Future of the State Courts - A Planning Perspective

• NCJ Number: 90327
• Author(s): J F X Irving
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 153 pages
• Contract Number(s): J-LEAA-9-0329
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This monograph traces the development of planning and reform in State court systems, including the form and nature of planning, and policy recommendations are drawn from the study.

Abstract

Specific goals of the study are (1) to assess the present state of the art of judicial planning, (2) to search both within the judicial councils that enjoyed a flurry of activity beginning in the 1920's and within their present forms to identify the ingredients of a vital planning function, and (3) to lay out a beginning strategy to ensure its institutionalization. The study examines the development and role of several planning and administrative bodies that are influencing the state of court systems, namely, judicial planning committees, judicial coordinating committees, judicial conferences, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, State planning agencies, and the National Center for State Courts. The work of State planning agencies is examined through the Illinois experience, and an analysis of the level of judicial planning since 1978 is performed for a sample of States. The lessons drawn from this historical analysis include the following: (1) the supreme court in each State should ensure the existence of a permanent and separate problemsolving capability; (2) lay representation in the court planning process is essential to ensure objectivity and responsiveness: (3) the court administrator and the court planner are the keys to modern court management practices; (4) each State should use a planning structure suited to its own philosophy and traditions; (5) court planning should be open, constructively critical of current operations, and imaginative; (6) court planning must be interagency directed; (7) the courts must mount an information and education program for the general public, the legislature, and the governor; and (8) the judicial branch should report to the State legislature on its problemsolving strategies as an addendum to its annual budget proposal. Twenty-five footnotes and 10 bibliographic entries are provided.