By Kevin J. Bowling
and Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey
Editor's note: This article is very long and very in-depth. Note the helpful steps to developing your own plan near the end of the article.
In 2004 the 20th Circuit Court and the Ottawa County Probate
Court embarked on a strategic planning process, culminating in the first joint,
long-range strategic plan for the two courts. The plan set forth strategic priorities and
comprehensive strategies for addressing important, long-term issues such as
resources, access to the courts, efficient and effective operations and
services, collaboration with partners, and organizational structure and
employee interests.
The purpose of this article is to share with other courts
the strategic planning experiences of these two courts, including a description
of the planning and implementation processes they used, benefits realized, and
lessons learned. We hope the relevant
history of these trial courts will inspire and help other courts to pursue and
successfully use long-range strategic planning in their efforts to improve the
courts and ultimately to improve the administration of justice.
Overview of Ottawa
County
To put this experience in context, it will first be helpful
to understand Ottawa
County. Until recent years,
this western Michigan county was viewed as a rural, agricultural area and
summer tourist destination. Several
years ago, the county population began a rapid growth spurt, at an 8.56 percent
increase in population today since the 2010 census, bringing Ottawa County to a
population of 286,383 within 565 square miles. The county is comprised of six cities, one
village, and 17 townships. There are 11
county commissioners and six elected county officials.
Local Court
Environment
Although part of Michigan’s “One Court of Justice” (Michigan
Constitution, Article VI), trial courts in Michigan are largely funded at the
local level. Judicial salaries are the
notable exception; they are paid through a state appropriation to the Michigan Supreme
Court. The Michigan trial courts include
the general jurisdiction circuit court, and the probate and district courts,
both with limited jurisdiction.
The 20th Circuit Court has four elected judges and 155
staff, and the probate court has one elected judge and five staff. Locally, the 20th Circuit Court functions
within three primary divisions:
- Trial Division - including appeals, civil, criminal, and domestic relations without children;
- Family Division; Friend of the Court - including domestic relations with children (primarily Title IV-D/child support enforcement);
- Family Division; Juvenile Court – including delinquency, child welfare, juvenile detention, education, treatment, and casework services.
These divisions are further identified on the organizational
chart in the strategic
plan.
For many years, these circuit court divisions, as well as
the probate court, operated as totally autonomous units. One desired outcome of the strategic planning
process was to break down the “silos” between these divisions and improve communication
and collaboration among court divisions and between courts.
Within this general environment, a decision was made in 2003
(prompted by a change in court administration) to embark on a long-range
strategic planning process for the two courts. The newly hired court administrator, with
approval of the chief judges of the two courts, outlined a plan to build on the
juvenile court planning process, expand the effort court wide, and include both
circuit and probate courts.
The court’s leadership team (the court administrator and senior
administrators from each division) decided to hire a strategic planning
consultant to assist. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey, PhD, President of Praxis
Consulting, Inc. in Denver, CO, was selected, given her expertise in strategic
planning, her experience working with courts nationally and internationally,
and her direct knowledge of the Michigan court system from prior work,
including assisting the Michigan Supreme Court in the development of its
strategic plan.
The courts successfully applied to the State Justice
Institute (SJI) for initial funding to begin a comprehensive strategic planning
effort in 2004, building on the strategic planning approach designed for courts
in the early 1990s per an SJI grant, as well as the Visioning and Strategic
Planning Core Competency published by the National Association for Court
Management (NACM). NACM recently revised
its core competencies and
the updated strategic planning curriculum. In addition to SJI funding, the courts
received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Criminal Courts
Technical Assistance Project through American University to partially support
its ongoing implementation efforts.
Developing the
Long-Range Strategic Plan
There were three phases to the courts’ initial strategic
planning process. Phase 1 focused on
forming a strategic planning task force and establishing a meeting schedule. Phase 2 included gathering information from
justice system partners, community leaders, other local stakeholders, and court
staff. Finally, the content of the strategic plan was developed by the task
force through a series of facilitated meetings in Phase 3. Each phase is described below; additional
details and a timeline are included in the Gantt chart at the end of this
article.
Phase 1: Forming the Task
Force and Designing a Process and Schedule
One of the first tasks of the process was to establish a
strategic planning task force. The task
force was created by special invitation of the chief judges of the circuit and
probate courts and care was taken to insure the task force included people from
all areas of the courts, including judges, administrators, mid-level
supervisors, professional staff, support
staff, unclassified staff, and union officials. The task force was comprised of 20 individuals
charged with working together to develop a long-range strategic plan for the
circuit and probate courts.
