Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

Impacts of the ACTION program:• Offenders find it easier to follow court orders; 90 percentreported that the ACTION Center information increasedtheir ability to comply with their case disposition.• Compared with 2003, the number of services providedby the center in 2005 increased by 72 percent; theamount of revenue collected increased by 87 percent.• In 2006, the staff serviced more than 25,000 court usersand collected more than $1.5 million in fees and fines.• Freed from having to manage service delivery, the courtcan now process cases more efficiently: in fiscal year2005–2006, the court disposed of 40 percent more casesthan in the year before the center opened.CONCLUSIONCalifornia is the largest court system in the nation and oneof the most innovative. The two programs highlighted aboveare just samples of ongoing endeavors in the state designed tomeet court user needs and address procedural fairness concerns.As we move forward with the procedural fairness initiativein California, we will not only continue to build tools for judicialofficers and court staff to better understand and implementthe elements of procedural fairness, but will also highlight andleverage the good work that is currently taking place withinthe branch. There is a possibility for collaboration with otherstates that also are looking for the best way to implement proceduralfairness concepts to benefit the public and the courts.“I just want to be treated the same, like you treat anybodyelse that has money. . . . You got a tie, I don’t. I’m still a man, ahuman being.” The court user in a focus group who said thiswas responding to a question presented at the conclusion ofeach court user focus group: “Before we adjourn, is there anythingelse you’d like to say about how the California courtsmight be improved?” His answer—a clear and simple requestto be treated as an equal within the courts no matter hisincome or appearance—resonates with procedural fairnessconcerns and reflects the goals of the initiative. Indeed, thecourts of California are listening to the public. The branch isworking to ensure that everyone who enters our courts istreated with dignity and respect and that all members of thepublic are given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.Douglas G. Denton (A.B. Economics,University of California at Berkeley) is a seniorcourt services analyst at the CaliforniaAdministrative Office of the Courts, SanFrancisco (douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov). Hewould like to acknowledge the following peoplefor their invaluable assistance: the members ofthe Judicial Council of California, includingChief Justice Ronald M. George, Assistant Presiding Judge JamieA. Jacobs-May, Assistant Presiding Judge Charles W. McCoy, Jr.,and Mr. William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of theCourts in California; Mr. Ronald G. Overholt, Chief DeputyDirector; Mr. Kenneth L. Kann, Director; Ms. Dianne Bolotte,Assistant Director; Professor Tom R. Tyler; Dr. David B. Rottmanand the National Center for State Courts; Dr. Brenda J.Wagenknecht-Ivey; Judge Kevin Burke; Judge Steve Leben; theCenter for Court Innovation; the dedicated members of theCalifornia judicial branch; and staff at the AOC, particularly Mr.John A. Larson and the Promising and Effective Programs team.54 Court Review - Volume 44