Justice Speakers Institute

  • Home
  • What We Do
    • What JSI Can Do For You
    • Curriculum & Training Development
    • Corporate Road Safety
    • Selected Trainings & Publications
    • Service Inquiry
  • Meet JSI
    • Why the JSI?
    • The Partners and Associates of JSI
    • Our Topics of Expertise
    • Upcoming Events
    • Worldwide Expertise
    • Testimonials
    • Becoming JSI Associate
    • JSI Code of Ethics
  • JSI Blog
  • JSI Podcast
  • JSI Justice Publications
    • JSI Justice Publications
    • Science Bench Book for Judges
      • Additional Resources
    • Drug Testing Programs
    • Corporate Road Safety
  • Resources
    • JSI Justice Publications
      • JSI Justice Publications
      • Science Bench Book for Judges
        • Additional Resources
    • Veterans Courts
    • Drug Testing Programs
    • Corporate Road Safety
    • Procedural Justice
    • Drugged Driving
  • Contact Us
Contact
JSI
Avatar photo
David Rottman
Tuesday, 05 May 2020 / Published in Law

Bridging the Trust Gap: Public Engagement in Courts

Share Button

On April 22, Slate reporter Leah Litman ended her story about the starkly contrasting SCOTUS majority and minority opinions in Ramos v. Louisiana  with a judgement: “There is no easy way to confront race and racism in the law.” Some Justices acknowledged the history of racism underlying the enacting of the law in question; others felt that history irrelevant.

public engagement in courts
What underlies the trust gap?

A Lack of Trust?

For the state courts, building public trust from the public requires that racism be acknowledged and confronted. Over the last four decades state courts regularly commissioned opinion surveys to measure their standing with the public.[1] The most prominent and persistent finding in these efforts is a substantial gap in levels of expressed trust in the courts, with African Americans consistently saying they have less trust in the state courts than do Whites, Latinos, or Asian-Americans.

What underlies the trust gap? Basically, African Americans rely on the same criteria as members of other groups in evaluating whether to trust the courts. Trust depends primarily on the degree to which people perceive decisions are being made through a fair decision-making process with fair interpersonal treatment (in other words, procedural fairness). Perceived distributional fairness (outcome fairness) is important but less so than perceived procedural fairness.

public engagement in courts
Two-thirds of African Americans believe “courts are out of touch

Another dimension along with trust that varies is the quality of the relationship trial courts have with the communities they serve.  Two-thirds of African Americans believe “courts are out of touch with what’s going on in their communities.” Latinos tend to agree with that assessment as do many Whites. Trust is to some extent locally rooted.

Public Engagement in Courts

In issuing a call for more public engagement in courts, I should be clear on what this entails.  Public Engagement differs from traditional court outreach.

  • Outreach seeks to provide the public with accurate information about the judiciary and, in turn, receive feedback from the public to inform administrative decision-making. It usually takes the form of a series of discrete events.
  • Engagement is an ongoing forum allowing two-way interaction with the public in which both sides listen to one another, recommend reforms, and take joint steps to address community and court concerns.

Engagement presents risks to both the court and to the target community. Fortunately, there are examples of engagement that can provide lessons learned from previous and current engagements. All participants in the process need to move beyond their comfort zones and that can require careful negotiation at the start.  But the rewards can be substantial.

public engagement in courts
This success was built on extensive public engagements.

Examples of Public Engagement in Courts

The Red Hook Community Justice Center (in Brooklyn, NYC) is the best example available of the power of public engagement in courts to address community concerns and build trust among minority communities. A National Center for State Courts evaluation of Red Hook concluded: “The Justice Center succeeded in integrating itself into the fabric of the Red Hook community to such a degree that residents perceive it as a homogenous community resource rather than an outpost of city government.”[2] This success was built on extensive public engagements both during the Center’s planning process and once the Center was opened.

Another example: The Cleveland Municipal Court in 2005 responded to information about the reluctance of people to enter the downtown courthouse by establishing “In the Neighborhood,” an outreach program to publicize the availability of and facilitate the expungement of convictions for minor offenses that were interfering with employment prospects by local residents. Churches proved the most suitable venues to disseminate the information about the program, along with community centers and even corner lots. Word about the program was initially publicized via television and radio advertising, but the Court switched to social media and mass text messages as the most efficient way to spread the word on the street.[3]

Do you have examples of successful engagement to share? If so, what lessons did you learn?


[1] The State of the State Courts: A 2019 Public Opinion Survey, National Center for State Courts, 2019.

[2] Lee, C., F. Cheesman, D. Rottman, R., Swaner, S. Lambson, M. Rempel, and R. Curtis. 2013. A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center (Executive Summary). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

[3] Turner, F. 2015. “Reducing Failure to Appears Through Community Outreach.” Paper submitted to the Institute for Court Management Fellows Program.

 

 

Get more articles like this
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get the latest information and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related

Tagged under: court outreach, judicial trust gap, public engagement

What you can read next

Daubert standard
Why February 1 Matters: Supreme Court’s First Session
Veteran Treatment Court Mentors
Ethical Boundaries for Veteran Treatment Court Mentors
Equifax data breach
How the Equifax Data Breach Exposed Millions

2 Comments to “ Bridging the Trust Gap: Public Engagement in Courts”

  1. Judge Kevin Burke says :
    May 5, 2020 at 7:20 pm

    Like so much of what David Rottman has done this is a very insightful piece.

  2. Avatar photo David Rottman says :
    May 6, 2020 at 2:09 pm

    Thanks, Kevin. I hope others have something to add.

Subscribe to JSI’s Blog Posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • DWI Treatment Court

    Leadership and Legacy: Judge Anchondo on DWI Treatment Court Innovation in Texas

    Judge Robert Anchondo, Texas’ first DWI treatme...
  • Colorado Problem-Solving Courts

    Desiree Hermocillo on Leading Colorado’s Problem-Solving Courts

    This Justice Speaks episode highlights Desiree ...
  • MOUD Access

    Bridging the Gap: MOUD Access for People on Probation

    People on probation with opioid use disorder fa...

Upcoming Events

MENU

  • Home
  • Our Services
  • Why the JSI?
  • JSI Blog
  • Contact JSI

Copyright © 2022  Justice Speakers Institute, LLC.
All rights reserved.



The characteristics of honor, leadership and stewardship are integral to the success of JSI.

Therefore the Partners and all Associates subscribe to a Code of Professional Ethics.

JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

JUSTICE SPEAKERS INSTITUTE, LLC

P.O. BOX 20
NORTHVILLE, MICHIGAN USA 48167

CONTACT US

TOP

Get more information like this
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list
and get interesting content and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Oops. Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

https://justicespeakersinstitute.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • What JSI Can Do For You
    • Curriculum & Training Development
    • Corporate Road Safety
    • Selected Trainings & Publications
    • Service Inquiry
  • Meet JSI
    • Why the JSI?
    • The Partners and Associates of JSI
    • Our Topics of Expertise
    • Upcoming Events
    • Worldwide Expertise
    • Testimonials
    • Becoming JSI Associate
    • JSI Code of Ethics
  • JSI Blog
  • JSI Podcast
  • JSI Justice Publications
    • JSI Justice Publications
    • Science Bench Book for Judges
      • Additional Resources
    • Drug Testing Programs
    • Corporate Road Safety
  • Resources
    • JSI Justice Publications
      • JSI Justice Publications
      • Science Bench Book for Judges
        • Additional Resources
    • Veterans Courts
    • Drug Testing Programs
    • Corporate Road Safety
    • Procedural Justice
    • Drugged Driving
  • Contact Us