|
|
|
Spreading
the Word: California's Collaborative Justice
Curriculum
Chuck
Campbell and Pam
Casey
Collaborative justice
(that is, problem-solving courts) has been a part of the
California justice system for more than 15 years, and it
covers quite a bit of territory, including community,
drug, DUI, domestic violence, homeless, mental health,
and teen courts. Currently, there are more than
250 collaborative justice courts in California.
Noting the success of these courts, the California
Judicial Council's Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory
Committee explored avenues to expand the use of
problem-solving court principles by more judges across
more cases, a goal also articulated in the Conference of
Chief Justices' and the Conference of State Court
Administrators' resolutions in support of
problem-solving courts. One avenue the committee settled
on was the development of a curriculum to help judges
apply collaborative justice principles outside of the
specialized court-that is, in conventional courts.
This posed a challenge, said Nancy Taylor of the
California Administrative Office of the Courts and
primary staff to the Collaborative Justice Committee,
because "no curriculum crossed over the whole
landscape" of collaborative courts. "We
needed a whole new body of work," said Taylor.
Recognizing the potential national significance of such
a curriculum, Taylor requested funding from the State
Justice Institute to develop a curriculum that could be
adapted for other states as well. She and Senior
Attorney Bonnie Pollard, of California's Center for
Judicial Education (CJER), established a curriculum
design work group that included representatives from
national organizations working in the problem-solving
court area as well as representatives from California's
Collaborative Justice Courts Committee. Across a
nine-month period, Curriculum Consultant Kathleen Sikora
worked closely with the work group to create a highly
interactive educational program that includes case
studies, role plays, and opportunities to discuss the
practical application of problem-solving court
principles in specific courtroom situations.
"Making a Difference by Incorporating Collaborative
Court Principles" was piloted in September and was
well-received. "[The participants] were more
positive than we expected," said Taylor. The
judges were very interested and engaged in seeing how
collaborative justice techniques could fit into their
calendars. Former collaborative court judges who
had been reassigned were already applying collaborative
techniques in their current assignments and were looking
for new ways to do so, and newer judges also were
enthusiastic.
Plans call for adapting the curriculum for a variety of
uses, such as a one-day course for presiding judges and
court administrators, a half-day course for regional
use, and a special course for California's Rural Judges
Institute. CJER also plans to adapt the curriculum
for the state Judicial College and to develop
specialized symposia (for example, on family courts) for
presentation at the local level. A faculty guide
(including a DVD), participant materials, and a resource
workbook (with information on different types of courts)
will be available in early 2006 and will serve as a
template for other states interested in crafting similar
programs for their judges.
Asked about the future of collaborative justice in
California, Taylor said the committee will continue to
explore the broad application of problem-solving court
principles, as well as the effectiveness of intensive,
specialized collaborative justice courts. This
inevitably will involve more research to determine which
cases benefit the most and how judicial knowledge and
attitudes affect successful application of the
principles. She noted that there is still a strong need
for more information regarding what works best with
which clients. Finally, she anticipates cost-benefit
studies will be sought for collaborative justice courts
focusing on a variety of issues in addition to substance
abuse, where much study has been done.
For more information about California's collaborative
courts curriculum, contact Nancy
Taylor at 415-865-7607 or Bonnie
Pollard at 415-865-7821.
Court Managers Discuss Role in
Problem-Solving Courts
Pam Casey
Gray Barton, executive
director of Maryland's Drug Treatment Court Commission
in Annapolis, and John Sleeter, former court
administrator in Thurston County, Washington, offered
insights and lessons learned to court managers
interested in problem-solving courts at the Mid-Atlantic
Association for Court Management conference in Ocean
City, Maryland, in October. Pam Casey, NCSC principal
researcher, introduced the session, noting that much has
been written about the changing role of both the judge
and the participants in problem-solving courts, but less
focus has been given to that of the court manager.