This phase also included:
- finalizing a project schedule to include task force meeting dates; and
- preparing for the focus group meetings of external justice system partners, community leaders, other local stakeholders, and court staff. Developing a meeting schedule up front for the entire strategic planning process was instrumental in enabling task force members to attend all task force meetings.
Phase 2: Gathering Input
from Stakeholders
Phase 2 of the process included conducting six focus group
sessions of external stakeholders and court staff during which we gathered
information and views from attendees to inform and ultimately assist the task
force with developing a strategic plan for the courts. Examples of the information gathered included:
participants’ expectations of the courts, local or regional trends impacting
the courts, and big issues the courts must address in the years ahead. These focus group sessions ensured the views
and ideas of external stakeholders and court staff were included in the
strategic planning process.
Phase 3: Developing
the Strategic Plan
This phase, which included a series of facilitated task
force meetings, focused on developing the content of the courts’ strategic
plan. Specifically, the task force
developed mission and vision statements, completed a trends analysis and
organizational assessment, and identified strategic issues, long-range goals,
strategies, and strategic projects for the courts to pursue. Each task force meeting was a working session
that walked through comprehensive strategic planning and had a variety of large
and small group sessions that were extremely effective in engaging members,
encouraging creativity, and building consensus among task force members.
For example, at one facilitated meeting, task force members:
- reviewed social, demographic, and other trends impacting the courts
- assessed the implications of these trends for the courts;
- constructed several plausible future scenarios given the interactions of the various trends; and
- began to develop proactive and responsive strategies to address the likely future implications. Engaging in a comprehensive trends analysis helped the courts anticipate some of the likely future pressures and demands they will face and develop effective long-term responses and strategies.
The task force completed its charge by the end of 2004, thus
completing the courts’ first, joint 2005-2007 Strategic Plan. The strategic plan includes:
- the mission and vision statements of the courts;
- the courts’ long-range strategic issue areas (e.g., resources, access to courts, efficient and effective operations and service, collaboration with partners, and organizational structure and employee interests); and
- long-range goals, objectives, and strategic, shorter-term projects in each of the strategic areas. Summaries of stakeholder assessments, trend analysis, focus group summaries, etc. also are contained in the appendices of the first strategic plan. Since the initial plan was developed, it has been updated in three-year cycles. See the current version of the plan.
Implementing the
Strategic Plan
The courts committed substantial time and resources to
developing the strategic plan and the courts’ leadership team and task force
members were equally insistent that it would be a useful roadmap to the future.
To that end, building on lessons learned
from other organizational experiences and based on the existing court culture,
the courts took deliberate steps to ensure the strategic plan was implemented
and followed.
First, the strategic plan included a list of specific,
strategic initiatives/projects to focus on during the first year. Naming strategic initiatives/projects helps to
identify concrete things an organization can complete, moving it in a desired
future direction.
Second, the courts conducted an “all staff” meeting to
communicate the importance and substance of the plan. The assembly was received favorably by the
staff and judges; consequently, it has been repeated annually as a method of
communicating the status of strategic planning projects, celebrating successes,
recognizing court staff, and maintaining focus and momentum on the courts’
strategic priorities.
Third, the courts formed five strategic issue
implementation/action teams, which were organized around five strategic issue
areas. These strategic issue areas have
since been modified to meet the evolving needs of the courts.
- Team 1 Resources
- Team 2 Access to Courts
- Team 3 Efficient (Timely) & Effective Operations and Service
- Team 4 Collaboration with Partners
- Team 5 Organizational Structure & Employee Interests
In 2005, court staff volunteered to be on the various
implementation/action teams. As needed,
a few team members were recruited, especially where specific expertise was important
to the success of the teams. In
subsequent years, many of the original team members have chosen to remain on
their respective teams, some new volunteers have been added, and a few team
members have rotated to other teams.
The implementation teams have been an effective way to build
enthusiasm for, and generate momentum and follow-through on, the courts’
strategic projects. The courts have
realized secondary benefits from using cross-functional implementation teams,
including increased court-wide collaboration and communication and enhanced
knowledge of both courts.
