In both the U.S. federal court system, where issues involving national law are resolved -- consisting of about 10 percent of all court filings in the United States -- and in the individual court systems of the 50 U.S. states -- in which 90 percent of the country's court cases are filed -- day-to-day management of the non-judicial functions of individual courts and court systems is primarily carried out by specially trained personnel formally known as court executives, court managers or more commonly, court administrators. In this overview of how the position of court administrator has evolved, Joseph A. Trotter, Jr., J.D., research professor and director of the Justice Programs Office, American University School of Public Affairs, looks at how the reform of the courts has necessitated a need for a new kind of manager, and what is available in the way of education and training.

Court administrators are appointed by either the chief judge of the court system or by the presiding or administrative judge of the individual court in which they serve. As is the case with judges in the U.S., there is no government-run school for the career preparation of individuals to serve in these positions. Also, except for a formal certification procedure adopted in recent years by the federal courts for the few positions in that system, there is no national qualifying exam or certification procedure for persons serving as court administrators. Finally, although they are charged with the management of an environment where the principal business is conducted by judges and attorneys, these personnel are not required to be lawyers, and in fact, the vast majority are not. Yet, these individuals are so central to the capacity and credibility of the American judicial system that their education and training is appropriately included in an overview of legal education in the U.S.

Job preparation for administrators in American courts has relied on a variety of educational resources which have evolved only over the past 30 years. These consist of a few college and university-based graduate education programs in court administration, several specialized programs conducted by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to judicial system improvement, in-service training conducted by state judicial systems for their employees, and most notably, the increasingly sophisticated education programs conducted by professional associations of court administrators and related professionals at national, regional and state conferences. This pattern of training and education is due, in large part, to the way in which the position of court administrator has evolved, the constantly expanding spectrum of responsibilities of the position, and the diversity of court and court system organizational structures in which the administrator must function.

Court Administrator as a Profession

The volume and complexity of court workloads in the United States, at both the federal and state levels, did not compel changes in time-tested policies, procedures and court rules until the decades following the Second World War, as the nation became more urbanized and litigation of all types mushroomed. Legal commentators and the general public court users became very vocal about the shortcomings and inefficiencies of the courts, particularly the fragmented state court systems.

In the mid-1960s, in response to these criticisms, several state trial courts and supreme courts hired the first court administrators, before there was widespread recognition of that occupation as a distinct profession. The individuals hired in those early years reflected diverse backgrounds, primarily in local government and law, although a few had management experience in the private or public sector. Their initial responsibilities included such things as assisting the chief judge in carrying out his or her administrative responsibilities, with no delineation of specific functions.

By 1971, there were only about 50 individuals serving as court administrators throughout the United States. The number grew to about 500 by 1980 and doubled again by 1990, largely as a consequence of the national effort during the 1970s and early 1980s to modernize, de-politicize and reorganize the country's state court systems.

Today, the concept of professional court administrators managing the operations of a court or court system to implement the policy directions of the chief judicial authority is universally accepted. All 50 state court systems and all 11 circuits of the federal court system are being served at the system-wide level and in individual courts by approximately 2,500 court administrators and many thousands of specialist staff under their supervision.

Court Reform Era

The court reform era in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. was fueled by federal financial assistance to states during the decade of the 1970s for criminal justice system improvement, and by the reports of various national commissions, task forces and citizen groups, which focused specifically on court system improvement issues. These influences culminated in the promulgation by the American Bar Association of a series of standards and goals, and performance measures for court system organization and operations throughout the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s. The existence of standards and performance measures underscored the need to bring professional managerial perspective and skills to the business of the courts. This awareness was further enhanced by the necessity to introduce modern technology, especially automation and computers, microfilm and other records storage technologies, and court reporting and communications technologies, into what had previously been an enclave of traditional, and largely labor-intensive, ways of doing things.

During this period, a substantial number of states reorganized their court systems through constitutional amendment and legislative action. Among the more fundamental changes wrought by these reorganization efforts, were four which had the greatest implications for the skills required of court administrators:

• unification of fragmented local courts with specialized jurisdictions into unified trial courts with separate divisions and a chief judge charged with administrative responsibility for overall court operations;

• the establishment of a centralized system of court management, emanating from the U.S. Supreme Court down to the lowest trial court;

• the establishment of a personnel system for non-judicial personnel working in the courts that was controlled by the court system itself, rather than by an executive branch agency; and

• state assumption of the costs of operating the court system. Before the states assumed costs, courts were dependent on the less affluent resources of the counties and cities in which they were located to provide adequate resources.

As the organization and activities of court systems became more complex and administratively demanding in the 20-year period between the mid-1960s and mid-1980s, the need for specially trained personnel to help judges manage the courts was increasingly evident. Within this context the field of professional court administrator education developed to prepare individuals to perform a supportive role to the court or court system's chief judge.

Evolution of Court Administration Education

In the late 1960s, a voluntary national association of court administrators was established, although at first, its membership was very small. The organization promoted the professional credentials and role of the court administrator, providing training on issues of current import and serving as a mechanism for professional networking in the field. An important issue which the profession confronted during the early period of its development was clarifying that the professional court administrator was not a "super clerk," since the position of "clerk of the court" had been long established. A major goal of the national association was, therefore, to promote understanding of the management functions which a court administrator needed to perform, distinct from the specialized task functions of the court clerk.

