History & Uses

The National Association for Court Management (NACM) Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines flow from a process begun in 1990 when NACM undertook a Delphi survey of all its members to evaluate its goals, priorities, and services. Survey results reported to the NACM Annual Conference in 1991 and in the fall 1991 issue of The Court Manager clearly indicated that the nation�s trial court managers wanted more national programs that were:

NACM responded by adding regional mid-year conferences in the spring to complement their summer annual conferences and by initiating planning toward a multi-year education and professional development action plan.

Among other initiatives, the NACM Professional Development Advisory Committee (NACM/PDAC) was formed in 1992. Drawing on the 1990 Delphi survey, this committee began work toward improved NACM educational programming by reaching consensus on the core areas of court management skill and responsibility. An initial list of 14 was re-formulated into 10 core competencies, areas in which court managers should have acceptable levels of knowledge, skill, and ability (KSAs). Over 10 years, these core areas evolved into 10 interrelated and interdependent core competencies:

With funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and in cooperation with the National Center for State Courts Institute for Court Management (NCSC/ICM), the Justice Management Institute (JMI), and others, NACM/PDAC then refined the 10core areas. The first step was a survey of 200-plus experienced court managers designed to produce KSAs for each of 10 core competencies and several focus groups attended by leading court managers, researchers, and academics.

Next, 90 carefully selected court administrators, court management faculty, and researchers built on the results of the initial survey and focus groups to delineate the initial structure and substance of the 10 Core Competencies. A third survey of 250 experienced respondents then: 1) evaluated how essential (important) the 10 Core Competencies and related KSAs, as well as 12 general management KSAs, are; 2) estimated the proportion of court managers who had substantial performance inadequacies with regard to each of the Core Competencies and KSAs; and 3) selected the 10 KSAs with the highest priority for NACM educational programming.[1]

With staff support from JMI and in cooperation with NCSC/ICM, NACM then applied for and received SJI funding[2] approval for, among other deliverables, development and publication of Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines. This phase, which began in late 1996, culminated in this publication. From 1996 to the present, the Guidelines were produced and disseminated under the supervision of the reconstituted NACM /PDAC).[3] NACM/PDAC project goals were ambitious and the results were significant.

The NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines provide for the first time a comprehensive statement of what court leaders need to know and be able to do. Acceptance and use of the Guidelines is already widespread. Written comments and requests for technical assistance have been received from 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Canada, Nicaragua, Australia, Palau, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Presentations and programs have been made at NACM Annual and Mid-Year Conferences since 1997, at National Association for State Judicial Educators (NASJE) and Middle Atlantic Association for Court Management Annual Conferences, and statewide professional association and state judicial branch education programs in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Canada, and Hong Kong, among other jurisdictions. National providers including JMI, the NCSC/ICM Court Executive Development Program (Phases I and II), the National Judicial College, as well as several universities, built from the Guidelines to plan and deliver workshops, seminars, and graduate programs.

Prior to this publication, initial drafts of the Guidelines were published in The Court Manager beginning with the original versions of this Introduction, and the Caseflow Management and Resources, Budget and Finance Curriculum Guidelines in the 1998 Winter Issue, which was issued in early 1999. Through dissemination of the Guidelines in The Court Manager and international, national, regional, state, and local education programs, court leaders, with help from judicial educators, judicial branch education faculty, consultants, and academics, have been able to assess their learning needs and to improve their performance and the performance of their courts. This honors NACM�s belief that continuing professional and personal development is the essence of professionalism.

Each of the 10Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines moves from the general to the specific in three steps beginning from: 1) Introduction: What This Competency Is and Why It Is Important, followed by 2) Summary Curriculum Guidelines: What Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able to Do. Section II for each Core Competency presents four to six Curriculum Guidelines for each Core Competency. Each Guideline then concludes in Section III with, 3) Required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for each Curriculum Guideline:

Understanding and effective use of the 10 Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines requires knowing what the Guidelines are not. The 10 Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines are not a final statement of any one, much less every, court leader competency. The Guidelines must evolve as the field�s issues and challenges change. Moreover, the Curriculum Guidelines are not curricula or lesson plans. NACM/PDAC took pains not to cross the �curriculum development line.� The Guidelines presented lay out what court leaders need to know and be able to do, leaving curriculum development to others and later project phases.

Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts sits in red in the center of the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines wheel (see Figure 1 above) for a reason. The centrality of purposes to the substance of both the entire set of 10 Core Competencies and to each of the 10Guidelines became apparent as the early Guidelines were being drafted, reviewed, and approved. Early on, NACM/PDAC concluded that the Guidelines and the competencies they articulated must be grounded by the purposes and responsibilities of the courts. The presumption is that court leader competency is a means to an end. Courts do not exist so their leaders can manage them. For this reason, purpose is central to all 10Guidelines, which means there is substantive overlap between the Guidelines.

Besides the centrality of the purpose and responsibilities of courts in every Guideline, overlap and redundancy between the 10 Guidelines is present for two other reasons. While distinct, the 10 competencies are interrelated. And redundancy and overlap is present because each Core Competency Curriculum Guideline was drafted so that it could stand on its own.

The intended audience of the Guidelines and curricula built around them is court leaders including elected and appointed court managers, senior staff and aspiring juniors with both technical and administrative responsibilities, and judges who are in and who aspire to leadership positions.

The Guidelines assume a court executive leadership team that includes both court managers and judges. The team relationship between court managers and judges in leadership positions that is presumed, and even advocated, throughout the Guidelines emerged after considerable reflection and discussion. The selected model assumes that judicial administration is a team sport played by interdependent professional peers.

Two extreme models of the relationship between judges in leadership positions and court managers were considered and rejected by NACM/PDAC as the structure and substance of the Guidelines took shape in the drafting and approval of the first Curriculum Guideline, Caseflow Management. The first model to be rejected was a firm hierarchical boss/subordinate relationship. In this rejected model, decisions and direction flow down from the judge(s) in charge to court managers and other staff. Judges unilaterally decide and direct and court managers and staff listen, obey, and implement judicial mandates. While assumed and carefully practiced in more than a few courts by more than a few administrative judges and court managers, this was not the model selected by NACM/PDAC. This model neither reflects the nature of the realities that challenge courts and their leaders nor the relationships and responsibilities of distinct professionals in high-performing courts. The second rejected model was a relationship of complete equality in which leadership and policy and final decision authority were equally shared between judges and court managers. This model is likewise flawed practically and politically. The model assumed in the Guidelines is a partnership between professional peers in which one party, the judge(s) in charge, has ultimate formal authority. The Guidelines are designed to help elected and appointed court managers and judges in and aspiring to leadership positions. Thus the inclusive term court leader rather than court manager.

The Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines are also not intended, nor are they appropriate, to test or to grade either practicing or aspiring court managers or their judicial superiors. Rather, their purpose is self-assessment and self-improvement. Use of the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines to evaluate the performance of a practicing court manager or the judge(s) whom they serve is neither intended nor appropriate. While all 10 Core Competencies, and related Curriculum Guidelines and KSAs, are crucial, NACM does not assume that any single court leader has or could master every Core Competency, much less every Curriculum Guideline and KSA, nor, given the team concept, do they need to.

The Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines are not self-executing in two important respects. First, when using the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines for self-assessment and the planning of education, training, and development programs, court leaders and those responsible for their educational programs still must decide which Core Competencies, Guidelines, and KSAs are most in need of development, taking into account: 1) the needs of individual learners, 2) the needs of the target audience as a whole, and 3) the impact of existing performance and knowledge gaps on court performance.

Second, much-needed curricula do not exist. With this and earlier publications, NACM aims to stimulate development of needed curricula and, obviously, multi-year educational programs built around the Guidelines.

Despite these limitations, the NACM/PDAC Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines move forward the court management profession and its literature. Court reform from the turn of the century through the late 1980s was driven by the unified court concept. The unit of analysis was court systems as a whole. Key issues included the structure and organization of the court system, its funding, and authority relationships between the chief justice, the central administrative office, and two or more levels of courts and court leaders.