Examples of strategic projects the implementation teams have
worked on or completed include:
- Conducting court user satisfaction surveys
- Developing a technology master plan
- Enhancing employee training
- Creating a problem-solving court
- Improving public service by creating and maintaining a Legal Self-Help Center
- Establishing new bench/bar training activities
Fourth,
a kick-off meeting with the co-team leaders and all members of the
implementation/action teams was conducted in January 2005. The purpose of that meeting was to help orient
team leaders and members to the task at hand and ensure that the teams got off
to a fast and productive start. In
particular, goals of the meeting included conveying the charge and expectations
of the teams, helping the teams get organized by completing a team charter,
providing teams with information about the development of the strategic plan
and on becoming a high-performance team, and providing teams with time to begin
working on an action plan for their specific projects. Each year the courts have repeated an
organizational meeting with the implementation teams, although in recent years
it has been less extensive than the first year.
Fifth, the courts established a Strategic Planning Oversight
Team (SPOT). At the request of members
of the task force, they transitioned to become the new SPOT, demonstrating
their commitment to following through on the strategic plan. The SPOT meets three times per year to discuss
progress of the five implementation/action teams; to review the status of
strategic projects; to build support and enthusiasm for strategic projects; to
maintain focus on goals, objectives, and priority projects; and to acknowledge
and celebrate accomplishments. SPOT and
the five teams have continued their work since 2005, making great strides on a
variety of court strategic projects.
Sixth, the leadership of the courts continues to remain
focused on strategic plan progress. For
example, the senior leadership team, comprised of the court administrator and
division directors from the two courts, has added a standing agenda item at its
biweekly meetings. At each meeting, these
leaders discuss the status of strategic planning activities. Further, the court administrator meets
regularly with the chief judges of the two courts — and the other judges as
appropriate — to discuss the progress and status of strategic planning
initiatives. Also, the division
directors discuss strategic planning activities at their staff meetings. Initially, the leadership team reviewed and
approved specific action plans from each of the five implementation teams to
insure they were on the right track and had adequate resources to proceed.
Finally, the courts have continued to communicate about
strategic planning activities through their newsletter and annual report.
Institutionalizing
Strategic Thinking and Strategic Leadership
The NACM core competency emphasizes the importance of
institutionalizing strategic thinking and strategic leadership, moving beyond
the mere development of a strategic plan. Additionally, it stresses the need to
differentiate among operational thinking, strategic planning, strategic
thinking, and strategic leadership. Specifically,
many court leaders are focused on the operational requirements of running
courts daily, leaving little time for reflection or to anticipate issues that
affect the courts’ capacity to deliver services over the long-term. According to the NACM core competency
materials, strategic thinking enables leaders to anticipate, promote, and
sustain change.
In Ottawa County, the shift to strategic thinking and
strategic leadership has been a difficult process and has not yet been fully
achieved, although we have made progress. Some of the steps taken include:
- periodic judicial briefings so the judges are aware of and can provide support for strategic activities and projects;
- a permanent change in the leadership team biweekly agenda, which now includes a regular update on strategic planning initiatives; and
- development of a communication plan to insure regular updates about project status to all staff and improved efforts to communicate among implementation teams to avoid duplicating efforts or working at cross-purposes on similar strategic projects.
The courts’ leadership team continues to strive for a
balance between tending to operational matters while remaining focused on the
courts’ long-term, strategic direction and priorities.
Benefits Gained from
the Strategic Planning and Implementation Processes
The processes described above have yielded significant
benefits for the two courts. Below is a
summary of a few of the benefits realized to date. The strategic planning and implementation
processes have:
- Fostered long-term and court wide thinking and planning.
- Enhanced court wide communication and collaboration.
- Involved and engaged many managers and staff in ongoing improvements efforts, accomplishing many strategic projects that have improved services to the public.
- Provided the courts’ judicial and administrative leadership with a strategic road map outlining priorities, which provides focus and assists in making management, operational, and funding decisions.
- Provided the courts with a tool to communicate its priorities and resource needs to funding sources, stakeholders, and partners.
- Increased the accountability of the courts by using the strategic plan as a tool to assess progress and accomplishments.
- Demonstrated how the strategic planning process can achieve desired goals and be reasonably blended within existing caseloads and court workloads.
Lessons Learned
Lessons learned from the courts’ strategic planning
experiences are listed below to assist other courts succeed in developing and
implementing a strategic plan and successfully transitioning to strategic
thinking and strategic leadership.
Forming the Task Force
and Designing a Process and Schedule (Phase 1)
- Begin with an organizational assessment. Insure there is commitment from the bench prior to announcing the start of a strategic planning effort. Ongoing judicial support is key to any strategic planning and implementation process.
