1
Strategies to Address the Challenges

• Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora
• Superior Court of California (Ret.)
• Madison, WI Oct. 2, 2007

2
Why Problem-Solving Courts?

• Large numbers of people incarcerated jail
  overcrowding
• Courts becoming plea-bargain mills
• Recycle of people with addictions, mental
  illness, status offenders driven by the
  intersection of social, human, legal problems

3
Whats a judge to do?

• Jail and prison population is 2.2 million as of
  1/11/07
• 5 of the worlds population 25 prisoners
• Cannot incarcerate our way out of these problems
• They walk out exactly the way they were on the
  day they walked in
• Life After Prison Can Be Deadly, a Study
• Finds, The New York Times, Jan. 11, 2007
• p. A23

4
Co-Occurring Disorders Center
5
(No Transcript)
6
A New Perspective

• The court system as
• an interdisciplinary
• problem-solving
• community institution

Dr. Alvan Barach, quoted by Bill Moyers in
Healing and the Mind, 1993
7
The smart question

• Can we enhance the likelihood of desired
  outcomes compliance with judicial orders by
  applying what we know about behavior to the way
  we do business in court?

8

• Can we reduce the anti-therapeutic consequences
• Enhance the therapeutic ones
• Without subordinating due process and other
  justice values?

Slobogin, Christopher, Therapeutic
Jurisprudence Five Dilemmas to Ponder, 1
Psychology Public Policy and the Law 193 (1995)
9
Problem-Solving Courts

• focus on the underlying chronic behaviors of
  criminal defendants and other court users
• recognize the public is looking to the courts to
  address complex social issues

10
Effective Judging for Busy Judges

• Natl Judicial College and the Bureau of Justice
  Assistance (2006)
• www.judges.org

11
Incentives and Sanctions

• Timely
• Consistent
• Certain
• Appropriate to hold litigant accountable, move
  litigant toward desired outcome, protect public

12
P-S Principles and Methods

1. Reduce recidivism in criminal cases
2. Save incarceration and other costs of social
   services, e.g., foster care
3. Have great public support
4. High participant satisfaction
5. High judicial satisfaction

13
Collaborative Judges

• Judges believe they can and should play a role in
  the problem-solving process
• Outcomes matter--court is not just based on a
  process and precedent

Adapted from Judge Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge,
New York
14
Types of Problem-Solving Courts
15
Problem Solving Courts in Wisconsin

• 11 adult drug courts
• 2 alcohol/OWI courts
• 1 juvenile court
• More than 23 teen and peer courts
• 1 domestic violence court

16
Collaborative Courts

• Recognize the therapeutic potential of the
  courts coercive powers
• Finds Judicial Leverage is an appropriate tool

17
Collaborative Courts

• Address complex social issues
• Understand that collaboration assists with
  continuum of care

18
Drug Treatment Courts

• DTCs emphasize alcohol and drug treatment
  services. The two goals of these programs are to
  reduce recidivism of drug-related offenses and to
  create options within the criminal justice system
  that tailor effective and appropriate responses
  for offenders with drug problems.

19
One size does not fit all

• Key Components DTCs, Intl, MH
• Local needs, community response, legal culture
• Structure may differ
• Criteria may differ
• Funding structures

20
(No Transcript)
21
Adult DTCs

• First drug court in Miami in 1989
• Oakland first drug court in CA in 1991
• Structure, accountability, responsibility,
  treatment and recovery
• http//www.nadcp.org

22
Retention rates

• 80-90 of conventional drug tx clients drop out
  before 12 months of tx
• DTCs exert legal pressure to remain in tx long
  enough to realize benefits
• gt66 tx clients who initiate through DTC stay a
  year or more, 6 xs the rate for programs outside
  justice system
• Drug Courts The Second Decade NIJ Special
  Report NIJ, OJP, USDOJ (June 2006)

23
Family Treatment Court

• May refer to unified family courts that
  consolidate all related family cases
• May include dependency, custody and visitation

24
Dependency Drug Court

• Focus on parents who lose custody due to alcohol
  and other drugs
• Higher reunification
• Reduced stays in foster care
• Less recidivism

25
Impaired Driving Courts (OWI)

• Screening and assessment of offenders to
  determine level of intervention or treatment
• Close supervision by the court
• May include other initiatives like Ignition
  Interlock, ankle bracelet monitoring, etc.
• Frequent testing
• License restrictions

26
(No Transcript)
27
Re-Entry Drug Court

• Facilitates the reintegration of drug-involved
  offenders into communities upon their release
  from custody.
• The offender is involved in regular judicial
  monitoring, intensive treatment, community
  supervision, and drug testing.
• Reentry drug court participants are provided with
  specialized ancillary services needed for
  success.

