Home About JMI Announcements Staff Our Board Projects Workshops Publications Links Contact Us Network Groups: UCMN RCIN TCRIC

JMI Projects Since 1993, JMI has conducted over 200 projects improving the administration of justice. Funding has come from a variety of sources including the federal government, state administrative offices of courts, counties, cities, individual trial courts, and foundations. Project activities are focused on four main areas: (1) technical assistance; (2) research and program evaluation; (3) education and training; and (4) information dissemination. While the primary focus is often on court operations, the project activities and recommendations recognize that courts are part of a larger justice system with highly interrelated components and shared discretion. JMI is known for innovative approaches and solutions and for advancing knowledge in the administration of justice regarding “doing the right thing,” what works, and how “to do things right.” Each project that JMI undertakes is conducted by a team of our professional staff, supplemented as needed by expert consultants who are also experienced practitioners in the field. Examples of recent projects: Ensuring a Reliable and Effective Criminal Justice System The fair and effective administration of justice is a cornerstone of a free society and an essential component of public confidence in the institutions of government. In recent years, an increasing body of evidence has indicated that there is an unacceptably high risk that innocent persons can be erroneously convicted of crimes. The consequences of such erroneous convictions are severe: innocent persons can spend years in prison (sometimes on Death Row), actual perpetrators remain free to commit further crimes, and public trust and confidence in the reliability and integrity of the institutions responsible for the administration of criminal justice is undermined. In this project JMI, working in collaboration with the American Judicature Society and the National Judicial College and with funding support from the Open Society Institute, conducted a December 2004 workshop designed to catalyze action to address common systemic flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions. Four main sets of sets of innovations and issues were addressed at the workshop: Best or promising practices in criminal case investigation and prosecution, including practices with respect to eyewitness identification and recording of interrogations. Standards for forensic laboratories and the use of forensic evidence. The organization, quality, and funding of defense services. The roles of state and local commissions in examining and improving criminal justice system operations. The workshop was attended by interdisciplinary teams from eight states: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and Idaho. Participants heard from former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and other speakers about the common causes of wrongful convictions and about the types of systemic reforms that can be made to minimize the risk that innocent persons will be convicted. They used team planning sessions to focus on key issues in their own states. JMI’s report on the project describes the work of the project, summarizes progress made in the participating states in the six months following the workshop, and includes curriculum materials that can be adapted for use with teams of practitioners from a single state or from a region. Strenthening Rural Courts In this project, funded by the State Justice Institute, JMI brought together rural court leaders from eight states—Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin—to discuss issues and priorities for rural courts at a prototype seminar on Strengthening Rural Courts. During the seminar, which was conducted in April 2004, seven areas emerged as high priorities for attention by leaders seeking to improve the administration of justice in rural areas: Providing information technology support, including hardware, software, and communications infrastructure and technical support to permit rural courts to realize the benefits of computer technology. Improved procedures and practices for cases involving self-represented litigants, including effective use of technology, easily understandable forms and instructions, and training for court staff on providing information and appropriate assistance. Upgrading indigent defense services, including development of performance standards, mechanisms for supervision of appointed attorneys, and adequate levels of compensation and support for public defenders and assigned counsel. Improved court interpreter services, with qualified and accessible interpreters. Greater accessibility of substance abuse and mental health treatment services. Modernization of antiquated court facilities, including upgrades to enable adequate security and utilization of modern information technology. Better collaboration with the other branches of government, while strengthening independence of the judiciary in case decision-making and internal court management. Each of the participating teams developed an action plan for addressing key issues in their states. The progress made in these states is described in an article about the project that was published in the Winter 2005-06 issue of The Court Manager. The article also discusses the key issues identified during the seminar and includes recommendations for specific initiatives in the areas of research, technical assistance, and education (through seminars, workshops, and conferences) on rural court issues. The project’s full final report (available on the Publications page of this JMI web site) provides more detailed information on the work of the project. It also includes curriculum materials that can be adapted for in-state or regional seminars focused on rural court issues. Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Protections in Justice Information Systems JMI’s projects in this area are assisting jurisdictions, from individual local jurisdictions to regional, state, and federal information sharing projects, to develop information systems and implement business practices that better protect the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of those who come in contact with the justice system. In collaboration with working groups of the U.S. DOJ's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (http://www.it.ojp.gov/index.jsp) a template for drafting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies has been written (available at http://it.ojp.gov/documents/Privacy_Civil_Rights_and_Civil_Liberties_Policy_Templates.pdf). Additional project activities include providing technical assistance and training to jurisdictions or collaborating agencies to adopt and implement robust privacy, civil rights and civil liberties policies and projects for their information sharing projects. Public Access to Court Records New case management systems, growing demands for public access to court information, and growing concerns about too much public access invading privacy and endangering people’s safety have necessitated a review of state rules on public access to court records. JMI activities in this area began with an SJI funded grant to produce a model policy for public access to court records. Working with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and under the guidance of the Court Management Committees of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) in October 2002 the project produced the CCJ/COSCA Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records (see Publications page for copy of report). The Guidelines provide policy language and commentary that a state can use to review and revise its rules on public access to court records. Approximately 20 states have since used these Guidelines to update their public access rules. With additional SJI funding a report with suggestions on how to implement the Guidelines was produced in 2005: Public Access to Court Records: Implementing the CCJ/COSCA Guidelines Final Project Report (see Publications page for copy of report). Since preparing the Guidelines JMI has helped committee or commissions in a number of states (including Alaska, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina) to review their existing rule and adopt new rules. Working with the NCSC and the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium (CITOC) JMI has been assembling information about the public access rules in all states to assess their status, common characteristics, and innovative approaches Trial Court Funding JMI has begun an initiative to better understand how the judiciary is funded. The initiative is looking both across states for patterns and effective approaches, and as well as within individual states. Under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) JMI is completing case studies of three states to assess the impact of their approaches to funding trial courts have on the adequacy, equity, stability, and accountability of trial court funding. The purpose of this study is to further develop the body of knowledge about the funding of trial courts, particularly for states considering a shift to greater state funding. The analysis provides a better understanding of how to fund trial courts in a manner that results in a strong, viable, and effective judiciary. The three states studied were Florida, New Jersey, and Washington. When the report is completed, it will be available through the Publications page of this web site. In addition JMI has been assisting the state of Nevada in assessing the funding of its courts. In the first phase the effort was to determine what programs and services were currently being provided by courts and how much it costs to operate them (see Publications page for a copy of the report). In the next phase the judiciary is identifying the core functions and activities of the judiciary and what resources are needed to fulfill these functions in a fair and equitable manner. Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Project JMI, in collaboration with and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, has been providing training and technical assistance to jurisdictions planning and implementing drug courts since 1995, and has conducted workshops attend by teams from over 200 jurisdictions. JMI’s work in the drug court field is designed to achieve four main goals: To educate drug court practitioners about the concepts, principles, and techniques of effective drug court planning, implementation, enhancement, management, and evaluation; To develop resources--including curriculum materials and well-trained faculty--that will assist jurisdictions in developing, implementing, and enhancing their own drug court programs; To facilitate the linkage of drug court training provided by JMI and other national drug court partners in order to provide drug court education, technical assistance, and evaluation activities; and To facilitate discussion and productive exchange of information and ideas among practitioners, researchers, and policymakers regarding emerging topics in the rapidly growing drug court movement.