This act establishes a structure that involves State courts directly in planning and prioritizing programs that affect them. I believe that this is an important first step.

National programs serving State courts have been an important source of encouragement, stimulation and assistance. The National Center for State Courts, the National College for the Judiciary and the American Judicature Society are just a few of those that have had a long and successful history of service.

This bill would channel the prioritizing of Federal assistance for these programs through the agencies they serve, the State courts. It emphasizes the accountability of those who provide services to their vendees. Decisions can be made on a realistic appraisal of the need and merit of services rendered.

The line of accountability is clear under this legislation. The State Justice Institute must deal directly with the appropriate legislative body for appropriations and can be the single source, I think most importantly, of information on how all State justice-related programs are progressive. As the focal point of State justice concerns, the institute will be able to foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern. It will, as well, be able to make recommendations concerning the proper allocation of responsibility between the Federal and State court systems.

It is equally important to state what this act does not do. It specifically prohibits the use of funds for purposes other than the supplementation and improvement of the operation of State courts. Funds may not be used to support basic court services, supplant State or local funds currently supporting a program or activity, or be used to construct facilities. The Institute may not participate in litigation or undertake the passage or defeat of legislation. Its personnel may not testify in Congress except when requested to or except when dealing with their own appropriation.

The Institute may not in any way advocate or oppose any ballot measure except those dealing specifically with the judiciary. Institute funds may not be made available to support or encourage training programs for the nonjudicial public policies of political activities.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many things that we have to express our gratitude for to you and the subcommittee that you chair that to do so would extend far beyond your time to hear them today. I would like to address just a few comments to those answers raised before me and get into the questions asked.

I think that one of the things that I would like to emphasize regarding the current LEAA program is that this bill, as I understand it, does not envision that State courts will not participate in programs funded through full block grants, but rather, that the program would supplant the current national discretionary grant program. It is currently funded through LEAA. The reason for our concern about this is that State courts do not have input into those funds. The input in planning, the input in national direction of how those funds are spent and that, of course, is a reflection of the separation of powers problems that Justice Sheran has commented on, and Mr. Adkins and Mr. Kleps, of course, as well.

The question was asked by Mr. Remington about ex officio members of the board. We are concerned about that and feel that it is an excel

lent idea. At our annual meeting in Flagstaff, Chief Justice Burger expressed a similar interest in whether we would have ex officio members. My recollection is he expressed an interest if we did in being one himself. That concept, I feel, is an excellent one and illustrative of the type of benefit the focus of responsibility for State court planning can bring.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I wish to thank you and the members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of legislation which I believe provides a positive step forward for delivery of justice to all who appear in the State courts. [The prepared statement of Judge Utter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT F. UTTER

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as representatives of States, you share with us a concern for the delivery of justice to those who look to State courts for resolution of their disputes. These range from the smallest civil complaint in small claims court and traffic complaints in municipal court, to civil and criminal litigation as complex as that found in any court system in this country.

The promise of justice is so basic that the Declaration of Independence affirmed all in this country are created equal and endowed equally with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This expectation for justice in all aspects of life continues to be fundamental. Over 98 percent of those involved in litigation in this country seek justice in State courts.

A recent study of the public knowledge and hopes for State courts by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, presents many challenges to those of us in State courts if we are to adequately serve the public and meet their expectations. The study produced six major conclusions. These were:

1. That there is a profound difference in view between the general public and community leaders on the one hand, and judges and lawyers on the other hand, with respect to what the courts do and should do in our society.

2. That general public and community leaders are dissatisfied with the performance of courts, and their concept of whether justice is available in this country stems from State court experiences, and rank courts lower than many other major American institutions.

3. The general public's knowledge of and direct experience with courts is low. 4. Those having knowledge and experience with courts have the greatest dissatisfaction and criticism.

5. In spite of the limited knowledge and dissatisfaction, the interest of the general public in courts is high and there is impressive support for reform and improvement.

6. The attitudes of the general public on crime and punishment are far less simplistic than previously thought and supports major efforts toward improvement.

The public concern about courts stems from the feelings that three basic expectations of protection of society, equality and fairness, and quality performance by court personnel have not been fulfilled.

This study, completed last year, and other continuing inquiries generated by State court leaders, have heightened our concern about our ability to fulfill both our own and the public's expectations for the delivery of justice in State courts.

As judges we recognize the prime responsibility for improving the performance of the courts rests with us. This does not mean we do not welcome help from the media, schools and the bar, but that we look primarily to ourselves for the answers.

We have accepted this challenge in many areas. State courts have made great efforts to address the areas of concern over the lack of existence of equality and fairness, protection of society, and quality performance by court personnel.

