizations are able to uniquely weave into their educational practices the utilization of new and emerging technologies and practices. For example, over/nearly half of the responding state and national organizations allocated for in their oftentimes meager budgets expenses related to distance learning – a burgeoning method of education delivery reliant upon evolving technology that has the benefit of transmitting and imparting knowledge upon students both nation and internationally.

Several noteworthy findings from the programs and services chapter of Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005 are worthy of extraction and highlight. While national organizations tend by nature to focus primarily on programming designed for judges, state organizations have sought to design and subsequently deliver training to the multiple audience-types that are represented within the courts. From court reporters to probation officers to court management personnel to court security to judges, state organizations have left few groups uneducated. Again, with many organizations operating on “skeletal” budgets, the ability to apportion programming or training to such divergent audiences is most certainly commendable. Furthermore, several national and state organizations far exceeded their projected programming attendance rates.

For both organization types (national and state), it was found that there remains a firm, substantial reliance upon the conference in terms of most frequently utilized program delivery format. However, due to the evolving interest in distance learning, an emerging reliance upon non-traditional or alternative delivery mediums was demonstrated. Internet-based, computer assisted, video teleconferencing, and broadcasts are all non-traditional or alternative delivery mechanisms employed, at a developing rate, primarily by state organizations. It is hypothesized that future editions of Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005 will see reliance on alternative or non-traditional forms of program delivery rates comparable to those demonstrated by the traditional conference format.

Regardless of budget size, state organizations have recognized and addressed the necessity or importance for delivering programming for divergent audience groups at particular stages within their chosen careers. For example, forty of the forty-two responding state organizations and five of the seven responding national organizations offered career-stage programming. Likewise, over/nearly half of the organization types develop a comprehensive curriculum regiment. Lacking a programming stronghold are succession planning and individualized training/education plans. In regards to the incorporation of NACM Core Competency Guidelines to develop court management and leadership courses, over half of the national organizations and one quarter of state organizations utilize these materials. Finally, most organizations, regardless of geographic affiliation, demonstrate an appreciation for the needs assessment instrument as a source of ascertaining the educational requirements of distinct audience groups.

The above-mentioned “snippets” certainly reflect a diminutive glimpse into the contents of Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005. Unfortunately, the financial woes and struggles judicial branch education organizations endure overshadow most discussions of progress and change. We strongly encourage our colleagues and friends to read this classic piece to acquaint yourself with the countless other positive areas of judicial branch education that rarely receive acknowledgement.

An Evaluation of the Judicial Branch Education Programming Response to Contemporary Court Challenges (JERITT Monograph Fourteen), like Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch Education 2005 illustrates the triumphs and shortcomings of the judicial branch education programming response to such contemporary court challenges as the increase in pro se cases, population migration, labor mobility, and multiculturalism, and changing public perceptions of the role of the judge and the court over the course of the last five years.

A summative rating of “indiscernible” was ascribed to the judicial branch education response to internal and external contemporary court challenges. For various reasons, a definitive “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” was unable to be gleaned from the available data. However, one programming topic certainly outshone the topics selected for inclusion in these analyses. Judicial branch education has presented a strong and immediate programming response to the increase in pro se litigation.

While analyses denoted a lackluster programming response, the field of judicial branch education has found an interesting outlet to acknowledge and/or address the mounting pressure of these challenges. The utilization of publications (books, journals, multi-media, etc.) appeared to be the most frequently employed response vehicle. Whether via programming or publications, the field of judicial branch education certainly shed the blanket of passivity and actively promoted its retort.

In sum, judicial branch education organizations and individual educators continue to forge ahead, through unyielding financial, political, and ideological turmoil, for the attainment of a greater good and the staff members at the JERITT Project has and will continue to align themselves with those individuals and organizations and will provide the necessary support or assistance required to achieve this greater good.

Catharine White is an academic specialist with the JERITT Project. She holds a Masters degree in criminal justice from Michigan State University and periodically teaches research methods to undergraduate students within the school of criminal justice. Her interests include research methods, court administration, structural inequality, and intersections of race, class, gender, & the courts.

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer