Several years ago, I participated in a courthouse planning session with another firm. The project lead was highly skilled—thorough in her research, adept at gathering data, and polished in presenting to large groups. These qualities are all essential to courthouse planning.
She had gathered demographic and economic data, analyzed court caseloads, projected future workloads, and translated those projections into future staffing needs. She then distilled her findings into a clear, well-organized PowerPoint presentation.
But when it came time to meet with the court, she simply presented the data and informed the court stakeholders how the trends would affect them. Her conclusions were valid—but the approach missed the mark.
Courthouse planning is not a lecture series. The secret sauce is dialogue—an exchange of perspectives between planners and those who will actually work in the facility. That dialogue accomplishes two essential things: it draws out valuable insight from stakeholders and unites them around a shared vision for the future facility.
When I began planning courts over 30 years ago, stakeholder engagement meant traveling to the courthouse, sitting down with staff, and walking the existing facility together. Today, videoconference tools like Zoom and Teams have made remote engagement more common. They save time and money, but they can’t replace the value of that first in-person meeting.
That initial face-to-face conversation allows planners to:
Unfortunately, in recent years—especially post-pandemic—many courthouse funders have limited stakeholder engagement, fearing judges or staff will create an inflated “wish list” of spaces. But no court planner worth their salt simply accepts wish lists at face value. The role of the planner is to validate needs against data, trends, and established standards—and that’s only possible through meaningful dialogue.
A courthouse project typically involves many stakeholders—judges, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, and security staff, to name a few. Collectively, these groups form the “courthouse planning team.”
Data on trends and staffing is the starting point, but it’s not the final word. The most effective approach is to present the data to the team and invite them to react, reflect, and explore how these trends will shape their operations.
Group discussions are especially powerful because:
After the group session, follow-up individual meetings allow for deeper discussion, detailed needs assessments, and tours of existing space. Together, these two formats—group and one-on-one—form the most effective way to plan a courthouse.
Perhaps the greatest outcome of sustained dialogue is the alignment of stakeholders around a shared vision for the project. That alignment:
When stakeholders have participated in meaningful conversations about trends, space needs, and operational priorities, the resulting plan reflects a broad base of support. This shared understanding not only strengthens the justification for the project but also minimizes costly changes later.
The benefits of dialogue extend far beyond the planning phase. When challenges arise during design or construction—as they inevitably do—stakeholders who have already built trust and reached consensus during the planning phase can resolve issues faster, avoid rework, and keep the project on schedule.
Dialogue also helps maintain flexibility. Courts evolve with changing caseloads, laws, and technology. A planning process rooted in open communication prepares stakeholders to adapt together when those changes come.
Courthouse planning is as much about people as it is about space. Data, forecasts, and design standards are critical tools—but without dialogue, they lack context. The conversations between planners and stakeholders not only uncover operational realities but also create the shared vision that will guide the project through years of design and construction.
In short: we don’t make a plan for the court—we make it with the court. And that makes all the difference.