The Trial Court Performance Standards produced by the National Center for State Courts with Bureau of Justice Assistance funding in 1990 was the next significant set of organizing ideas and concepts to ground the field of judicial administration. Attention shifted from the court system�s structure, organization, funding, and authority relationships, to what trial courts should produce, and their performance, regardless of structure, organization, funding, or authority relationships. The unit of analysis shifted focus from the court system as a whole to trial courts as organizations.

The NACM/PDAC Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines expands the past focus on the court system as a whole and trial courts as organizations by directing attention to the individuals responsible for the court�s leadership. The Guidelines recognize that neither court systems nor their constituent courts can operate efficiently or effectively without competent court leaders, professionals who understand that their and their staff�s continuing personal and professional development is a necessity, not a luxury. Personal and profession development of court leaders and their successors and staff is an investment that pays dividends year after year.

Prior to a brief review of the 10 Core Competencies, a word on three ways they can be used. First, public, not-for-profit, and for-profit national, regional, state, and local educational providers can organize court management educational programs and specific workshops and workshop modules around them. Curricula built around the Guidelines have been and, no doubt, will continue to be delivered face-to-face at NACM, regional, and state association conferences and elsewhere, and from remote sites through electronic self-paced and other �distance� learning, and during national, regional, state, and local train-the-trainer programs. Second, and closely related, the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines provide a reliable tool for court leaders to assess their own, their staffs�, and their colleagues� professional development needs and educational priorities. Third, and as or more important than educational programming and self assessment, the Guidelines are meant to be read and reflected upon by practicing and potential court leaders and others from the judiciary, the academy, and elsewhere as a source of information, knowledge, and perhaps even increased understanding of courts, their purpose, processes, practices, and the people who lead them.

The 10 Guidelines are described in brief below in the order in which they are presented in this publication. We begin with Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts because this competency properly grounds and orients the other nine Core Competencies. Caseflow Management, the first Curriculum Guideline developed and published by NACM/PDAC, is second because it reflects the most basic thing courts do -- process cases from filing to closure. Next is Leadership, the energy behind every court system and court accomplishment. Court leaders use Visioning and Strategic Planning tools to avoid stagnation and keep focused on purpose, core values, and continuous improvement. Essential Components constitute the many services and programs managed by the judiciary and others, which while critical to court performance, are not dealt with by the other competencies. Court Community Communication link the courts to those they serve. Resources, Budget, and Finance is a core management function that impacts every court operation. It is followed by Human Resources Management, which is linked in order of presentation and as a matter of practice in high-performing courts to Education, Training, and Development --judicial branch education. Last, Information Technology Management, which while not an end unto itself, is essential because if managed well it can help all courts do what they do faster, cheaper, and better.

Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts are the epicenter of the NACM Core Competencies. Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts provide the reason, the root, and the foundation for the other nine Core Competencies. Purposes gives legitimacy to the exercise of Leadership, informs Visioning and Strategic Planning, and orients the practice of Caseflow Management and the other six more technical competencies.

Caseflow Management is the process by which courts carry out their primary function: moving cases from filing to closure. This includes all pre-trial events, trials, and increasingly, events that follow closure to ensure the integrity of court orders and timely completion of post-disposition case activity. Effective caseflow management makes justice possible not only in individual cases, but also across judicial systems and courts, both trial and appellate. Caseflow Management helps ensure that every litigant receives procedural due process and equal protection. Properly understood, Caseflow Management is the absolute heart of court management.

Leadership is the energy behind every court system and court accomplishment. Fortunately, and contrary to some received wisdom, leadership is not a mysterious act of grace. Effective leadership is observable and, to a significant extent, learnable. Academic debate about the difference between leadership and management has resulted in consensus that a difference exists, which is not a matter of �better� or �worse.� Both are necessary �systems of action.� In the memorable words of Warren Bennis: �Managers do things right. Leaders do the right things.�

Visions are holistic, inspirational future snapshots. They look forward and reach back to core values: the ends of justice and service and the means of judicial independence, substantive and procedural due process, equal protection, access, and the fair and efficient application of the law to the facts. Visioning invites court leaders, their justice partners, and the community, first to imagine and then to deliver the future they prefer. Strategic planning is a process -- involving principles, methods and tools--to help court leaders decide what to do and how and when to do it. Strategic planning translates vision into plans and action.

