R al ph N . K le ps P as t R e ci p i e n ts 15, 10 , and 5 ye ars a go
In November 1961, when Ralph N. Kleps was appointed the first Administrative Director of the newly established Administrative Office of the Courts, he could not have envisioned the judicial branch of today—comprising more than 2,000 members of the judiciary and more than 20,000 trial court personnel serving approximately 37 million Californians online and in 451 court facilities statewide.
where are they now?
In 1991, the Ralph N. Kleps Award for Improvement in the Administration of the Courts was created in his honor to recognize the contributions made by individual courts to the administration of justice. Since that time, the Judicial Council has bestowed the award to over 160 programs ranging widely in size, scope, and subject area. Kleps Award recipients have illustrated the best of the best throughout the state, with programs that began at the local level; have shown imaginative, innovative solutions to pressing needs, often with few resources; and have employed creative ways to leverage existing funds or access new funding. These programs have also been implemented by other courts and have inspired a turn toward long-lasting, structural change in the California judicial branch. To honor the many, we provide the following glimpses of several recipients of the Kleps Award who have made valiant efforts during the past 15 years.
Fifteen Years Ago … 1992 The 1990s were a time of great structural, legislative, and cultural change in the courts. These changes culminated in the unification of the superior and municipal courts, reducing the number of courts from 202 to 58 by the end of the 20th century. The concept of unification can be traced back to the early 1940s, with several unsuccessful legislative attempts put forward through the subsequent decades. By the end of the 1980s, California—experiencing an increase in court caseloads coupled with a rapid fiscal decline—was ripe for reform. In 1991, the chair of the state’s Assembly Judiciary Committee, Phillip L. Isenberg, saw consolidation as a way to maximize cost savings and increase efficiency. He sponsored the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act, which required courts to look at innovative ways of coordinating and sharing resources. A precursor to unification, this legislation retained the dual superior and municipal court structure but required courts to focus on coordination, a combining of administration functions to “achieve maximum utilization of judicial and other court resources and statewide cost reductions in court operations.”
30
K l e p s awa rd rec i pi ents