In partnership with the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center and State Justice Institute, the Center developed and pilot-tested a court website prototype founded in procedural justice principles. The idea was to give courts sample language, imagery, and layout advice—informed by a user experience designer—to turn a typical visit to a court website into a trust-building opportunity. This toolkit describes the key building blocks of a model website, strategies for implementation, and lessons learned from pilot courts.
In partnership with the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center and State Justice Institute, the Center developed this toolkit to help judges and other criminal court practitioners improve courthouse signage with the ultimate goals of helping enhance court users’ perceptions of fairness and build (or rebuild) trust and confidence in the justice system. The toolkit is organized by each element of procedural justice—understanding, respect, voice, and neutrality—and is paired with recommendations to help plan a local signage improvement project.
Can changes at a busy urban courthouse make users feel respected, ensure they understand the process, and enhance impressions of the legitimacy of the court? This study looks at a series of improvements to the Manhattan Criminal Court and before-and-after defendant surveys.
Procedural Justice for Prosecutors is a curriculum developed through a partnership between the Center for Court Innovation and the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution at John Jay College in New York City. The materials are a response to the growing recognition among prosecutors that bolstering public confidence in justice is an essential ingredient of reform.
Conversations about fairness (and unfairness) within the criminal justice system can be difficult to have. This guide highlights the real-life experiences and perceptions of justice-involved individuals and offers a road map for having candid and productive conversations about fairness and public trust in justice.
Just because smaller communities generally have fewer resources doesn’t mean they aren’t innovating or taking new approaches that others can learn from and emulate. In Pulaski County, Virginia, home to about 35,000 people, Judge H. Lee Chitwood and Court Coordinator Jaime Clemmer have implemented a number of changes to better address domestic violence.
In Misdemeanorland, Issa Kohler-Hausmann argues the lower courts are no longer primarily concerned with whether people actually committed the offense they’ve been accused of. Instead, the focus is on future behavior: upholding social order through managing and assessing—often over long stretches—everyone with the misfortune of entering Misdemeanorland. It's an argument that forces us to rethink what justice should look like in low-level cases.
This study highlights the voices of justice-involved individuals describing experiences with procedural justice. Findings suggest those surveyed do not view the justice system as legitimate or fair, and that those opinions are largely shaped by individual interactions with system-actors, as well as by broader perceived factors such as institutional racism, the over-policing of minor crimes, and a lack of accountability of all criminal justice agents.
This fact sheet summarizes the mission of Newark Community Solutions, an initiative of the Center for Court Innovation that seeks to re-engineer how low-level cases are handled at the Newark Municipal Court in Newark, New Jersey.
Research has shown that checklists improve consistency and reduce the likelihood that critical steps are overlooked in technical fields such as aeronautics and medicine. The current study explores whether similar tools might promote the consistency and quality of legal representation among often overburdened and under-resourced public defense attorneys.