- Develop a meeting schedule at the beginning of the process and stick to it. Doing so allows task force members to plan ahead and helps to assure high attendance at strategic planning meetings.
- Carefully select task force members. That is, select a diverse group of people from all areas and levels of the court who are formal and informal leaders within the organization. Also, select people with the right mix of knowledge, skills, and abilities, including those who are willing and able to: (1) see the “big picture,” and think long-term and for the good of the entire court (rather than their respective division/area); (2) share diverse views while collaborating with and listening effectively to others; (3) commit to attend and participate actively at the meetings; and (4) actively support the process among their peers.
- Carefully select an external consultant, if possible. If you have the benefit of using an external consultant, ensure he/she understands the court environment and designs a strategic planning process to meet your court’s unique needs. Also, ensure he/she has the requisite knowledge and experience to facilitate an engaging process while assisting and teaching task force members the steps of strategic planning and how to develop the content of the strategic plan.
Gathering Input from Stakeholders
(Phase 2)
- Determine what information you want to gather from stakeholders to help inform the strategic planning process before you identify stakeholder groups and/or participants. Defining the purpose of your data gathering efforts and determining the type of information you want to gather will help you identify the appropriate stakeholder groups and specific participants.
- Inform stakeholder participants regarding how their input will be used in the formulation of a strategic plan. For example, advise them their ideas and input will be summarized and shared with the strategic planning task force. The task force will consider and use their ideas/input as it deems appropriate in the development of the strategic plan.
- Assure focus group participants their ideas/input will be anonymous. Specifically, assure them there will not be any individual attributions in the written summary. Be cautious in writing the summary so as to adhere to this promise of anonymity.
- Use an external consultant to facilitate the focus group sessions, if possible. An external person is more likely to be viewed as a neutral, impartial information gatherer.
Developing the Strategic
Plan (Phase 3)
- Establish operating agreements at the onset of a strategic planning process that will foster healthy group norms among members of the task force. For example, promote open communication, equal and active participation of all members, productive resolution of differences, and working toward consensus.
- Avoid drafting sensitive statements or lengthy documents in a large committee setting. When it is time to wordsmith a final mission statement, vision statement, strategic plan, etc., it is more efficient to gather the necessary input from the task force and assign the task to a small working group/subcommittee with good writing skills.
- Continually show task force members where they are in the strategic planning process and how the various steps are contributing to the development of the strategic plan. It is important to show continual progress to avoid frustration or loss of momentum.
- Care for, nurture, and develop members of the task force throughout the process. Recognize the additional work they have undertaken, value their contributions and participation, support them along the way, and teach them the steps of strategic planning so they can continue the efforts in the future. Doing so yields great benefits, including improved satisfaction and overall morale, improved trust and relationships among members, greater creativity and risk taking, a feeling of hope and purpose, and enthusiasm for participating in implementation efforts.
- Celebrate the completion of the strategic plan. Thank and recognize task force members for their hard work and contributions to this important activity.
Implementing the Strategic
Plan
- Establish reasonable timelines and workloads for completing the strategic projects. Specifically, if a strategic planning task force identifies many projects to work on during the life of a plan, it helps staff morale to establish a reasonable timeline so staff do not feel they have to accomplish all projects immediately in addition to the regular court workload.
- Develop a standard protocol for allowing staff to request to be on or opt off an implementation team. It is helpful to have a standard protocol that allows staff a gracious way to opt on or off implementation teams in the event they find there is a project they really want to work on or if they discover they cannot handle the extra workload in addition to their regular job.
- Use a court newsletter or some other means of regular communication with staff to: (1) inform staff of strategic planning updates and progress; (2) recognize the efforts of staff as they achieve project milestones; and (3) maintain enthusiasm for strategic planning in general.
- Encourage and thank the staff who are not involved with strategic planning implementation teams, but who keep the court offices running while other staff are gone, attending strategic planning meetings, and doing strategic project work.
- If possible, use the assistance of a trained, strategic planning consultant to help keep implementation efforts on track and to serve as advisor to the court’s leadership and implementation teams as needed.
Kevin Bowling, JD, MSJA, is court administrator for the 20th Judicial Circuit and Ottawa County Probate Courts. He is Past President of the National Association for Court Management, co-chair of the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee, and chairman of the DOJ/BJA Global Advisory Committee.