One difference between
conventional and problem-solving court management
highlighted by Barton and Sleeter is the extensive
collaboration required to ensure the effective operation
of problem-solving courts. These court programs cannot
be designed and implemented "in-house." They
require court managers to reach out to the broader
justice and treatment communities-often to
executive-branch employees-to make sure they're all
onboard and know their roles once the program is
underway. Barton and Sleeter both emphasized that it is
crucial to involve all the potential players at the
planning stage-a lesson Barton learned early in his
career when trying to create a mental health court.
After a short period, the program ended because the
other players in the system were not onboard and not
willing to implement a program in which they had no
up-front investment.
These programs also
require a broader range of expertise-or an understanding
that traditional court-management skills may need to be
augmented. For example, when Barton needed to hire an
addiction counselor, he realized he did not have the
expertise to rate the qualifications of candidates.
Again, using a collaborative approach, he asked a
treatment provider to sit in on the interviews with him.
Sleeter used a similar approach when he was involved in
setting up Thurston County's mental health court.
Audience questions
centered on funding, and both men agreed that
collaboration also was necessary in this area. Sleeter
said he and others involved in their problem-solving
court efforts made numerous speeches to local community
groups, such as the Elks and Knights of Columbus-efforts
not traditionally viewed as part of the court manager's
job, but necessary to generate community support. He
also worked with county commissioners, showing them how
problem-solving courts could reduce jail overcrowding
and costs. Both Sleeter and Barton also discussed
working with the treatment communities to identify
funding streams that could be targeted to court
populations. Both also have spent considerable time
pursuing grants to support their programs.
When asked about
traditional court management tasks, such as caseflow
management and tracking, both speakers said that their
problem-solving court cases are tracked right along with
traditional cases but are flagged and analyzed
separately because traditional case-time standards do
not apply given the standard length of treatment (12 to
18 months). They also noted that, at times, they have
had to "temper" judges who were new to the
collaborative process and assist others who had less
substantive knowledge on assessment and treatment
issues.
Both saw the benefits to
the approach and hoped the field would continue to
explore additional ways in which problem-solving
practices could be used with more cases coming through
the system.
NCSC is interested in
gathering more information on court-manager issues that
arise in problem-solving courts. If you have an issue
you would like discussed, or have some insights/lessons
learned regarding specific managerial issues, please
contact the Problem-Solving
Reporter.
|
|
|
Profile:
Missouri's State Drug Court Coordinator Ann Wilson
Chuck
Campbell and Pam
Casey
When Ann Wilson joined
the Division of Juvenile and Adult Court Programs of
Missouri's Office of State Courts Administrator as
alcohol and drug abuse coordinator in 1994, the state
had one drug court and didn't establish another until
1996. When she attended her first national drug court
conference in Las Vegas in 1995, there were only 12 drug
courts nationwide-but 600 people were there.
Wilson was energized by
the conference, and Missouri put that energy to good
use. The state now has 91 drug courts, with 40 more in
the planning stage, and the problem-solving principles
of drug courts are being applied in other courts
throughout Missouri.
When asked about the
substance abuse section's duties, she replied, "We
do everything!"-from assisting courts with planning
to putting together the state drug court conference to
developing automated systems for managing drug court
participants, to name just a few duties. Wilson's
section responds to requests for information and
technical assistance regarding drug courts not only from
court professionals across Missouri's 116 counties but
also from other parts of the justice system (such as law
enforcement), treatment providers, and "John Q.
Public."
"Drug courts really
have changed people's ways of thinking in the [justice]
system," she said. "We're seeing changes made
not only in the lives of participants, but in the whole
judiciary." In the past, judges were most concerned
about finishing cases and moving on to the next ones.
Now they have an appreciation of the people who come
before them, see the successes these people have
achieved, and are more satisfied with their own work.
Missouri's General
Assembly also sees the benefits of their work. Each day,
2.4 people on average enter a Missouri prison.
Legislators view drug courts as practical alternatives
to building more prisons.
Missouri is taking the
right tack with drug courts, Wilson believes, by
enabling, not mandating, them statewide. "You can't
force change upon local drug courts," she said, or
creativity could be stifled. She views the
drug-court-treatment process as a continuum that could
be tailored to various types of offenders. For example,
first-time drug offenders who are not addicts may not
require the "full" drug court. Participating
in a drug court program can be time consuming and
exhausting. First-time offenders may benefit more from a
less-intrusive and less-resource-intensive approach
while more serious offenders may need the full drug
court program to be successful.
