WASHINGTON STATE ACCESS TO JUSTICE TECHNOLOGY PRINCIPLES: A PERSPECTIVE FOR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS, THE

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS

In this section, we offer some observations from our experience with the development and implementation of the Principles that may help justice system professionals as they consider the relevance, appropriateness, and potential best ways for moving forward in their own jurisdictions.

General Principles. Perhaps the most important part of the process was an early decision to focus on general principles. The benefit of generality was that it facilitated agreement on the fundamental essence of the Principles even among those who may have disagreed strongly about their details and implications. As it turns out, it was much easier during the drafting and internal comment process to get agreement about general principles than it would have been to get agreement on specifics.

The Principles can now play at least three roles. First, they can be used to guide the bureaucratic and institutional processes inside and outside the court system through which relevant actors must wrestle with issues relating to the use of technology. Second, they are guiding the more specific processes such as the development of promising practices, that is, justice system tools developed by the best practices committee. Finally, when there is a disagreement about specifics, the general principles can serve as the framework for an intellectually coherent analysis of these specifics. The true test of the general principles will be whether they have enough intellectual substance and power to guide these specific processes and resolve disputes in a workable and legitimate way.

Maximizing Participation and Legitimacy. Throughout the development of the Principles, attention was paid to maximizing participation with the goal of enhancing their legitimacy. The judiciary and court administration subcommittee conducted surveys of judges, administrators, clerks, and other court workers regarding the issues they faced, and these substantially informed the drafting of the Principles. Focus groups conducted by the outreach subcommittee informed and provided an important context for the Principles and for the issues faced by the later implementation subcommittee. A design process engaged by the opportunities, barriers, and technology subcommittee highlighted the possibilities and the risks of technology for the courts, further illuminating the drafting process. Finally, and very significantly, the promising practices subcommittee demonstrated the value of the intellectual structure established by the draft of the Principles as it used that structure to establish practices that gave concrete meaning to the Principles. This system of interlocking subcommittees meant that all participants contributed to the ultimate product and came to feel a sense of ownership.

Focus-Group Work. It is hard to overstate the value of the focus groups in facilitating the open process desired by the ATJTBoR Committee (Dale, 2003). Two different sets of focus groups were conducted. The first set of focus groups, conducted early in the process, was used to identify the needs and perceptions of a variety of primarily excluded and underserved groups in the justice system. Participants included recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly a class of welfare recipients receiving Aid to Dependent Children benefits); men and women in the correctional system currently in work-release confinement; homeless veterans; survivors of domestic violence; and agricultural workers. These early focus groups told us something very significant that few had understood-that the problems of technology and access to justice are less problems of access to technology than of the underlying content; its location, relevance and understandability; and the form and media in which that content is made available.