Courts and judges do not just consider evidence provided by the parties, rule on motions, and decide cases on the merits. Increasingly, information is provided to the court by programs annexed to the court or the case rather than by the parties to litigation. Courts must deliver and use this information as well as manage other Essential Components, which range from the relatively mundane such as court security, courtrooms, clerks, and reporters, to the sophisticated such as child custody evaluations, legal research staff, and indigent defense. These and other services, programs, and infrastructure not dealt with by the other Core Competencies constitute the court�s Essential Components. Effective court leaders understand the court�s Essential Components and, regardless of who has formal authority over them, work to ensure they are well managed.

If the courts are to be accessible, open, responsive, affordable, timely, and understandable, courts must learn from and educate the public. To interact effectively with their many publics, court leaders must understand the media and its impact on the public�s understanding of and satisfaction with the courts. Understandable courts, skillful community outreach, and informed public information improve court performance and enhance public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

The allocation, acquisition, and management of the court�s budget impacts every court operation and, arguably, determines how well, and even whether, courts achieve their mission in the American political system. Resources are rarely sufficient to fund everything of value the courts or any other organization might undertake. When resource allocation and resource acquisition are skillful, courts preserve their independence, ensure their accountability, both internally and externally, improve their performance, and build and maintain public trust and confidence.

Courts need good people, people who are competent, up-to-date, professional, ethical, and committed. Effective Human Resources Management not only enables performance but also increases morale, employee perceptions of fairness, and self-worth. People who work in the courts are special. Their jobs and the work of the courts are not too small for the human spirit. With proper leadership, court Human Resources Management contributes to meaning and pride over and beyond the reward of a paycheck. Excellent Human Resources Management is unlikely in an otherwise mediocre court.

Education, Training, and Development help courts improve court and justice system performance and achieve their desired future. Education, Training, and Development programs are aimed at judges, court staff --especially those in and aspiring to leadership position -- as well as others on whom the court depends, both inside and outside the courts. Thus, the term judicial branch education, as opposed to judicial education. Because judicial branch education helps actuate all other competencies and helps courts maintain balance between the forces of change and enduring principles, effective court leaders take responsibility for it. It is not merely remedial and limited to training. Rather, judicial branch education is strategic and involves Education, Training, and Development.

While it is decidedly not an end unto itself, Information Technology can help all courts do what they do faster, cheaper, and better. Computerization allows courts to dispense justice in the face of increased expectations of efficient and instant service; significant changes in people�s mobility and the social, political, and economic environment; and increased caseload volume and complexity. Court leaders who effectively manage Information Technology know its limitations and the challenges it presents. They also know if its promise is realized, Information Technology can improve court and justice system operations, public access to the courts, and the quality of justice.

NACM/PDAC Oversight, Prime Authors, Reviewers, and the Development Process

The National Association for Court Management Professional Development Advisory Committee (NACM/PDAC0 oversaw and guided the development of the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines. Current members include: the NACM/PDAC Chair Frank Broccolina, State Court Administrator, Maryland, and a Past-President of NACM; Cynthia Banks, Director Human Resources Los Angeles Superior; Ruben Carrerou Court Administrator, 11^th Judicial District Miami, Florida; Mark Dalton, District Court Administrator, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Zelda M. DeBoyes, Municipal Court Administrator, Aurora, Colorado, and a Past-President of NACM; Jose O. Guillen, Court Executive Officer, Riverside County; California; Frannie Haney, Judicial Educator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Delaware; Andra Motyka, Court Administrator, Tacoma, Washington; Joi Sorenson Assistant to the Executive Officer, Los Angeles Superior Court and NACM President; Patricia Tobias, State Court Administrator, Idaho; and Bob Wessels, Court Manager, Houston, Texas and a Past-President of NACM.

