The Federal Judicial Center enjoys close contact with the National Center for State Courts. We have supported the attendance of Federal court administrative personnel at the Institute for Court Management. The educational needs of the Federal judges and other personnel are often somewhat unique and specific, but to the degree possible, we have cooperated with the National Judicial College in Reno.

I am convinced, however, that there is potential for greater cooperation on research and development, and I base that conviction on several developments in the past in which Federal Judicial Center research has benefitted from-and, I think, has benefitted-parallel research on State court problems.

The Center's Prisoner Civil Rights Committee, chaired by Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (and a former State trial judge), has published two tentative reports on recommended procedures in handling conditions-of-confinement cases, and has published a massive compendium on the law of prisoners' civil rights. While the committee's work has been most specifically directed to the Federal judiciary, the Center's major constituency, the committee is well aware of the important role of the State courts in handling such cases, and takes note of this fact in its reports. The committee operates on the premise that resolution of the mass of prisoners' civil rights cases is a joint duty of the Federal and State courts.

The benefits of cooperative research on common State-Federal problems of judicial administration are anticipated by this proposal, and there are some examples already of such benefits. The Federal Judicial Center and the National Center for State Courts have recently published important reports on the factors that effect expeditious case management. While published independently, both reports have benefitted from informal contacts between the respective project staffs. Several years ago both Centers were interested in studying the costs and benefits of computer-aided transcription, and through staff contact, an informal division of responsibility was observed that achieved economies for both organizations and increased the total knowledge about computer-aided transcription emerging from both projects. More recently, as you may know, the Chief Justice appointed a committee of Federal judges to study the use of juries in protracted cases. That committee, chaired by Judge Alvin B. Rubin of the fifth circuit, and with staff assistance from the Center's research division, has been in contact with the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, and with the national Center as secretariat to those organizations, to achieve the benefits of cooperative analysis.

This brief statement has attempted to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. I would be derelict if I did not emphasize the great potential for good which I believe inheres in this proposal to expand and to refocus the support of the Federal Government for the delivery of justice to all of our citizens, whatever the court in which the causes are adjudicated.

Mr. Chairman, I have been honored to be allowed to present these views and I would be pleased to try to respond to any questions.

Senator HEFLIN. Mr. Remington, who represents the House of Representatives, and has been very active in the formulation of thoughts that have gone into drafts of the State Justice Institute Act, is here. Do you have some questions you would like to ask Mr. Levin or Mr. Rosenberg? We'd be happy to hear from you.

Mr. REMINGTON. Thank you. First of all, it's an honor to be on the dias with Senator Heflin. Professor Rosenberg, vou mentioned there is an overlap with the Dispute Resolution Act. What is the extent of this overlap? Is it a contradiction? Or do they complement each other? Professor ROSENBERG. It's not a contradiction, Mr. Remington. I think if we will read the statement of findings and purposes, you will find reference to alternative means of resolving disputes. That search for alternative means is one of the objects of the State Justice Institute and its funding. What I'm suggesting is that, as you know very well, that is the centerpiece of the Dispute Resolutions Act, which you had so much of an effective hand in formulating and moving along,

and I think that what should be done is to determine whether it is desirable to have both funding from the State Justice Institute and from the entities that are created by the Dispute Resolution Act. If duplication is desired, it is there, but I'm not sure that it is desired, or desirable.

Mr. REMINGTON. Thank you.

Professor ROSENBERG. Excuse me, if I can just call your attention to page 48, it says in subsection 2 that "the Institute should not duplicate functions adequately performed by existing organizations." So that I think the act itself would speak against giving the Institute a function that's already being discharged by some other entity with regard to this matter of alternatives to courts in resolving disputes. I believe that admonition in the act fits.