Many States have adopted, without legislative action, sentencing guidelines to eliminate many of the unexplained variations in sentencing. The purpose for this is not only to better protect the public, but to give a base for building public

confidence in sentencing procedures. These guidelines require judges to state their reasons if they either exceed or fall below standards previously agreed and publicly announced which are established by other judges on a statewide basis.

A stringent code of judicial ethics proposed by the American Bar Association has been voluntarily adopted in almost every State.

Continuing legal education for judges and court-related personnel is generally available and is provided not only through local programs but also through such national institutions as The National Judicial College in Reno, Nev.

Procedures for removal and discipline of State court judges have been provided, replacing ineffectual impeachment, in all but two States in the country. The major impetus for this has come from state court judges.

State courts are insisting that all judges be carefully selected and well trained.

The employment of modern methods of court administration have become commonplace and the Institute of Court Management has been established to provide the necessary training for those involved in this work.

The States have welcomed the assistance of the National Center for State Courts, an organization founded at the urging of Chief Justce Burger and nurtured by the State court contributions, the chief justices, their administrators, and by Federal assistance as well. We have also appreciated other organizations, national in scope, concerned with the well-being and growth of the judiciary, such as the American Judicature Society.

With all of this, however, those who work in and with State courts recognize we must show greater improvement if we are to meet the expectations of the public, and our own, for a better system of justice.

Effective access to a forum where disputes can be resolved is essential if justice is to be more than just a luxury for the wealthy.

Adequate representation is necessary to assure that every person's case is presented with the skill necessary to obtain a fair hearing.

Language barriers, geographical obstacles, psychological intimidation, and procedural traps exist which often make delivery of justice to all a hollow promise.

Courts must be more sensitive to the problem of compelling members of the public to submit matters to the courts which often do not involve real disputes requiring exercise of judicial discretion. The challenge is to provide less complex and expensive processes and still retain the availability of our traditional court services for the disposition of more complex disputes. We should experiment extensively, where appropriate, with use of lay members as dispute resolvers in mediation, arbitration and conciliation, as alternate methods of dispute resolution.

We should insure that community service as a witness as both a comprehensible and convenient process. Too often courts have adopted the view that witnesses exist for the convenience of the legal process. The judiciary should take the lead to insure that victims, especially the elderly, the very young, and those subjected to violence, are treated with special care and concern throughout the entire process.

Jury service should be spread widely among community members and the burdens of such service minimized as much as possible.

If courts are to deserve the confidence of the entire nation we must demystify our process and welcome citizen input in such areas as governance of lawyers and judicial discipline, criminal justice advisory committees, and other areas where a lay perspective would assist in rendering better and more comprehensible service.

An effective grievance procedure should be established as well, perhaps outside the formal system, in the form of a judicial ombudsman who would offer a perspective on procedural obstructions to those of us who participate in the system.

Courts must provide effective administrative structures to handle those matters in the court system efficiently and effectively. Training for personnel is essential to not only improve skills but to build, motivate, and instill a sense of unity.

Trial court management is essential to control the pace and flow of cases through the system. Early management of cases is helpful so disposition is prompt and efforts to settle are sincere. In criminal matters, courts need ef

fective information systems to insure cases may be tried speedily and administered effectively.

Courts need to establish and adhere to performance standards at a local or statewide level and use goals and objectives as measurement tools to meet these performance expectations.

The judiciary must recognize it is our responsibility to establish and maintain effective organizations and procedures. By accepting and implementing this responsibility, we can help maintain the integrity and respect for the judiciary. We believe the bill before you directly addresses these concerns.

The establishment of a separate, federally created Institute brings to focus the great responsibility borne by State courts for delivery of justice. It emphasizes that the States are looked to as responsible for the quality of justice in their own jurisdiction.

By placing the responsibility for naming the majority of the names submitted to the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make up the board of directors for the Institute, the bill focuses responsibility. The conference, of course, is mindful of its responsibility to those constituent groups that make up the various parts of the judiciary and in turn are responsible to the chief justices in their respective States. The conference is aware of the need to make those nominated to the board representative of these groups. This focus of responsibility recognizes, in fact, how State court systems are administratively structured and preserves accountability to those who have the final responsibility in their States.

Accountability, of course, is not just a State problem. President Carter, in asking for a review of Federal programs for improvement of the Nation's justice system in 1977, noted a major problem in the present Federal system was that "no single Federal agency or department is responsible for working to improve the overall system. This gap in accountability", he added, "may explain in part why the Federal Government has never fully defined its own role in this area, much less developed a strategy for fulfilling it."