In 1971, under the leadership of then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, an NGO called the Institute for Court Management (ICM) was established to provide a professional training and certification program for court administrators. Its first director, Dean Ernest Friesen, had been instrumental in establishing the National Judicial College to provide a centralized venue for in-service education and training opportunities for judges from all of the states.

The program sought and attracted a high caliber of participants, with varied backgrounds and experience, many from the scientific and technology communities. All had a common interest in building on their analytical skills, as well as their knowledge of technology and project management, in order to develop an expertise in the emerging field of court administration.

The early ICM graduates went on to work in courts across the country as the first formally trained court administrators. They reinforced recognition of their profession among the judicial system and other state and local officials, by their professionalism, skills, system-wide perspective, and national network of court-serving organizations and consultants.

At approximately the same time as ICM was founded, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) also was established, again under Chief Justice Burger's mentorship. Its establishment provided, for the first time, a national-scope research, information dissemination and technical assistance resource specifically for judges and court managers. The NCSC is an NGO devoted to serving the state courts community and is governed by a board of directors consisting of judges and court administrators drawn from state courts.

Also established during the 1970s was the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE). Over the years, this voluntary association has played an increasingly prominent complementary role to court administrator-specific training organizations by incorporating management training into its judge and non-judicial training and education activities. Membership consists of employees of individual state administrative offices of the courts who are charged with planning and conducting, in conjunction with a state's judicial leadership, in-state continuing education programs for judges and non-judge court personnel.

In 1979, the first joint national training program for court administrators and court clerical personnel was conducted in Sarasota, Florida, and shortly thereafter, the national associations for court administrators and court clerks merged into the current National Association for Court Management (NACM). At the time the organization was established, most court administrative activity was occurring at the state or local level from which the membership was drawn. With the growth of the court administration profession and the development of professional court administrators in the federal court system, many of those professionals joined the organization. Today, NACM, which has statewide and regional sub-units, conducts court administration training on a year-round basis.

In the early 1980s, the NCSC and ICM merged, and today the ICM division of the NCSC continues to offer a wide array of training programs for court management personnel, with a substantial emphasis on technology applications in judicial system operations. Traditional subjects of caseflow management, financial management, human resources management, facility management, planning, and interagency and community relations are also offered.

Previously, several U.S. universities also developed judicial administration programs within their curriculum. These included American University in Washington D.C.; the Denver University, in Denver Colorado; and the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles. These programs focused primarily on master's level education although courses in judicial administration were generally also available for undergraduates as well. The Denver University program was established in the university's law school; the other universities conducted their judicial administration programs in their Schools of Public Administration. Currently, however, the formal judicial administration programs of these institutions have been largely suspended or discontinued, although specific courses in the field may still be offered.

Other Developments

Since the early 1980s, the management functions for state and local courts have exploded, both in terms of the range of tasks needing to be performed and their complexity. The need for professional court administrators is clearly recognized and the functions they perform draw upon a range of skills and expertise which generally require an increasing number of staff to fulfill.

As with all disciplines, the impact of technology on court systems has been extraordinary, affecting the entire caseflow and case management process, including the way cases are filed and managed, the manner in which records are maintained and court activity reported, and the nature of equipment that must be procured. Combine the technological revolution with other developments impacting local court systems security issues, facility needs, fiscal and personnel management functions, legislative developments affecting court services, such as the Americans With Disability Act (ADA), the expanded functions many trial courts are performing in areas such as domestic violence protection and custody disputes, and the need to service increasingly diverse court users, many of whom are litigants who represent themselves without an attorney, and/or do not speak English, and the educational and training implications for court administrators become all the more complex.

Tailoring Education and Training

Increasingly, formal education and training for trial court administrators is relying on in-service training programs conducted by the state court administrator's office and/or local in-service training programs conducted by the court itself. The NCSC/ICM certificate program continues to serve a small cadre of court administration staff and the national association meetings focus almost entirely on "cutting edge" issues.

For the past several years, NACM has also begun conducting regional meetings to promote increased participation in its programs and the capacity to tailor its educational services to regional needs. State associations of court administrators have also developed and can provide more specialized training on issues of specific import to court administration staff in the locale.

In light of the expertise now required to effectively perform the functions of state and local trial court administration, much of the preparatory/orientation training that was initially provided through the various mechanisms discussed above is now expected to be obtained by the court administrator through his/her prior education and/or job experience. As such, in recent times, court administration-specific training has focused upon the application of these requisite skills and experience to the court environment and specific court processes in a given court system. In addition, with the development of the court administration function and the consequent growth of court administration offices, competency in effective human resources management, team building, staff skills development and strategic planning have become core training needs for the court administrator.

In conclusion, the evolution of training and education services for state and local court administrators in the U.S. has paralleled the development of the functions and skills that these positions have taken on during the past several decades. Drawing upon an informal partnership of national, state and local public and private resources, court administrators' training has evolved from an initial focus on the essential elements of the professional court administrator's role to the more complex application to court practice of expertise and skills in a wide range of technological, management and human services.