Good Systems Bring Sound Sleep: Notes on Visiting the U.S. NCSC and CCE

This article shares the author's reflections from a trip to the United States in early July, where they visited the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia, and the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) in Washington, D.C., observing how the U.S. combines official and civil society efforts to jointly promote judicial reform both within and outside the system. Comparing this with Taiwan's extremely low public trust in the judiciary and overworked legal practitioners, the experience can be summed up in one phrase: Good systems bring sound sleep.

Tackling Internal Systems: What is the NCSC?

The U.S. court system is divided into two major branches: federal courts and state courts. Aside from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the power to review appeals from state supreme courts, these systems operate parallel to one another without a hierarchical relationship. Each of the 50 states has its own independent state court system, primarily handling civil, criminal, domestic relations, and probate cases. Federal courts handle matters involving the Constitution, bankruptcy, international affairs, or interstate litigation. Every year, the number of cases handled by state courts far exceeds that of federal courts. Regarding judicial appointments, federal judges are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Congress, and serve for life. In contrast, methods vary across state courts, ranging from appointment followed by legislative confirmation to elections, with terms that may be life-long or fixed. Since the 19th century, driven by rapid urbanization and increasingly diverse types of litigation, state courts have faced complex case loads and backlogs. To ensure consistency in rulings and the quality of court administration, the first National Conference on the Judiciary was convened in the U.S. in 1971. At this conference, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger proposed the establishment of a center to facilitate information exchange among state courts, giving birth to the NCSC.

As a shared think tank and national forum for state courts, the NCSC primarily serves "Court Leaders"—namely judges and court administrators—by providing data, research, continuing education, and consultation on all aspects of court administration. Beyond serving as a consultative body, it also establishes reference standards: collaborating with the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) to establish performance evaluation standards and institutional innovations for courts at all levels. Furthermore, it develops Institute for Court Management courses, covering administrative management and psychological research, and offers Certified Court Manager (CCM) and Certified Court Executive (CCE) credentials, which are standard qualifications for those seeking to become court administrators. In addition to public relations, the media department serves as an authoritative data reference for journalists reporting on court systems. Beyond domestic research on state courts, it has also established an international division worldwide to assist countries globally in improving court administration through scientific research and to promote legal justice around the world.

Specifically, How Does the NCSC Assist Court Administration?

Lorri, Communications Manager, stated that the first step in research is invariably problem formulation and data collection. In addition to a headquarters and state branches comprising over a hundred staff members, the NCSC places personnel in state courts to work alongside administrative staff. The collected data is compiled and used by the Court Statistics Project to provide various evaluation indicators.

I asked a question: During the "National Judicial Reform Movement" launched by the JRF in 2016, an online questionnaire survey was conducted to vote on the issues the public felt most urgently needed resolution in the judicial system. The item receiving overwhelming resonance was that "judges and prosecutors carry heavy case loads, affecting the quality of case handling." Has the NCSC encountered similar problems? Dale, Principal Management Consultant in the Research and Technology Services Division, used caseflow and workload management as an example:

First, questionnaires are used to survey judges' practical circumstances to calculate reference values for standard annual working hours for judges across different states. Then, through weighting different case types, a formula (e.g., Number of Type A Cases * Weight + Number of Type B Cases * Weight = Time Required) is applied to assess whether the court's judges are overburdened and whether additional hiring is necessary, thus quantifying so-called "workloads" into referenceable figures.

In addition to workload assessments, various pre-trial procedure timelines also have established reference standards. First, statistics are compiled on the annual number of incoming cases, resolved cases, and appeals where pre-trial procedure timelines are not prescribed, in order to ascertain the status quo. Designated pre-trial procedure models are then developed, practically implemented, and evaluated. Finally, it is proven that having judges designate pre-trial procedure dates helps accelerate trial speeds, increases the likelihood of settlement or mediation, and reduces the volume of appeals. Additionally, the NCSC provides trial activity schedule analyses and post-trial tracking, etc. Through systematic empirical research methods, it assists court personnel in assessing the time required for their work. Not only does this make trial durations traceable and bolster public confidence when facing the judiciary, but from an internal operational standpoint, it also facilitates court administrators in calculating the costs required for various trials and provides empirical support when submitting budgets to the legislature, helping to more accurately set annual budgets and implementation plans.

Beyond proposing solutions to improve work performance, the NCSC also conducts research and offers better alternatives regarding existing systems, such as the jury system. Although in current U.S. judicial practice most cases do not proceed to a final trial after passing through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and plea bargaining, the jury remains an important indicator of U.S. judicial credibility and a key focus of communication for legal organizations and advocacy groups due to its defining characteristic that "citizens perform fact-finding, and verdicts no longer stem solely from judges representing the state's public authority," as well as its status as a constitutional civic duty. To effectively maximize the influence of citizens within the judicial system, the NCSC provides an online diagnostic tool that allows court managers to reference rating standards for their own courts' systems, conduct automated jury summons research, and list the characteristics of effective jury rosters, thereby systematically enhancing citizen performance in the courtroom. Furthermore, the NCSC attempts innovative technological applications, such as remote interpretation systems and digital evidence evaluation, to help enhance trial fairness and efficiency.

