For Judges (Problem-Solving Courts)
Check out an excerpt on Sentencing in the 21st Century by Judge Roger K. Warren, President Emeritus of the National Center for State Courts, from a presentation delivered at the Idaho Judicial Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, on October 6, 2008.
Reports and Guides
Problem-Solving Courts Drug Courts Mental Health Courts
Incarceration of the mentally ill and persons suffering from substance abuse addictions is not a viable solution, as people are not getting the treatment they need. Problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, mental health courts and re-entry courts offer a smarter, more effective alternative to incarceration.
-
Judicial Perspectives on Substance Abuse & Mental Health Diversionary Programs and Treatment – This collaborative project by the Task Force on Indigent Defense, the Office of Court Administration, and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition details key findings on a survey distributed to over 900 judges in regards to treatment and best practices for substance abuse offenders. (October 2008)
-
Judging Maryland: Baltimore Judges on Effective Solutions to Working with Substance Abusers in the Criminal Justice System - This report explores Baltimore’s continued reliance on incarceration despite significant state, local, and private investments in a treatment system that is considered a national model. The report’s findings are based on two focus group interviews with judges who sit on Baltimore’s Circuit and District Courts. (2008)
-
Don’t Reinvent the Wheel: Lessons from Problem-Solving Courts – This report talks about the different types of problem-solving courts, their similarities, and their differences. Though mental health courts differ from drug and re-entry courts, they all share three important principles: a belief that courts can and should play a role in trying to solve the problems that are fueling caseloads; a belief that outcomes – not just process and precedent – matter; and a recognition that the coercive power of courts can change people’s behavior. Read this report for a more thorough understanding on problem-solving courts. (2007)
-
Breaking With Tradition: Introducing Problem Solving in Conventional Courts – Although their influence is growing, problem-solving courts still impact only a portion of the millions of cases that pass through state court systems each year. As a result, some advocates have begun to explore other ways – apart from establishing more problem-solving courts – to apply the lessons learned since the first models emerged. Geared towards practitioners, this paper discusses why problem solving is desirable, which practices and principles appear to be easiest to transfer to conventional courtrooms, and strategies for changing the culture of a conventional courtroom gradually, maybe even one case at a time. (2007)
-
Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer - Find out how problem-solving courts reduced recidivism among drug-addicted offenders, reduced probation violation and dismissal rates in domestic violence cases, and improved public safety (and confidence in justice) in communities harmed by crime. (2001)
***
-
Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries – By the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), this paper discusses how thorough application of evidence-based principles to state sentencing practices, processes, and policies can restore much-needed balance to our current sentencing systems which do not effectively address the problem of crime. This paper also suggests that the courts have a key leadership role to play in implementing evidence-based practices, and that evidence-based practice promises to revitalize judges’ interest in sentencing just as it has rejuvenated the corrections profession. (2007)
-
Applying Problem-Solving Principles in Mainstream Courts: Lessons for State Courts – This article by Donald J. Farole, Jr., Nora Puffett, Michael Rempel, and Francine Byrne presents results of an exploratory study concerning the potential to apply specialized problem-solving court practices more broadly throughout conventional court and general calendar settings. (2005)
-
DIVERT Court Cost Benefit Analysis – This is a follow-up study of the DIVERT Court recidivism study entitled Presentation of Outcome Evaluation Findings DIVERT Advisory Board, which found a significant reduction in recidivism arising from participation in the DIVERT Court program. This study, by Dr. Thomas B. Fomby and Ms. Vasudha Rangaprasad, analyzes a cost-benefit ledger based on the event histories of the participants in the previous study. Review this report for details on the cost-benefit analysis of DIVERT Court treatment programs. (2002)
-
Planning and Implementing Drug Courts in Texas: A Resource Guide – This report by the Texas Association of Drug Court Professionals entails a very detailed look into drug courts, how they work, and how to run one effectively. The report is divided into sections that show a drug court’s ten key components, developing program operation, program structure, program services, and much more. (2005)
-
Action Research: Using Information to Improve Your Drug Court – This report by the CCI emphasizes the importance of research and analysis when it comes to running successful drug courts. A general outline for implementing a program of action research consists of the following:
1. Identify program goals
2. Identify program objectives
3. Develop plans to measure the objectives
4. Identify and develop plans to answer the other questions of interest
5. Review the findings
6. Take action
7. Feedback loops
Check out Action Research to see how the above steps can be implemented with drug courts. (2005)
-
Building Trust and Managing Risk: A Look at a Felony Mental Health Court - This article by CCI describes a felony mental health court and explores the decision to focus on felonies, including the planning team’s experiences with problem-solving courts and the effort to balance a fair court process with effective, but lengthy, treatment mandates. The author describes several ways by which the court and its partners manage potential public safety risks posed by felony offenders: thorough evaluations of offenders, individualized treatment plans, shared decision-making, candid communications between the court and its partners, and close judicial monitoring. The author also describes the ongoing program evaluation of the court and suggests areas for future research for felony mental health courts. (2005)
A Decade of Reform: Felony Disenfranchisement Policy in the United States
Through litigation and legislation, as well as the tireless work of many advocates, the has made great strides to extend the vote to an expanding proportion of its population. Despite these reforms, widely considered to be benchmarks by which we judge this nation’s pursuit of a “more perfect union,” there remain 5.3 million Americans prohibited from voting due to prior criminal behavior.