Wilson's dream is to see
problem-solving court principles become a routine part
of the process for all adult courts, depending on the
needs of individual offenders. She provided two examples
of how that is beginning to happen:
- A divorce case involved an ex-husband trying to
gain custody of his children by claiming his ex-wife
was a drug addict. The judge ordered drug testing
for all parties. There was one positive test-the
ex-husband's new spouse.
- A child support court in Jackson County (Kansas
City) works with noncustodial parents to encourage
supervised visitation and to help parents find jobs
(much like counseling that goes on in drug courts).
The court found that most noncustodial parents would
pay if they could and if they had regular visitation
with their children.
Ann Wilson is as
enthusiastic about the potential of problem-solving
court practices now as she was after that first drug
court conference in 1995. In her lifetime, she hopes to
see all courts completely changed by adapting
problem-solving court principles.
|
|
|
Book
Review: Judging in a Therapeutic Key, edited by
Bruce J. Winick and David B. Wexler (Durham, NC:
Carolina Academic Press, 2003), 331pp.
Reviewer: Greg
Baker, Director, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and
Interdisciplinary Studies, William & Mary Law
School, Williamsburg, Virginia
Judging in a
Therapeutic Key, the comprehensive compilation by
therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) scholars and pioneers
Bruce J. Winick and David B. Wexler, is more than just a
handbook for judges on TJ principles and their
application in courts. To the contrary, the book is a
wonderful overview and offers many outstanding examples
and descriptions of innovative creations associated with
TJ and problem-solving courts. It is this broad appeal
that makes this book a good choice for anyone interested
in applying TJ to courts.
The book is divided into
two distinct parts. Part 1 describes new judicial
approaches that find a theoretical foundation in TJ and
offers front-line articles discussing a number of
problem-solving courts. Part 2 covers "emerging
principles and proposals" for TJ in courts and
focuses on how court processes fit into therapeutic
jurisprudence.
The book's breadth of
information is one of its many strengths. Part 1 covers
no less than eight different problem-solving courts,
most with an in-depth look at how they work and their
effect on those they are intended to serve.
Additionally, part 1 shows how TJ can be, and should be,
applied to more than just specialized courts. Part 2 is
no less comprehensive. The principles are applied to
both criminal and civil settings, giving the reader a
comprehensive view of the theory behind the principles
and the specifics of how they are utilized in a variety
of settings. Judges interested in applying TJ principles
would not be left wanting by the sheer volume of ideas
found in part 2.
The wide variety of
sources utilized by the editors also furthers the
comprehensive nature of the book. Winick and Wexler use
not only the expected law-review and legal-journal
articles to illustrate TJ, but also a number of other
sources, such as newspaper articles and state statutes.
Using such sources removes TJ from the solely academic
and theoretical realm and demonstrates its effective use
in real-life settings. This gives credence to the
overall TJ movement and furthers the goal of systemwide
application of its principles.
A book that actually
produces helpful suggestions for judges to improve
interpersonal skills with participants is quite
appealing. To combine this discussion with procedural
justice, where emphasis is placed on making sure people
are "heard" and understood while treating them
with dignity and respect, is equally important. The
editors pay particular attention to areas like
motivation, program compliance, and treatment success,
which are at the heart of the problem-solving process.
I also find particularly
interesting the section dealing with structural and
administrative principles. Some might look at the title
and think it too mechanical or downright boring. Not so,
as the section is compelling in describing how courts
can change to achieve better results. The editors
provided powerful pieces that reflect on how a
therapeutic jurisprudence approach can convert a
traditional legalistic process to a therapeutic and
meaningful one.
Our system of justice has
provided many great results. However, this book focuses
on some critical areas at the core of society where our
court system has struggled. The absolute need for
unequivocal leadership from the bench is essential to
the mission. While the book details the need for
judicial leadership in changing from the traditional
model to a transformed one, I think it deserves even
more emphasis.
Judging in a
Therapeutic Key can educate anyone interested in
therapeutic jurisprudence in civil and criminal courts.