From Data Statistics to Standard Setting:

Issue discussions typically follow this workflow: The Joint Technology Committee and the Court Statistics Committee provide data ➡ The Conference of State Court Administrators and the Conference of Chief Justices deliberate and discuss ➡ The annual joint meeting (including judges, court administrators, attorneys, experts, social workers, etc.) establishes reference standards or programs ➡ Individual states adjust and apply them according to regulations.

Many committee chairs and experts are judges or court administrators from various state courts. If a particular judge's performance falls short of expectations based on work performance indicator evaluations, the Chief Justice (selected via election or rotation) or the state's judicial commission can, depending on the circumstances, conduct an interview with the judge, suspend case assignments, or submit articles of impeachment to the state legislature. In addition to information exchange and agenda-setting at the annual joint meetings, information on how individual states handle special cases can also be found on the NCSC website, preventing the waste of resources on duplicate investigations.

Beyond broad issues or individual cases, reference materials can be found for the management guidelines and contingency plans of various courts at all levels and types. For example, elder courts (primarily handling elder abuse cases) utilize a delayed-start schedule: because elderly litigants may not yet be fully awake or may lack the physical stamina to arrive on time for earlier court times such as 9:00 AM, schedules are adjusted to later morning hours (late morning, 11:00 AM–12:00 PM). When necessary, professionals can also accompany them to participate in remote video court appearances.

In summary, through collaboration with courts, the NCSC systematically organizes judicial administrative management into standard operating procedures (SOPs): the front lines of the system "raise problems," the "committees" take over investigation, and after scientific evaluation, statistics, and testing assisted by experts across various fields, proposed solutions are put forward. These then enter the "judges'/court administrators' conferences," where frontline implementers from each state first conduct a preliminary round of discussions on differences and feasibility before submitting the proposals to the annual "joint meeting" for negotiation and standard-setting.

Compared to making grandiose slogans only to find frontline implementation difficult after formulating policies, starting from the implementation end and—through multidirectional evaluations, the formulation of reference standards, collaborative solutions, and auxiliary tools—making judicial processes more predictable not only helps the public build trust, but also alleviates workloads for relevant personnel, thereby enhancing overall court efficiency.

External Advocacy: Taking the Washington, D.C. CCE as an Example

Washington, D.C., is an administrative district specially carved out for the federal government, separate from any state jurisdiction. Alongside the prominent U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals at all levels, and federal district courts, it naturally possesses its own local courts. Because it is a special administrative district, grassroots judicial reforms promoted voluntarily by citizens are all the more crucial. The CCE is precisely an NGO founded by citizens in 1982, primarily focusing on judicial system reform, policy advancement, and the promotion of rule-of-law education in D.C.

The organizational structure of the CCE consists of a board of directors and an office of about 10 staff members, with the former responsible for resolutions and the latter for execution. When introducing the organization's work, Executive Director Cynthia first mentioned one of the major changes advocated by the CCE back in the day: the One day, one trial jury system. Jury selection criteria in the 1980s differed from those of modern times, with many specific occupations—such as government officials, teachers, doctors, and lawyers—granting exemptions. Consequently, citizens in the same region were repeatedly called upon to fulfill jury service, with some cases even requiring daily court attendance as potential jurors for two consecutive weeks. Beginning in 1983, the Washington area piloted the "One day, one trial" jury system: if a citizen was selected by computer to enter the pool of prospective jurors, reporting to court even if unselected still counted as fulfilling their obligation for that year. Due to positive feedback, the D.C. Council enacted and implemented it in 1985. This system not only reduced the burden on jurors, but the compensation expenses payable by the courts also decreased substantially (employed jurors must request leave according to regular procedures, and employers are prohibited from refusing to pay wages or deducting benefits, while state courts prescribe varying compensation amounts, most of which include court parking and meal subsidies).

The CCE focuses not only on improving the jury system but also delves into criminal, civil, and civic legal education. Taking criminal matters as an example, alongside trial procedures, its primary focus is on misdemeanor sentencing systems and enhancing the possibilities of social reentry. The Reentry Facilitation Amendment Act, promoted by them and legislated in 2013, classifies low-level, non-violent misdemeanors and arrests without conviction as protected personal data, while prohibiting the disclosure of employees' criminal records in employment-related civil lawsuits. Additionally, it promotes the provision of "certificates of good standing" by courts to offenders who have successfully completed community service or probation with good behavior, assisting them in reducing employment barriers. Cynthia revealed that because D.C. prisons primarily house misdemeanants, while more severe crimes are handled by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, local inmates may be assigned to state federal prisons located very far from D.C. This not only reduces the possibility of family visits, but serving time in an unfamiliar region also makes post-release reintegration into society difficult. Therefore, one of the CCE's upcoming goals is to establish a prison locally in D.C. capable of housing local inmates. By assisting released prisoners with social reintegration and re-employment, this will make communities safer and enhance economic benefits.

