In this interview, Randall Shepard, the former chief judge of the Indiana Supreme Court, discusses the role of the judiciary in spurring innovation in the court and system-wide.
November 9, 2011
How innovative do you think the criminal justice system is?
I think there’s been a blossoming of experiments in recent years, a great number of which arose from people close to the front line. I also think there’s been an increased collaboration among system players who historically operated in silos. I don’t want to overstate that point, but for example, I think there’s greater collaboration today between community-based corrections and the judiciary than ten years ago.
What role have courts played in innovation?
In many places, and certainly in the state of Indiana, a hefty amount of the innovation has been prompted by judges and court staff who have seen and seized opportunities to make changes. Thirty or forty years ago, I think there was a more traditional view of the judge – as a neutral decision-maker who wasn’t really part of the broader criminal justice process. Today, judges are starting to see themselves partly as case managers, such as determining appropriate placement options in delinquency cases. I can look around the state and pretty much tell you the name of the judge responsible for each reform. They didn’t do it all by themselves – it required support from many players – but I think the impetus in each case was a judge who was prepared to take a leadership role.
Are there particular environmental or political factors that help promote reform?
I think that’s easier to answer in the negative. There are some factors that can inhibit or limit reform. If you’re elected, you run the risk of opening yourself up to criticism from the opposition. And if you can’t get the backing of prosecution and law enforcement, that will likely bar any formal reforms. As for factors that might spur reform, I think the recession has promoted innovation because everyone is looking for better, low-cost solutions.
What role do you think research should play in innovation?
There have always been universities researching criminal justice issues, but the connectedness between researchers and practitioners is better now. In Indiana, the judiciary has spent some of its own money on recidivism studies of various reform efforts, like drug courts. We’ve engaged the University of Cincinnati to assist us – out of our own budget – to do serious outside analysis of various projects underway. We use the research when talking to people in the executive and legislative branches to justify these additional expenditures.
Where do you get new ideas?
We get a lot of ideas from jurisdictions nationally and from associations of professionals who publicize the latest on what’s working around the country. We also like to believe the good ideas flow the opposite direction. One of the first large-scale reentry courts was in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and since, that judge has been invited to speak on the topic internationally. One of the things we’ve done here – which we finally figured out how to finance – is a scholarship program for trial court judges. If you want to go to a national symposium but you don’t have a way to pay for it, you can apply for a scholarship. The higher number of people inside our court system who have exposure to good ideas elsewhere, the better. Within the state, the Indiana Judicial Center provides lots of great courses as well.
In your opinion, how do today’s judges rise into leadership positions?
I think there are a couple of primary ways. First, there’s some self-selection. The people who choose to try to become a judge – on average – are those who have a certain level of ambition and skill. One of the changes in the judiciary in recent years is that judges become judges earlier than they used to. A judgeship perhaps used to be the cap of your career – the last place you’d be – but we have a lot of judges who become judges in their 30s and 40s, providing a cadre of judges who take the bench in a more energetic period of life. We’ve tried to support this group by providing appropriate training – the second source for rising leaders. We created a graduate program for judges that you have to apply for and is limited to just 30 judges. It’s a big time commitment, but this allows judges to focus on rather outside-the-box topics. The result has been a group of people who have made a commitment to higher level thinking about their role who then have a robust network statewide. It’s not designed to be a leadership training, but it’s turned out to be that. Many of the officers of the Indiana Judges Association went through the graduate program.
Do you think innovation requires risk taking?
Absolutely. And because of that, leaders need to stand behind their staff as they try new things. Whenever I help support a new initiative, I say: If anyone gives you trouble, tell them to call me. Let people know you’re on their side. I used to say when I was a trial judge – and now as an appellate judge, I say it to trial judges - any trial judge that doesn’t ever get reversed, isn’t doing anything interesting. That’s sort of the way I feel about court reform generally. Anything that kicks up no dust at all probably isn’t that creative. Also, I think systems need periodic change in order to continue to evolve, even if things are going well. New players need a chance to show what they can do. I try never to say – ‘well, we tried that before.’ There are great football teams that try a new play one day and get sacked, try it again the next day, and get a touchdown. You change personnel or try new methods, and it might work the next time.
How can the judiciary promote innovation among other court system partners?
Create opportunities for people to learn and get involved. Years ago, we began training and supporting local court staff who were engaged in drug and alcohol programs. We started by brainstorming a list of staff who might fit into that category and invited them all to a statewide conference. The first conference drew about 50 people; recently, it draws about 350 people. We also created a credential called CSAMS (Court Substance Abuse Management Specialists) – like a Masters in dependence supervision. It’s completely voluntary and yet has attracted over 300 participants in a short period of time.
What strategies have you used to secure funding for new initiatives?
Program design is the first step to persuade people to support you with money. Most of the things we’ve worked on can demonstrate why they matter – in terms of recidivism or other improved outcomes. The rest is salesmanship. You need to persuade people who are in a position to help you – such as granting agencies or the legislature – that there is a shared interest to be served. In turn, we’ve tried to set aside funds to support trial courts who want to try something new. They might be new case management ideas or new therapeutic programs or improved court reporting systems. It’s a little bit like the scholarship program: if you’re interested in trying something new, let us know and we can help you do it.
Have you observed any leadership trends among the judiciary in recent years?
The most obvious change is the increasing number of women who are judges. When I was a trial judge, anyone who was reasonable well-informed could tell you the number of women judges in the state – and probably name them all. Today if you were to ask, most people couldn’t answer that question because the number is so large. It’s hard to quantify what difference that makes, but I’m sure it does have an impact.
What advice would you give to a young professional who wants to pursue a similar career path to yours?
Specific to being a judge, I think the judiciary is a terrific place to do well by doing good. But more broadly than that, I’d say that great achievements and great opportunities are the product of both preparation and happenstance. There are moments that come along – perhaps by accident – when there’s the possibility of achieving something great. Be ready to seize those moments.