NJC will improve the functioning of the criminal justice system by ensuring that the judges who handle criminal cases have the knowledge, skills and abilities they need adjudicate fairly and effectively. To this end, NJC will develop a curriculum for judges on advanced concepts in criminal justice. The curriculum development process will include a thorough needs assessment, a curriculum development meeting, and drafting and delivering a curriculum. The curriculum will be delivered to judges through two regional pilot in-person courses and through distance learning opportunities (webinars).
Please check the box next to the following questions if the answer is 'yes'.
This deliverable is the Curriculum Development Meeting held in March 2016. This deliverable is complete.
Please enter the applicable Event Date if there is an Event associated with this TTA.
When entering an Event Date, the Time is also required.
If the TTA is targeted to a particular audience or location, please complete the questions below.
Milestones are an element, activity, work product, or key task associated with completing the TTA (e.g. kick-off meeting, collect data from stake holders, deliver initial data analysis).
Please complete the fields below, if applicable, to create a milestone for this TTA.
NJC examined existing curricula and assessed current educational opportunities available to judges, whether in person or online. NJC generated a literature review document with special emphasis on: 1) maintaining independence while collaborating on systems reform. 2) science of brain development. 3) implicit bias. 4) forensics. 5) risk-needs-responsivity and assessment tools. The Assessment of Existing Offerings & Literature Review were completed at the end of February 2016. A Report of the Existing Offerings and the Literature Review was submitted to Mr. Facciolo in early March 2016, and he gave his approval of both reports at the end of March 2016.
The milestone achievements listed below are also applicable to the Pilot 2 and Webcast TTA's.
Existing Curricula - We have researched and reviewed any existing judicial education courses in the area of Advanced Criminal Justice Topics. We found that there were not many programs which specifically focus on this subject. There are some institutions (for example, University of Texas at El Paso) which have an Advanced Criminal Justice Topic course, however those courses generally are offered as a criminal justice undergraduate course, or a law school course. Neither of which reached our target audience of judges.
We found that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers hold an 'Advanced Criminal Law Seminar' each year, however, the course is aimed at defense attorneys. Further, the topics covered differ from the topics our course aims to cover. For example, their conference includes sessions on representing criminal defendants, as well as trial techniques. Again, these topics are not ones which we aim to cover in our course.
Finally, we identified a 'Advanced Criminal Procedure for Superior Court Judges' course at the North Carolina Judicial College. While some of the topics they will present at their conference touch on the topics we aim to present at our course (forensic technology, neuroscience, and fairness in criminal cases), their program is aimed at their state judiciary, rather than a national audience, like our course aims to benefit.
Literature Review - We have reviewed several articles in each topic category as follows:
Maintaining Independence:
1. Crocodiles in the Bathtub: Maintaining the Independence of State Supreme Courts in an Era of Judicial Education. 72 Notre Dame L. Rev., 1133 1996-1997
2. Citizenship and Punishment: The Salience of National Membership in U.S. Criminal Courts. American Sociological Review Vol 79(5) 827-849 (2014)
3. How Judicial Elections Impact Criminal Cases. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 2015
Brain Science:
1. Lost in Translation? An Essay on Law and Neuroscience. Law and Neuroscience, Vol. 13, Current Legal Issues 2010
2. A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. Oxford Series in Neuroscience, Law, and Philosophy.
3. Brain Overclaim Redux. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Volume XXXI, Summer 2013, Number 2, The University o f Minnesota law School
Implicit Bias:
1. Implicit Bias: A Primer for Courts. Prepared for the National Campaign to Ensure the Facial and Ethnic Fairness of America's State Courts, August 2009
2. One Strike and You're Out: How We Can Eliminate Barriers to Economic Security and Mobility for People with Criminal Records. Center for American Progress, December 2, 2014.
Forensics:
1. The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence. California Law Review, Inc. Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jun. 2007), pp. 721-797.
Risk Needs Responsivity:
1. Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? Taxman, Faye S.; Marlowe, Douglas
Crime & Delinquency, Vol 52(1), Jan 2006, 3-6.
NJC has current ongoing collaborations with more than 25 national organizations who work in the criminal justice field, and we plan to interview a representative from each to gain their insight into the most pressing criminal justice issues facing the courts today. In addition, we will interview 20 key members of NJC's faculty, most of whom are sitting judges, to obtain their perspective on the issue.
The milestone achievements listed below are also applicable to the Pilot 2 and Webcast TTA's
We have created a Survey Monkey questionnaire (see attached) to solicit information from 25 of our national partners, as well as our judicial faculty, regarding the criminal justice topics which they consider to be most relevant facing courts today. The questionnaire was delivered via personal e-mails from NJC President Chad Schmucker. We also made ourselves available for phone, in-person, or e-mail conversations regarding their input. Several entities have e-mailed back their thoughts and ideas, and several others have offered to set up phone interviews to further discuss the topics.
