Teach the Children Well

Children and youth in foster care are, unfortunately, a highly mobile population. Their movement from placement to placement is typically mirrored by movement from school to school, with records lagging behind them and academic achievement stunted at every step. The end up at high risk for school discipline, dropping out, juvenile and criminal justice involvement, homelessness, and other grim outcomes.  Current research reveals that a large proportion of young people in foster care are in educational crises. States clearly need to do more.

Last week was the kick-off meeting of the Education Committee of our Supreme Court Children's Commission, the Permanent Judicial Committee for Children, Youth and Families. Created by order of the Supreme Court, the committee is chaired by Judge Patricia Macias of El Paso, has great representation from the Texas judiciary, education world, and child welfare world, has support from the ABA Legal Center for Foster Care and Education, and a charge to do the following (among several mandates):

• Identify and assess challenges to educational success of children and youth in the Texas foster care system;
• Identify and recommend judicial practices to help achieve better educational outcomes for children and youth in foster care; [and]
• Seek to improve collaboration, communication, and court practice through partnerships with the Department of Family and Protective Services, the Texas education system, and stakeholders in the education and child-protection community.

The committee reached consensus to focus on the following nine goals:

1. Children and youth in care are entitled to remain in the same school when feasible.
2. Children and youth in care are guaranteed seamless transitions between schools.
3. Young children in care (0-5 years) receive services and interventions to be ready to learn.
4. Children and youth in care have the opportunity and support to fully participate in all developmentally appropriate activities and all aspects of the education experience.
5. Children and youth in care have supports to prevent school dropout, truancy, and disciplinary actions and re-engage in the education experience.
6. Children and youth in care are involved and empowered in all aspects of their education.
7. Youth in care are prepared to self advocate in all aspects of their education.
8. Children and youth in care have consistent adult support to advocate for and make education decisions. 
9. Children and youth in care have support to enter into and complete post-secondary education.

 These goals will look familiar to anyone with background in this area and exposure to the Center's Blueprint for Change, a remarkable report that I commend to your attention.  I hope to report more on this compelling topic, as it develops.

Justice in Numbers

I am privileged this week to be attending an international conference by this name, held in Brasilia, Brazil. It is hosted by the National Council of Justice, an entity created under the Brazilian Constitution in 2004, with administrative, financial and disciplinary roles and jurisdiction over all courts except the Federal Supreme Court. The President (Chief Justice) of the Federal Supreme Court, Cezar Peluso, is also the President of the National Council of Justice. (Interestingly, Brazil has two special central courts, the aforementioned FSC, which has jurisdiction over constitutional cases, and the Superior Court of Justice, which is the court of last resort in non-constitutional matters. My friend Antonio Benjamin, who teaches part-time at UT Law School, is a minister on the latter court.)

The occasion for the event is the release of "Justice in Numbers 2009," the flagship product of the National Judiciary Statistics System. One important finding is that approximately one third of the 86.6 million cases in the Brazilian courts are fiscal enforcement proceedings, contributing greatly to a backlog. Apparently many of these cases, maybe all, I am not quite sure, are prosecuted by the executive branch, so this is an area where collaboration across branches of government - a common theme in our work in the US - seems critical for the Brazilian courts.

Also at the conference is Mary McQueen, President of the (US) National Center for State Courts, who invited me to attend with her. We are encouraging Brazil - and they appear very receptive - to become involved with the International Framework for Court Excellence, a broad international agreement regarding core court values such as impartiality and transparency. This has been a wonderful opportunity to share information across national boundaries, on the use of data in judicial administration, and we are excited at the prospect of future engagement with the leadership of the courts of Brazil.

Office of Capital Writs

As I described in April, my office has been very involved in starting up the Office of Capital Writs created by SB 1091 last session, to represent condemned defendants in state habeas corpus proceedings under Art. 11.071, Code of Criminal Procedure.  Director Brad Levenson has been appointed and is in Austin setting up the new agency.  Judges are required by 11.071 to appoint the OCW to represent defendants sentenced to death on or after September 1, 2010 (unless OCW declines or is prohibited from representing, such as a conflict of interest because they represent another defendant in the same incident).  We are working with OCW to create a webpage, and the office will have telephone service soon, at 512.463.8502.  In the meantime those needing to contact Mr. Levenson may email to brad.levenson@ocw.texas.gov.

