News

Many people involved with the justice system have experienced trauma. Studies estimate up to 75% of adults — and as many as 90% of children — in legal proceedings have gone through an adverse event that could have long-lasting negative impacts on their emotional health and coping mechanisms. 

With this awareness, some courts have begun to implement trauma-informed (TI) practices to try to help address the root causes of negative behaviors and prevent recidivism. As the ultimate authority over a courtroom, judges have tremendous influence over whether and how to adopt a TI approach, says Amelia Thorn, assistant director at Duke Law’s Bolch Judicial Institute, who oversees its judicial training on TI. 

“Judges are leaders both in the courtroom and in the broader courthouse,” Thorn said. “They influence things like how the courthouse runs, when parties are scheduled to come in, the order in which things are done, who interacts with the litigants, and how.”

In a recent study, Thorn and a team of researchers surveyed 91 North Carolina district court judges on their attitudes toward trauma-informed courts and their experiences in adopting TI practices in their own courtrooms. They included practices involving communication and demeanor, such as using clear and simple language, practicing active listening, and asking questions to clarify issues; courtroom policies and procedures, such as allowing online appearances by parties and arranging courtroom and waiting areas so victims do not have to sit near alleged abusers; and outcomes and decisions, such as ordering treatment options in place of punishment and connecting parties with case managers or social services.

They found that judges working in juvenile courts were more likely than judges in adult courts to have a favorable view of a TI approach and were more likely to have engaged with trauma education.

“Is it because the juvenile court system, in particular, permits judges to be a little bit more flexible?” Thorn asks. “Or does just being on the bench in juvenile court over time change your view about the importance of the child-parent relationship or family trauma?” 

The study found that the most widely adopted TI practices related to judges’ communication and demeanor, matters under their direct control. Approaches that involved updating system-wide court processes and procedures, such as ensuring clear and multilingual signage at the courthouse, were less common.

“Judges seem much more comfortable engaging in trauma-informed practices that relate to communication from the bench,” Thorn said. 

However, Thorn says because judges command deference at the courthouse, they can also influence procedures outside their courtroom, such as how bailiffs and clerks engage with litigants and the approach of security guards. 

“Judges are in a good position to tell people who work in those kinds of roles, ‘Hey, we're trying to achieve a trauma-informed environment here, and you're the first court actors that anyone encounters." Thorn said. “’Let's talk about how you do your job and how you greet people, and what it is like to go through security.’”

The survey of judges inspired other studies of judges, including a large-scale observational study in which the Bolch team examined the presence of over 60 TI practices across 201 juvenile court hearings overseen by 16 judges. The team also explored children’s perceptions of those same judges who presided over their juvenile cases. 

Thorn’s research complements her work training judges for the Bolch Judicial Institute. It offers a judicial incubator program in which a small group of six to eight judges meet monthly. The judges agree to try out a new trauma-informed practice at work, then debrief after. One month, the judges agreed to try coming down from the bench to meet more directly with the parties involved.

“Understandably, that can be uncomfortable for a lot of judges,” Thorn said. “Much of the discussion at the meeting was about how to get more comfortable with it.” 

One judge shared that after coming down from her bench during a parental rights hearing, a child whose custody was under discussion actually came and sat in her lap. The child and her parents felt so much more comfortable that it made the discussion go far more smoothly. 

Thorn relayed that the judge shared that it was “something she wouldn't have tried if she had not been encouraged to do it through this program, and more importantly, by her fellow judges.”

Thorn says those real-life stories and her research create a positive feedback loop. Knowing, for example, that judges are already comfortable with communication-oriented TI practices, she can guide them towards other more procedural changes they can make to their courtrooms such as considering wait times or recognizing some people may feel vulnerable with certain aspects of court, like being in the presence of guns, waiting in noisy halls, or being asked to rise in front of the judge with their backs to others. 

“It's invaluable to be able to say to a judge, ‘Look, I observed in this other judge's courtroom where they tried this practice, and it really seemed to work.’”