The questionnaire was sent to partners from many different areas such as, the Justice Management Institute; prosecutor groups; defense attorney groups; law enforcement groups; academic members, and many others. Further, a large sampling of faculty who teach at NJC criminal justice courses were surveyed. The survey responses are due by January 29, 2016. Thereafter, the results will be analyzed, and tabulated for use during the curriculum development meeting for Pilot Course 1.
Update 6/30/2016: A Needs Assessment Report which contained the findings from the Interviews with Partners and Faculty was completed at the end of February 2016. The report was submitted to Mr. Facciolo in early March 2016, and he gave his approval of the report at the end of March 2016.
Based upon the information gleaned in the first two steps, NJC will compile a list of potential topics, and will present these to a wide sampling of judges with additional room for the judges to independently identify other topics not included in the list. NJC will administer this survey through a free online survey instrument (SurveyMonkey). Although the survey will be anonymous, we will ask for demographic information about the judges' state, jurisdiction size, and length of time on the bench.
The milestone achievements listed below are also applicable to the Pilot 2 and Webcast TTA's
We have created a Survey Monkey questionnaire (see milestone, 'Interviews with Partners and Faculty') to solicit information regarding the criminal justice topics which our partners and faulty; State Judicial Educators; State Court Administrators; and Chief Justices consider to be most relevant facing courts today. We also made ourselves available for phone, in-person, or e-mail conversations regarding their input. Several entities have e-mailed back their thoughts and ideas, and several others have offered to set up phone interviews to further discuss the topics.
The survey responses are due by January 29, 2016. Thereafter the results will be analyzed, and tabulated. The results will then be streamlined into a shorter questionnaire, which will be disseminated to a wide sampling of judges who hear criminal matters, in order to solicit information on which of the listed topics they believe to be most pertinent with regards to current criminal justice topics. We will also solicit information regarding each judge's demographic information. The results from this second questionnaire will also be analyzed and tabulated for use during the curriculum development meeting for Pilot Course One.
Update 6/30?2016 A Needs Assessment Report which contained the findings from the Survey of Judges was completed at the end of February 2016. The report was submitted to Mr. Facciolo in early March 2016, and he gave his approval of the report at the end of March 2016.
NJC has a close working relationship with the National Association of State Judicial Educators, and a comprehensive database of the contact information of all individuals who work in state judicial education. NJC will survey state judicial educators about what they are currently offering their judges on the topic of criminal justice, and where a national program can best complement the in-state programming to avoid duplication and maximize existing funds.
The milestone achievements listed below are also applicable to the Pilot 2 and Webcast TTA's
We have created a Survey Monkey questionnaire (see milestone, 'Interviews with Partners and Faculty') to solicit information regarding the criminal justice topics which the State Judicial Educators consider to be most relevant facing courts today. Further, the questionnaire seeks to determine what type of criminal justice topics are currently being offered in their state, and whether they believe more education is needed, and if so, on which topics.
The questionnaire was sent to all State Judicial Educators, and the responses are due by January 29, 2016. Thereafter the results will be analyzed, and tabulated for use during the curriculum development meeting for Pilot Course 1.
Update 6/30:2016: A Needs Assessment Report which contained the findings from the Survey of State Judicial Educators was completed at the end of February 2016. The report was submitted to Mr. Facciolo in early March 2016, and he gave his approval of the report at the end of March 2016.
NJC will survey the chief justices and state court administrators from every state to gain their input about the topics they would most like to see in a national program.
The milestone achievements listed below are also applicable to the Pilot 2 and Webcast TTA's
We have created a Survey Monkey questionnaire (see milestone, 'Interviews with Partners and Faculty') to solicit information regarding the criminal justice topics which the Chief Justices and State Court Administrators consider to be most relevant facing courts today. Further, the questionnaire seeks to determine what type of criminal justice topics are currently being offered in their state, and whether they believe more education is needed, and if so, on which topics.
The questionnaire was sent to all Chief Justices and State Court Administrators, and the responses are due by January 29, 2016. Thereafter the results will be analyzed, and tabulated for use during the curriculum development meeting for Pilot Course 1.
Update 6.30/2016: A Needs Assessment Report which contained the findings from the Survey of Chief Justices and State Court Administrators was completed at the end of February 2016. The report was submitted to Mr. Facciolo in early March 2016, and he gave his approval of the report at the end of March 2016.
The Curriculum Development Meeting will take place over 1.5 days at NJC in Reno.
Reno is a cost-effective destination and NJC’s classroom, computer lab, and audio-visual
equipment can be provided at no charge to the award. NJC staff that will facilitate the meeting
will not need to travel.