Multi-County District Courts

Texas has 454 district courts, and outside of the cities, 96 of the district judges serve in multiple counties.  For example, Judge Camile DuBose presides in the 38th Judicial District in Uvalde, Real and Medina counties and Judge Barbara Walther presides in the 51st Judicial District in Tom Green, Schliecher, Irion, Sterling, and Coke counties.  One problem for such judges is that many of their counties have siloed case management systems that do not communicate across county lines, and it is difficult to keep all their multi-county calendars in order.

Judge DuBose's court coordinator, Lela Ballesteros, came up with a nifty way to help her keep her scheduled and accessible.  She opened up a yahoo calendar, which has since become a google calendar, which allows the attorneys in the 38th district to schedule time on Judge DuBose's docket, when she will be in their county. Simple and free, here is Judge DuBose's calendar.

New Media and the Courts

The Conference of Court Public Information Officers (CCPIO) just released the results of a year-long study on the effects of new media on the courts, including an extensive survey.  The full report is available on the website of CCPIO, http://www.ccpio.org/. I am just starting to look over it but I thing it looks very interesting for readers in the court community and beyond.

Court Interpreters III

On August 16, the Department of Justice issued a letter to all chief justices and state court administrators. A lengthy excerpt:

Language services expenses should be treated as a basic and essential operating expense, not as an ancillary cost. Court systems have many operating expenses -judges and staff, buildings, utilities, security, filing, data and records systems, insurance, research, and printing costs, to name a few. Court systems in every part of the country serve populations of LEP individuals and most jurisdictions, if not all, have encountered substantial increases in the number of LEP parties and witnesses and the diversity of languages they speak. Budgeting adequate funds to ensure language access is fundamental to the business of the courts.

We recognize that most state and local courts are struggling with unusual budgetary constraints that have slowed the pace of progress in this area. The DOJ Guidance acknowledges that recipients can consider the costs of the services and the resources available to the court as part of the determination of what language assistance is reasonably required in order to provide meaningful LEP access. See id. at 41,460. Fiscal pressures, however, do not provide an exemption from civil rights requirements. In considering a system's compliance with language access standards in light oflimited resources, DOJ will consider all of the facts and circumstances of a particular court system. Factors to review may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The extent to which current language access deficiencies reflect the impact of the fiscal crisis as demonstrated by previous success in providing meaningful access;

• The extent to which other essential court operations are being restricted or defunded;

• The extent to which the court system has secured additional revenues from fees, fine s, grants, or other sources, and has increased efficiency through collaboration, technology, or other means;

• Whether the court system has adopted an implementation plan to move promptly towards full compliance; and

• The nature and significance of the adverse impact on LEP persons affected by the existing language access deficiencies.

DOJ acknowledges that it takes time to create systems that ensure competent interpretation in all court proceedings and to build a qualified interpreter corps. Yet nearly a decade has passed since the issuance of Executive Order 13166 and publication of initial general guidance clarifYing language access requirements for recipients. Reasonable efforts by now should have resulted in significant and continuing improvements for all recipients. With this passage of time, the need to show progress in providing all LEP persons with meaningful access has increased. DOJ expects that courts that have done well will continue to make progress toward full compliance in policy and practice. At the same time, we expect that court recipients that are furthest behind will take significant steps in order to move promptly toward compliance.

Included with the letter were the following links:

Executive Order 13166 Tips and Tools Document

Maine Court Rule and Memorandum of Agreement

Future Trends in State Courts 2010

As I noted last year, I always spend time with the latest "Future Trends" publication by the National Center for State Courts.  This year the articles are particularly interesting, dealing with budgetary constraints and reengineering the courts. You can see the full report of Future Trends in State Courts, but it is a big document to download. I recommend you browse the individual articles located on the Trends Index page.