Tauber, J., Huddleston, C.W., Reentry Drug
Courts Closing the Gap, Monograph series 3.
Alexandria, VA National Drug Court Institute,
(1999)  
28
National OverviewDecember 2005

• 2,500 problem solving courts in the US
• 985 adult drug courts
• 386 juvenile drug courts
• 196 family drug courts
• 74 DUI courts
• 44 re-entry drug courts
• 65 Tribal Healing-to-Wellness courts
• 4 Federal District drug courts

29
National Overview, cont.

• 16 other re-entry courts
• 23 community courts
• 111 mental health courts
• 393 teen courts
• 141 domestic violence courts
• 2 campus drug courts
• 937 other problem-solving courts
• 1 Urban Native American drug court

Huddleston, C. West III, Hon. Karen
Freeman-Wilson, (Ret.) and Donna L. Boone, Ph.D.,
PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE A National Report
Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving
Court Programs in the United States, NDCI (May
2004)
30
International Overview

• Canada
• Jamaica
• Barbados
• Macedonia
• Tobago
• Chile
• Scotland
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Ireland
• England
• Bermuda
• Brazil
• Norway
• Italy
• Pakistan
• Israel
• Cayman Islands

31
Collaborative Change
32
New Role for Judges

• Problem-solving courts are those in which judges
  participate in resolving the underlying problems
  that led defendants to appear in court
• Judges are more proactive

33
Judicial Issues

• Increased time in the docket?
• Selling the idea to the administration
• Lack of training about AOD, DV and mental health
  treatment of all players
• Legal and ethical concerns

34
Judicial Issues

• Remaining objective impartial
• Ensuring confidentiality, privacy, dignity
• Crafting appropriate rewards and sanctions

35
Trumping

• Legal rights such as due process and equal
  protection are never trumped by therapeutic
  concerns even though the courts action may be
  anti-therapeutic

36
I am not a social worker

• Jane Addams, founder of Hull House, the
  consummate social worker.

37
Arguments Against

• Working therapeutically cheapens the judicial
  office, placing the judge at the level of a
  ringmaster in a judicial circus.
• Bean, Philip, Drug Courts, the Judge, and the
  Rehabilitative Ideal, DRUG COURTS in Theory and
  in Practice, James L. Nolan, Jr., Ed., Aldine de
  Gruyter (2002)

38
CCJ/COSCA

• 500 Chief Justices voted to support
  Problem-Solving Courts
• Will develop Best Practices
• Recognizes collaboration and interdisciplinary
  training
• Resolution 22, adopted 8-3-2000
• Reaffirmed, July 29, 2004
• Support for MH Courts, Feb. 21,
  2006

39
Judges' Criminal Justice/Mental Health Leadership
Initiative

• JLI is coordinated by the Council of State
  Governments (CSG) Criminal Justice/Mental Health
  Consensus Project and the GAINS/TAPA Center for
  Jail Diversion
• CCJ committed to join

Jan. 18, 2006. 500
40
CCJ Resolution

• Urged state supreme court chief justices to "take
  a leadership role to address the impact of mental
  illness on the court system through a
  collaborative effort involving stakeholders from
  all three branches of government.
• JLI is coordinated by the Council of State
  Governments (CSG) Criminal Justice/Mental Health
  Consensus Project and the GAINS/TAPA Center for
  Jail Diversion.

41
Lord Coke, Chief Justice Kings Bench, England,
1600s

• A court must never engage in a vain act, lest
  the courts become laughingstocks.

42
WinWin

• Supported by both sides of the aisle
• Federal and International support
• Saves money
• Reduces recidivism
• Improves life of the individual, the family and
  the community
• AND IT WORKS!