After completion of the Needs Assessment process undertaken in Activity One, NJC will
have a comprehensive outline of the gaps in current judicial education offerings and the needs of the nation’s judiciary. Based upon the subject matter topics identified, NJC will propose a list of individuals to participate on the curriculum development committee (hereinafter, “committee”).
The individuals will be selected for their subject matter expertise, and/or their expertise in
educating judges, both in-person and online. Once approved by BJA, the individuals will be
invited to participate on the committee, and will be polled for date availability. During the
meeting, the committee will review the needs assessment report, and begin to make the difficult
decision about which topics can be included in the two-day in-person course, and which topics
are best suited for presentation in a webinar. The committee will be guided by NJC’s expert
curriculum developers through a process of large group discussion and small group break-outs.
In small groups, the committee will begin to develop the individual modules, draft learning
objectives, and identify learning activities. Demonstrations of excellent webinars will be
provided to show the committee members the potential to build interactivity into online learning,
and how to avoid the “talking head” syndrome which is oft-used but ineffective to accomplish
educational goals.
As a result of spending this valuable time meeting, NJC will be able to produce a
curriculum plan for a two-day in-person course for judges, as well as a plan for eight webinars.
Each educational event will have overall goals, as well as specific learning objectives for each
module. In addition, we will have proposed learning activities for each module to demonstrate
the ways that interactivity will be built into the program so that the judges remain engaged and
retain the greatest amount of information.
Once BJA has approved the curriculum plan, NJC will propose dates for the webinars,
dates and potential locations for the two in-person courses. NJC will comply with the DOJ Event Approval process to obtain approval for all costs associated with the two in-person events. We anticipate that the most cost-effective options will include a northeast and a southwest location (or northwest and southeast) and we will strongly encourage judges to attend the location in their region, absent exigent circumstances. We will also search for an airport hub to reduce travel costs and overnight stays.
The Curriculum Development Meeting was held March 29-30 at NJC’s headquarters in Reno, Nevada. All eleven approved members attended. An agenda of the meeting is attached. Many notes regarding the information presented during the meeting were obtained. Thereafter, we reviewed the material and identified the material which would be most relevant for inclusion in the course and webcasts. We drafted a course agenda, which contained learning objectives, learning activities, and suggested faculty. We also drafted topic ideas for the eight webcasts, which included learning objectives, learning activities, and suggested faculty.
Both agendas, as well as the bios for the suggested faculty, were approved by Mr. Steve Edwards, interim grant monitor in June 2016. Our first webcast is slated for July 2016 on the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Foster v. Chapman (“Batson II”).
This milestone is our first delivery of the curriculum. The pilot, slated for the west coast in December 2016 or January 2017, will be delivered to 50 judges from around the region and 10 local judges for a total of 60 judges. The two-day program will cover forensic evidence, implicit bias, risk-needs-responsivity, judicial independence, and brain development.
NJC is beginning to obtain bids from hotels for our first curriculum pilot to be held in December 2016 of January 2017 in a location that is cost-effective and relatively easy for judges to get to during winter months. Because the agenda and faculty have been approved, we will move forward with seeking approval for the event and securing the faculty, as well as getting word out about the event through state judicial educators and our own outreach avenues.
Course objectives are:
1. Describe methods in which members of the judicial community can be proactive on the bench and in their communities in order to encourage independence on the bench, while also collaborating on systems reform.
2. Discuss the science behind adolescent brain development, and describe effective methods of managing youthful offenders based on the knowledge of their unique brain development.
3. Identify the different types of implicit biases that exist, and describe methods to effectively manage and overcome these biases.
4. Explain the basic science behind the most common types of forensic evidence, and discuss the different methods of admitting the evidence (Frye, Daubert, Hybrid)
5. Describe the different type of risk-needs-assessment tools which exist, and identify which tools may be beneficial for use in your jurisdiction, based on the demographic of the offenders.
Please respond to the Performance Metrics below. The Performance Metrics questions are based on the TTA Type indicated in the General Information section of the TTA.
Please submit a signed letter of support from your agency’s executive or other senior staff member. The letter can be emailed to or uploaded with this request. The letter should be submitted on official letterhead and include the following information:
- General information regarding the request for TTA services, i.e., the who, what, where, when, and why.
- The organizational and/or community needs specific to the request for TTA services.
- The benefits or anticipated outcomes from the receipt of TTA services.
By submitting this application to BJA NTTAC, I understand that upon approval of this application for TTA, the requestor agrees to keep BJA NTTAC informed of any circumstances that may impact the delivery of the TTA, including changes in the date of the event, event cancellation, or difficulties communicating with the assigned TTA provider.
Please call [site:phone] if you need further assistance completing this application.