Winick and Wexler have brought together works from many
of the preeminent writers on TJ and judging to provide a
comprehensive work on the subject. This book will be a
valuable resource for judges interested in incorporating
TJ and problem-solving court principles. The authors
provide a transformative, interdisciplinary, and
collaborative approach to problem solving that addresses
many of the system's past failures. Overall, the book is
excellent and shows readers that they too can implement
problem-solving and therapeutic jurisprudence in their
own venues.
Drug Court Funding Update
Anne Skove
State legislatures, federal grantors, private fund
raisers, and local governments have all directed their
attention to the perennial problem of funding drug
courts. Federal grants from the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) were announced in September.
Here's a small selection of funding activity.
Arkansas:
The Friends of the Drug Court Foundation in
Washington/Madison counties are a few thousand dollars
richer thanks to alleged misdoings by another nonprofit.
Arkansas's attorney general gave $3,938 to the
foundation from a settlement obtained after
investigating allegations that Project Make a Difference
misused funds. Normally, such settlements go to the
state treasury. See Doug Thompson, "Beebe
Honors Drug Court, Gives Settlement Check,"
Arkansas News Bureau (October 20, 2005).
Arizona: According to the Arizona AOC's
legislative
impact page (see ch. 296), the state legislature
appropriated $1 million in FY 2006-07 from the general
fund to the AOC for juvenile and adult drug courts
established by the presiding judge of the superior
court.
California: The "Funding
for Drug Courts" section of the state court Web
site includes a short history of drug court funding by
the California legislature.
Florida:
The Florida State Courts Court Programs and Initiatives Drug
Court Program offers a list of funding
opportunities, plus publications and
a resource
page that includes state statutory authority.
Indiana:
NCSC provided technical assistance on drug court
sustainability to the Indiana Judicial Center. See Donna
L. Boone and Daniel J. Becker, "Crafting
a Plan: Sustaining Indiana's Drug Courts," Statewide
Technical Assistance Bulletin 4 (March 2005).
Nevada:
The Specialty Court Funding Committee's mission,
composition, resolutions, recommendations, and work on
various issues is included in Assembly Bill 29, "Specialty
Court Funding: 2005 Report to the Legislative Counsel
Bureau." The report includes an application
cover sheet.
Oklahoma:
The state legislature approved $11.5 million for
Oklahoma drug courts. See John P. Heekin, "Oklahoma
Legislature Adds $8 Million More to State Drug Court
Funding," NADCP News 12, no. 2 (Summer
2005): 12.
Virginia:
The City of Suffolk received a $445,151 grant from the
DOJ to expand its drug court program. Pending the
approval of a local funding match of $148,384
by the Suffolk City Council, the additional funding will
allow the drug court to serve up to 50 people within the
next two years. Currently, the program serves only 10
participants. No word here yet on whether the city
council approved the matching funds, but see Allison T,
Williams, "City
Expected to OK Drug Court Funding Tonight," Suffolk
News-Herald (October 4, 2005).
Department of
Justice: The Office of Justice Programs awarded
grants totaling over $25 million to drug courts and
national organizations (including NCSC) in 44 states
plus the District of Columbia. Recipients included:
- Six tribal courts or
Native American organizations
- State court
administrative offices, judicial departments, and
state supreme courts in Alabama, Colorado, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Vermont, and West Virginia
- Family or juvenile
court programs in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and
Wisconsin
A complete list is
available at the OJP
Web site.
Justice Programs Office Drug Court
Clearinghouse: The clearinghouse
has several FAQs about funding:
Meanwhile, the debate about "what works"
(and what should be funded) continues. This is
particularly true for juvenile drug courts. Long-term
effects of the decade-old movement are still unclear,
particularly with respect to recidivism. Factors
relating to the lack of usable data include few
participants, limited evaluation, and poor theoretical
bases. At least one researcher has suggested funding
fewer juvenile drug courts to obtain better data to
ensure long-term success. See Jennifer Moore, "Juvenile
Drug Courts: Funding Soars, but What Do We Know?"
Perspective on Youth (Summer/Fall 2005).
|
|
|