In terms of rule-of-law education, because citizens in the D.C. area aged 18 and older bear jury obligations, the CCE enters high school campuses to provide jury education and supplies various teaching materials, giving citizens more reference experiences and opportunities for perspective-taking so that they can render more fact-based verdicts when summoned. Beyond popularizing legal education for students and the general public, the CCE also pays attention to D.C.'s broader legal professional community: by hosting an annual Bench-Bar-Media Conference, it invites local judges, attorneys, and media to engage in cross-sectoral, one-day exchanges grounded in specific topics. Through practical opinion sharing, this bridges gaps or potential professional friction, thereby elevating the overall quality of judicial-related activities. The CCE also publishes manuals for journalists containing tools and reference guidelines for media workers reporting on judicial-related topics, in order to minimize potential errors in media reporting on legal matters.

Because Taiwan's National Conference on Judicial Reform this year brought judicial reform issues to an unprecedented level of media exposure, many judicial practitioners exhibited extremely strong opposition to institutional reforms. I raised the question of whether the CCE faced similar difficulties. Cynthia stated that of course there was pushback, but a large portion of those issues stemmed from individual egos. She pointed out: "Institutional reform is not the reduction or transfer of personal power, but the pursuit of a better judiciary."

A Judiciary That Is "Not Just Good, But Better"

Synthesizing the working directions of official and civil society organizations, a shared focus lies in efforts directed at existing systems and the enhancement of judicial transparency and predictability. Whether it is increasing jury efficiency, managing and reducing the burden on jurors, or utilizing research to ensure problems have predictable answers—such as the public knowing roughly how long judicial processes will take, court operations benefiting from continuously updated research and programs, and the accuracy of media reports on judicial cases—these factors all profoundly impact public trust in the judicial system.

When I raised a question at the NCSC: Public understanding of legal expertise is generally inferior to that of judicial practitioners, so why is public trust so important in the work of the judicial system? Dale joked, "Even setting aside major directions like taxpayers funding the government or a shared pursuit of justice, public trust in the judiciary does wonders for boosting the morale, work willingness, and performance of judicial practitioners themselves."

According to a 2014 NCSC survey, the most trusted branch of the U.S. government is precisely the court system, and public trust in the courts continued to rise in the 2016 survey results, climbing from 64% to 74%. Looking at the numbers alone might leave their significance unclear; let us compare this with Taiwan: A 2015 study conducted by National Chung Cheng University pointed out that 84% of the Taiwanese public do not trust judges, and 76% believe prosecutors are unfair. Thus, roughly speaking, public trust in the judiciary in the U.S. is almost equivalent to the public's distrust of the judiciary in Taiwan. Yet, one of the NCSC's goals for the next three years is to "rescue plummeting judicial trust." Why would they have such a work goal when overall judicial trust is gradually rising? According to the same survey, African Americans and economically disadvantaged citizens feel they are treated unfairly in court; furthermore, litigants who have been to court expressed more negative views than respondents who had never interacted with the courts. Such survey findings share many commonalities with the advocacy of many Taiwanese civil groups—such as "new immigrants and vulnerable populations needing more assistance in court." A similar sentiment was also mentioned in a March 2017 article on the Civic Psychology website titled "Does 'Going to Court' Make People More Trusting of the Judiciary? An Empirical Analysis of Public Judicial Trust in Taiwan." In response to the aforementioned issues, the NCSC has outlined five major work goals for the next three years:

Reduce the cost, time, and complexity of traditional dispute resolution procedures
Increase trust among minority groups and economically disadvantaged individuals
Expand court accessibility by increasing online services
Demonstrate a fair, impartial, and accountable court (with the aid of tools and systems)
Provide additional leadership skills support for court leaders

How can Taiwan achieve so-called "judicial reform"? Lacking the inherent prerequisite of citizen participation in trials, the burden of verdicts falls entirely upon judges. There is a lack of communication between the public and the courts, and internal working systems within the courts lack timely updates and support, resulting in everyone interpreting the judiciary in their own way. So, how on earth can Taiwan build a trustworthy judiciary?

Reform is not criticism, but the pursuit of a better institutional environment and work performance.

Referring to the experiences of the NCSC and CCE, reform is driven externally not only by groups like the JRF, but perhaps we must first, as Lorri suggested, begin from a shared understanding among judicial practitioners, spontaneously driving overall environmental reform from within. Only then can we collaborate with external advocacy groups to create smooth judicial administrative operations and enhance public trust, jointly achieving a better judiciary.

 

*Court Administrator: Externally acts as the court's liaison; internally responsible for drafting court administrative plans and budgets, organizing court procedures, supervising and training non-judicial personnel, and managing facility maintenance to ensure the smooth operation of the court.