The National Association for Court Management Professional Development Advisory Committee (NACM/PDAC) oversaw and guided the development of the Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines. Current members include: the NACM/PDAC Chair Frank Broccolina, State Court Administrator, Maryland, and a Past-President of NACM; Cynthia Banks, Director, Human Resources, Los Angeles Superior Court; Ruben O. Carrerou, Court Administrator, Eleventh Judicial District, Dade County, Miami, Florida; Mark Dalton, District Court Administrator, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Zelda M. DeBoyes, Municipal Court Administrator, Aurora, Colorado, and a Past-President of NACM; Jose O. Guillen, Consultant, Napa, California, formerly Court Executive Officer, Riverside County, California; Franny Haney, Judicial Educator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Delaware; Andra Motyka, Superior Court Administrator, Tacoma, Washington; Lawrence Myers, Municipal Court Administrator, City of Joplin, Missouri, and NACM President Elect; Joi Sorenson, Assistant to the Executive Officer, Los Angeles Superior Court, and NACM President; Patricia Tobias, State Court Administrator, Idaho; and Bob Wessels, Court Manager, Houston, Texas, and a Past-President of NACM.

Past NACM/PDAC members include: Jeffrey M. Arnold, former Court Administrator and Judge, Cook County, Illinois, a Past-President of NACM and Court Consultant, Niles, Illinois; Jan Bouch, Deputy Executive Officer, Sonoma County, California, the prime author of Education, Training; Gladys L. Brown, Court Administrator, Columbia, South Carolina; Alan Carlson, President of the Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado, and staff to the project and the prime author of Essential Components, formerly Chief Executive Officer, San Francisco Trial Courts, San Francisco, California; Janet G. Cornell, formerly a Deputy Judicial Administrator, Maricopa County Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona, and a Past-President of NACM, now a Municipal Court Administrator in Phoenix, Arizona; Geoff Gallas, the Project Director and the prime author of several Guidelines, formerly Vice President of the National Center for State Courts and Executive Administrator, First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and now President, Aequitas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; James D. Gingerich, State Court Administrator, Arkansas; Emily Z. Huebner, Director, Court Education Division, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C.; Suzanne James, Court Administrator, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and a Past- President of NACM; Ingo Keilitz, former Vice-President, National Center for State Courts Institute for Court Management and now President, Sherwood Consulting, Williamsburg, Virginia; Kay Palmer, Judicial Educator, Arkansas; Richard Saks, Chief Judicial Educator, New Jersey; Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, State of Kansas; and Anne Thompson, Municipal Court Administrator, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The NACM/PDAC was assisted by current and past NACM/PDAC ex officio members William Dressel, President, National Judicial College; Ernest Borunda formerly Dean, National Judicial College and now a consultant based in Reno, Nevada; Pamela Bulloch, formerly the State Justice Institute Project Manager and now a consultant based in Washington, D.C.; Maureen Conner, Executive Director, JERITT, Lansing, Michigan; Chuck Ericksen, Executive Director, National Center for State Courts Institute for Court Management, Williamsburg, Virginia; Frank Gavin, former Director, National Center for State Courts Institute for Court Management, Williamsburg, Virginia, now Consultant, Brunswick, Maine; Joan Green, formerly with Justice Management Institute and now a consultant in Denver, Colorado; Barry Mahoney, former President and now President Emeritus, Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado; and Norman H. Meyer, Jr., Clerk of Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and a Past-President of NACM.

The Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines were initially drafted by a prime author(s) with help from the Project Director and for the early Guidelines, a Content Specialist Group, and others through multiple drafts.