Mr. REMINGTON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HEFLIN. I believe there are so many other needs in the State court systems that I think under the State Justice Institute Act, we could eliminate the alternative dispute determination program right now. Of course, they are dealing with matters that are not in the courts. Are the three different pilot programs going on, and they are really not diverting from the courts. It's a matter of approach to settling disputes in the neighborhood. Atlanta's the one you hear the most about to date. If that's a problem-do you consider it a real problem, or do you think it ought to just be clarified as to that issue? Professor ROSENBERG. I believe it should be clarified. The provision which I had specific reference to is on page 48, and its subsection 1. In listing under the heading, "Findings," the purposes of the Institute and its funding programs, subdivision 1, refers to innovative programs for increasing access to justice by reducing the cost of litigation, and these are the words I am referring to: "by developing alternative mechanisms and techniques for resolving disputes." Now, I believe that there is overlap between the implication of that phrase and the purposes and the whole object of the Dispute Resolution Act. There should be a clarification of the interrelationship, at the least. Mr. REMINGTON. I might add that the Dispute Resolution Act, which will reach the floor of the House in February at the start of the second session, does make funding available to State courts specifically. That program will be placed in the Department of Justice. Would the executive branch have any problem with a cooperative arrangement such as that mentioned by Professor Levin with the Federal Judicial Center?

Professor ROSENBERG. I conceive that there would not be any problem with a cooperative arrangement.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. McCONNELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS

Senator HEFLIN. All right, Mr. Edward McConnell, Director, National Center for State Courts, we're delighted to hear from you at this time.

Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to testify with regards to the proposed State Justice Institute Act of 1979. Being an inarticulate administrator rather than

an articulate professor like my predecessors, and to avoid being one of Professor Rosenberg's jumping frogs, I will, with your indulgence, read some of my material.

Tensely and tritely stated, today in too many courts justice is too long delayed, is too expensive, and often is never concluded. Unfortunately, this is so even after the substantial progress that has been made in the past 10 years, much of it with the help of Federal funds made available under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. A great deal, obviously, remains to be done if courts are to be readily accessible to all persons at reasonable costs, if they are to dispose of matters fairly and impartially yet expeditiously, and if the participants in the public are to understand the judicial process and have confidence in it.

Many today are inclined to by cynical, particularly about the capabilities of the Government and its officials. Yet as one who has worked for and with State Government for over 30 years-Professor Rosenberg is a mere neophyte in this field, having entered it in 1955-I have a high regard for public officials. Those that I have known, almost without exception, are conscientious and sincerely interested in providing the public with the service it deserves and demands, but often is unwilling to pay for. From my experience, this is especially true of judges, court administrators, and other court personnel.

The main problem is not their lack of desire to improve, although perhaps it once was. The problem is that all too often they either do not know how to bring about improvements, or if they know, they do not have the resources to put their knowledge into practice. Generally speaking, the technical know-how and the money needed to bring about changes for the better have just not been there. Meanwhile, the flood of new laws, new lawyers, and more people, and an increasingly complex and congested and litigious society constantly pressure to change things for the worse.

Aided by the expertise of the National Center for State Courts and other organizations, and by supplemental Federal funds for research, development, and implementation, the State courts in recent years have made a good start: One: In improving their administrative structure and organization. Two: In developing needed management systems and skills, including the use of modern technology to which Professor Levin referred. Three: In utilizing the social science disciplines to study court problems, to devise solutions, and to test out and evaluate those solutions. Four: In developing the information base or statistics, if you will, on the courts so essential if one is to know what is going on and to be able to do anything about it. Five: In effectuating the political changes necessary to implement many court improvement programs.

Much, of course, remains to be done. But we can feel some confidence that the tools are now available to the courts, if they have the money to pay for them, for analyzing problems and ferreting out answers. There are some old problems that still need solutions, while there are known solutions that still need to be implemented in the Nation's courts. Moreover, new problems are constantly arising to demand attention, most of them resulting from actions of those outside

the courts, and many of them by actions of the Federal Government itself.

The justification for the Federal Government providing financial assistance for State courts is amply set forth in the May 1979 report of the Conference of Chief Justices Task Force on a State Court Improvement Act, of which Chief Justice Robert F. Hutter of the State of Washington was the chairman. The task force report likewise amply demonstrates the need to have a vehicle which is consistent with the principles of federalism, the separation of powers, and the integrity of the judicial branch of Government. Such is the proposed State Justice Institute, through which to channel Federal funds for improvement of State courts.

I am sure that others who have already testified or will testify before this subcommittee will give adequate attention to these most important subjects. Accordingly, I would like to concentrate by testimony today on the role that the National Center for State Courts would play in carrying out the purposes of the proposed State Justice Institute Act.