We appreciate and welcome the opportunity to be of assistance to the members of this committee in attempting to address their needs. The chief justices of each State serve as the head of their respective judicial systems. We are held directly accountable by our fellow judges and the electorate for the quality of judicial services in our States. There can be no passing of the blame to someone else, no claim of diffusion of responsibility. We are both visible and accountable.

The Conference of Chief Justices has shown itself capable of courageous and politically unpopular action to further the course of justice. In recent years, we have approved cameras in courtrooms, and television coverage of State court proceedings, contrary to the vote of the bar. The conference has continually stressed the need for effective and stern measures of judicial discipline and removal for judges who are not performing their functions adequately. The conference has, as well, in an attempt to assist Federal courts, urged that diversity jurisdiction be abolished in Federal courts and that responsibility for these cases be given to their own courts. Needless to say, this has not been a politically popular position for the chief justices, either nationally or locally. We stand ready to take whatever steps are necessary to improve justice in our States.

We are here today to examine, in a spirit of cooperation and in recognition of the need for mutual action, whether a method can be devised by which we can work together to achieve a better justice system in our State courts. In attempting to see if joint action can be mutually helpful, we have a number of concerns.

The first has been one the other speakers have directly addressed. This is the need to preserve the integrity of the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of federalism, which encourages States to be responsible for solving their own problems.

Our second concern is to find how change can most effectively be made in State judicial systems. A third is how national programs serving the State judiciary can best be encouraged and supported, and finally we wish to assure accountability can be preserved to the Federal Government for Federal funds expended in support of State court efforts. I believe change in State judicial systems can best be achieved by focusing responsibility on the States directly. Having done this, States can then be encouraged to coordinate and prioritize projects and programs as well as serve as incubators for projects to be later established nationally.

My youngest child is now in the ninth grade, a freshman in high school. The idea of making changes in his actions, through direct parental edcit is some

thing with which I have had minimal success. We have set the general standards as parents and have some basic rules, but real change now comes from the example and actions of his fellow schoolmates with indirect guidance, at best, from his parents.

My observation, of course, applies to change in State courts as well. If the States have a part in establishing policies that apply to them and can see other State jurisdictions successfully experimenting, the impetus for change is great and resistance is minimized. This act establishes a structure that involves State courts directly in planning and prioritizing programs that affect them. I believe that is an important first step.

National programs serving State courts have been an important source of encouragement, stimulation, and assistance. The National Center for State Courts, The National College for the Judiciary, and the American Judicature Society are just a few of those that have had a long and successful history of service.

This bill would channel the prioritizing of Federal assistance for these programs through the agencies they serve, the State courts. This emphasizes the accountability of those who provide services, to their vendees. Decisions can be made on a realistic appraisal of the need and merit of services rendered.

The line of accountability is clear under this legislation. The State Justice Institute must deal directly with the appropriate legislative body for appropriations and can be the single source for information on how all State justicerelated projects are progressing. As the focal point for State justice concerns, the Institute will also be able to foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern. It will, as well, be able to make recommendations concerning the proper allocation of responsibility between the Federal and State court systems.

It is important to state what this act does not do. It specifically prohibits the use of funds for purposes other than the supplementation and improvement of the operation of State courts. Funds may not be used to support basic court services, supplant State or local funds currently supporting a program or activity, or be used to construct new facilities or pay judicial salaries.

The Institute may not participate in litigation or undertake the passage or defeat of legislation. Its personnel may not testify in Congress except when requested to or except when dealing with their own appropriation. The Institute may not in any way advocate or oppose any ballot measure except those dealing specifically with the state judiciary. Institute funds may not be made available to support or encourage training programs for nonjudicial public policies or political activities.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of this committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of legislation which I believe provides a positive step forward for the delivery of justice to all in State courts.

Senator HEFLIN. There is, naturally, among a lot of people, concern with any Federal program about its control of State activities and State programs. Sometimes there is a realization that that is necessary. I think universally I have never heard of any idea that other than through the normal appellate process and the decisions of the Federal courts, which are binding on the State courts that that be the type of control if there be any. We know that the State courts have to follow the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are other courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court that can overrule decisions that have been made by State courts.

But this question of federalism is a real one. I would appreciate it if some of you, either you, Chief Justice Utter, or others would address themselves to the issue of federalism and, in particular, does Federal assistance to State courts through a federally created and federally funded institute further advance or undermine federalism as we know it? I would like someone to give us some thoughts on this. Mr. I'ANSON. Chief Justice Sheran, would you respond to that? Mr. SHERAN. I think that the comments that I am going to make in response to that question, Mr. Chairman, while representing my per