With the exception of the Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts and Education, Training, and Development, the John Hudzik JERITT product guided the development of initial drafts.[1] Prime authors developed Section I What This Core Competency Is and Why It is Important, Section II Summary Curriculum Guidelines; and Section III Required Knowledge, Skill, and Ability by review of the KSAs identified by the Hudzik survey work and their ranking as essential (important) and high court manager performance inadequacies. KSAs with very high importance but low inadequacy ratings were generally classified as Fundamentals. Every KSA with high importance and high inadequacy was included and many became lead concepts for Section II Curriculum Guidelines. Besides carefully reviewing the Hudzik data for the Core Competency Curriculum Guideline they developed, the prime authors combed KSAs in other competencies with special attention to relevant KSAs with high importance and inadequacy, as well as adding missing KSAs.

While most but not all of the prime authors are or were academics, NACM/PDAC directed that Guidelines follow the lead of the Trial Court Performance Standards and not be academic papers. Sources are acknowledged in the text when appropriate, but footnotes and other academic conventions are not present.

Following multiple reviews and NACM/PDAC approval, early Guidelines drafts were sent to the entire membership of NACM and the Conference for State Court Administrators. Due to funding limitations, 200 or more selected reviewers rather than the entire NACM and COSCA membership reviewed later Guideline drafts following NACM/PDAC approval. Guidelines were then revised and submitted for publication in The Court Manager. The Guidelines published in this special issue were reviewed again and redrafted primarily by the Project Director with NACM/PDAC oversight.

Prime authors of the initial drafts were: Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts (Geoff Gallas); Caseflow Management (Geoff Gallas); Leadership (Geoff Gallas and Dan Straub); Visioning and Strategic Planning (John Martin and Brenda Wagenknecht Ivey); Essential Components (Alan Carlson); Court Community Communication (Tom Hodson and Geoff Gallas ); Resources, Budget, and Finance (John Hudzik); Human Resource Management (Terry Curry and Geoff Gallas); Education, Training, and Development (Jan Bouch and Geoff Gallas); and Information Technology Management (Larry Webster).

Besides past and current NACM/PDAC members, Content Specialist Group members and other key reviewers included: Alex Aikman, former Court Executive, and now Consultant, Redding, California; Legrome D. Davis, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, formerly Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Maureen Solomon, Court Consultant, Lakewood, Colorado; Holly Bakke, Court Consultant, Chatham, New Jersey; Tim Dibble, Vice President, Aequitas, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania; George Gish, formerly Court Administrator, Detroit Recorders Court, now Consultant, Southfield, Michigan; Ernest Friesen, formerly Administrative Director of the United States Courts and the first Executive Director of the Institute for Court Management, now Consultant, Silverthorne, Colorado; Caroline Cooper, American University, Washington, D. C.; William Dressel, formerly Judge, Fort Collins, Colorado, and now President, National Judicial College; Doug Somerlot, formerly Director, Family Justice Leadership Institute, Cook County Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois, and now Senior Staff at the Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado; Frank Sullivan, Justice, Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, Indiana; Dr. Carl Baar, Professor, York University and Consultant, Toronto, Canada; Christopher Crawford, formerly Municipal Court Administrator, Torrance, California, now President, Justice Served, Eureka, California; Robert Tobin, National Center for State Courts, Arlington, Virginia; Dale Lefever, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Steven Steadman, formerly the District Court Administrator, La Crosse, Wisconsin, and now a Senior Consultant with Policy Studies Inc; Kathy Mays, Deputy State Court Administrator, Virginia; Louis Hentzen, former District Court Administrator, Wichita, Kansas; Gordon Griller, Court Administrator, Phoenix, Arizona; John Greco, Municipal Court Administrator, Tempe, Arizona; and Clem Bezold, President, Alternative Futures, Alexandria, Virginia, among others.

[1] See John Hudzik, Background and Design of the NACM Court Management Education Project, Michigan State University JERITT Project, Lansing, Michigan. The Hudzik findings, while significantly refined and elaborated in the Guidelines, are the base for all but two of the Guidelines published here. The exceptions are Purposes and Responsibilities of the Courts and Education, Training, and Development, which were built from scratch.

[2] In late 2001, the funding source for the project shifted from SJI to the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

[3] At the close of this publication, there is a listing of the past and current NACM/PDAC members, as well as the individuals who were the prime authors of the 10Guidelines.