The Federal Judicial Center was established by the Congress in 1967 and quickly demonstrated its value to the Federal court system as a resource for research, problem-solving and technical advice. It was not surprising, therefore, that in 1971, at the first National Conference of the Judiciary, it was proposed by the Chief Justice of the United States that a comparable center be created to serve the court systems of the 50 States. The proposal met with overwhelming approval and in July 1971, the National Center for State Courts was formally incorporated as a nonprofit organization by a committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, chaired by then Chief Justice James S. Holden of Vermont, now a Federal district court judge.

The National Center is as close to a State counterpart of the Federal Judicial Center as it was politically possible to create. It is controlled by a council of State court representatives, with one representative being appointed by the highest court of each State. The council in turn elects a board of directors composed of judges from all levels of the State judiciary to establish policy and direct the operation of the center staff. That staff, possessing the wide range of skills and experience needed to address the problems of the State courts is located at a headquarters office in Williamsburg, Va., at regional offices in Massachusetts, Georgia, Minnesota, and California, and at project offices in Colorado and Washington, D.C.

In the 8 years of its existence, the National Center, like its counterpart the Federal Judicial Center, has become an indispensable adjunct of the courts. That this is so is amply demonstrated by repeated actions of the Conference of Chief Justices, an organization as its name indicates composed of the highest judicial officer of each of the 50 States. In a resolution adopted at its annual meeting in 1974, the Conference stated:

Whereas the National Center for State Courts is a court assistance organization governed by the courts of the 50 States, and has rendered valuable assistance in court improvement to various members of the Conference and to the State court systems which they represent, be it

Resolved as follows:

(1) The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is urged to continue its

funding support to the National Center for State Courts so that it can increase its assistance and service to State court systems,

(2) State judicial, legislative and executive branches are called upon to increase State financial support for the Center so that it can increase its assistance to the State courts and can remain as an independent organization dedicated to service of State court systems, and

(3) The Special Committee on Federal Funding of the Conference of Chief Justices is authorized to develop proposals for long-term federal funding support for the Center to supplement state judicial funding.

At its annual meeting in 1976, recognizing the increasingly important part the National Center was playing in its efforts to assist State courts to bring about needed improvement, the Conference of State Justices designated the National Center as its secretariat. The center was similarly designated by other State groups, today serving as secretariat for eight of the most significant national court organizations. In 1977, at its annual meeting, the Conference of Chief Justices adopted a report with an implementing recommendation which stated in part:

The National Center offers a key mechanism by which Federal funds can appropriately be used to assist State courts, providing resources far beyond the means of any individual State, or under present court budgets the State court systems collectively. We strongly favor a direct congressional appropriation toward support of the National Center for State Courts similar to the support provided for the Federal Judicial Center.

Attorney General Griffin B. Bell made just such a proposal in his address that year to the conference. And at its 1979 midyear meeting, the Conference of Chief Justices adopted a resolution stating in part:

Whereas, the National Center was created and is directed by the state courts, and is performing indispensable and continuing functions essential for much needed improvements in the State court systems,

Now therefore be it resolved, That the Conference of Chief Justices hereby declares to the Congress and the Administration that the Conference's highest priority in the area of LEAA reauthorization and refunding is:

(1) That the needs of the National Center, especially for funding of its ongoing essential State support services and its national and state research and demonstration programs be recognized by the Congress;

(2) That provision for their continuance be provided for by the Congress, and (3) That the Congress clearly expresses its endorsement of the unique role of the National Center in state court reform and of the need of the National Center to continue its vital role with adequate Federal funding by LEAA or its successor agency at not less than the level it currently receives.

In keeping with the foregoing statements of the Conference of Chief Justices, the May 1979 report of the Conference's Task Force on a State Court Improvement Act, which report was approved for implementation by the conference at its 1979 annual meeting, recommended the enactment by Congress of legislation establishing a State Justice Institute and specifically included in the draft legislation attached to the report provision that the Institute

shall give priority to grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts with: (i) State and local courts and their agencies, and (ii) national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of State government.

The latter designation currently is applicable only to the National Center for State Courts. The legislation recommended in this report serves as a basis for the State Justice Institute Act of 1979, which is the subject matter of today's hearing.