In March 2022, a collaboration contract was signed between the Italian School for the Judiciary (SSM) and the Bologna branch of the Institute of Legal Informatics and Judicial Systems (IGSG-BO) of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR) for the collection, data processing and statistical analysis of the medium- to long-term evaluations of the initial training courses and permanent training courses organised by the School itself.
In agreement with the School, two main activities were carried out: 1) the preparation and subsequent statistical processing of the data obtained through the online administration of a questionnaire for the mid- and long-term evaluation of the School’s training activities carried out within the framework of the courses for ordinary magistrates on traineeship (MOT), 2) the preparation and implementation of three focus groups for the mid-term evaluation of some permanent training courses identified by the School itself.
The objectives of the activity carried out were mainly two: a) verifying whether the methods used allow for an effective ex-post evaluation of the courses according to the Kirkpatrick methodology (levels 2 and 3) chosen by the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) to evaluate the training activities carried out by the European Judicial Training Schools;4 b) collecting useful information to improve the School’s training offer some time after participation in the courses.
The methodology developed by Kirkpatrick comprises four levels of evaluation. Level 1 concerns the immediate evaluation of the course and the lecturers (so-called ‘reaction’, react). The School, as is known, already carries out this evaluation through the completion of a questionnaire by the participants at the end of each course. Level 2 of the evaluation aims to measure whether the course enabled the acquisition of new competences, competences or attitudes (so-called ‘learning’). The instruments suggested by the Kirkpatrick methodology to evaluate this type of learning are the questionnaire, self or group evaluation, focus groups, and individual interviews, evaluation by a superior, observation of activities before and after the course. Level 3 would like to measure whether and what kind of change took place in the workplace after the course (so-called ‘change’). In this case, the evaluation instruments are similar to those of the previous level to which discussion and evaluation among colleagues (peer review or intervision) are added.5 Level 4 has the ambition to measure what the overall results were after the training activity (‘results’). The applicable instruments are again the questionnaire, evaluation among colleagues, action plans, evaluation by external or internal experts, and a user satisfaction questionnaire.
Bearing in mind the objectives, resources and timeframe of the research activity, it was decided together with the School to proceed with an online questionnaire for the ex-post evaluation of the initial training courses for trainee ordinary magistrates, whereas the focus group method was preferred for the evaluation of the permanent training courses.
The choice of the questionnaire seemed most appropriate for the evaluation of initial training courses because they are rather standardised courses, with training proposals that have been quite similar over the years, aimed at new magistrates and therefore at rather large groups with homogeneous characteristics. For these reasons, the questionnaire seemed to be the most suitable tool for the ex-post evaluation of initial training. The analysis of the data collected with the questionnaire was then the basis for a subsequent specific focus group with some MOTs, an activity that further enriched the indications provided by the questionnaire.
For the ex-post evaluation of permanent training courses, the focus group instrument was preferred due to the heterogeneity of the courses and participants. The courses usually see the participation of magistrates with a variety of experiences, with a significant number of participants but in any case, lower than those of the MOTs (never more than one hundred per course), and above all a variety which, in order to attempt to be evaluated, requires calibrating the collection of information on the individual course with a more qualitative and, to some extent, in-depth analysis.
This final report consists of three parts. An initial part summarises the main results of the activities carried out, also dwelling on the methodological aspects aimed at verifying the usefulness and feasibility of the Kirkpatrick method suggested by the EJTN. The second part is the research report on the data analysis of the ex-post evaluation questionnaire of initial training. The third part collects the information gained from the focus groups for the evaluation of continuing training courses.

Download “Research report – The medium- to long-term evaluation of the initial and continuous training courses organised by the Italian School for the Judiciary”

On 6 October 2021,the President of the SSM Giorgio Lattanzi and the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia signed the Memorandum of cooperation between the Academy of Justice of the Republic of Armenia and the School for the Judiciary of the Italian Republic.

The agreement comes at the end of a process that began in 2019 with the visit of the Italian School to the Academy of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, an institution that takes care of the initial and permanent training of Armenian judges and prosecutors, which was followed by a visit to Italy of representatives of the latter institution.

The meeting brought out a lively interest in starting a relationship of collaboration and exchange of experiences between the two institutions through a Memorandum of cooperation that fits into the broader context of relations between the two States in the justice sector.

The agreement intends to develop cooperation in the field of judicial training.

Possible areas of collaboration include the development of joint training and research programmes, the organization of joint events and exchange visits, the invitation of speakers and teachers, cooperation in the preparation and publication of texts and scientific material.

The SSM receives the Palestinian Judicial Institute
Today the President of the School for the Judiciary Giorgio Lattanzi, has received a delegation from the Palestine Judicial Training Institute (PJI), led by the Director, Judge Belal Abuhantash.
At the center of the two-day visit – carried out in collaboration with EUPOL COPPS, the European Union police and rule of law mission for the Palestinian territory – the role and structure of the Italian School and a workshop dedicated to training methodologies for trainers.
Participants at the meeting: for the SSM, the Secretary General Federica Tondin and the member of the Steering Committee, responsible for the international sector, Gianluca Grasso; for PJI, Naila Younis, Director General of Training, Mohammed Dwikat, Director of Initial and Continuing Training, Nisreen Barghouthi, Director of Information Resources for Training, Eman Shuaibi, Training Coordinator; for EUPOL COPPS, Husam Sarandah, Rule of Law Legal Officer, and Annita Sorti, EUPOL COPPS Justice Expert.

• Plan

The President of the School for the Judiciary Giorgio Lattanzi, together with the Secretary General Federica Tondin, and the head of the international sector of the Steering Committee Gianluca Grasso, received this morning, at the Rome office, a delegation from the National Institute of Justice (INJ) of the Republic of Moldova, composed of the Director, Ecaterina Popa, and the head of the International Relations sector, Olga Musteața.

During the meeting, President Lattanzi and Director Popa, recognizing the importance of establishing long-term relationships in order to increase the efficiency of the judicial training process and facilitate the exchange of best practices, signed a Memorandum of agreement aimed at developing cooperation in the field of judicial training.

With the Memorandum, the two institutions undertake to carry out the promotion of high quality training for judges, for candidates for the position of judge and for judicial staff; the organization of joint events (forums, conferences, seminars, etc.) for the judiciary and for those responsible for scientific research and training activities, using study visits, conferences, joint workshops and seminars, exchange of documents, results of scientific research and publications in the field of law and judicial training.