|
While
many of the participants had worked together before,
the summit provided a unique opportunity for
self-reflection, collaboration, and thinking out of
the "problem-solving court box." Beginning
with four areas of interest-institutionalization,
training and education, research and evaluation, and
advocacy-the participants developed potential action
steps to move problem-solving courts into the next
generation. Here is a sample of some of the ideas
generated from the summit.
- Institutionalization-develop
a system-wide concept for the future of
problem-solving courts, infuse problem-solving
concepts into existing case-management systems,
educate judicial selection committees on the
changing role of the judiciary and the need for
judges to understand nonlegal issues they will
confront
- Training
and Education-develop
and promote law-school curricula on
problem-solving principles and methods, develop
and provide discipline-specific training on
substance abuse, mental health, and
problem-solving techniques for attorneys and trial
court administrators through bar and professional
associations
- Advocacy-clearly
define "problem solving," create
"talking points" to respond to critics,
expand the number and diversity of advocates
- Research
and Evaluation-establish
a coordinated approach to evaluations by
incorporating proper measures and desired outcomes
The
summit participants identified some of the next steps,
acknowledging that the list only begins to create a
blueprint for the future. As it is with
problem-solving courts in general, partnerships and
collaboration are key ingredients. The ideas are not
meant to be the "be all" or "end
all" of problem-solving courts. Any input,
criticism, and suggestions are encouraged.
Steps
Toward the Future
- Define
priorities and identify what work is already being
done and by whom
- Develop
a road map that identifies the various federal
funding streams
- Convene
federal funders to talk about policy implications
- Form
follow-up groups to work on individual tasks
- Look
for opportunities to advance the agenda
- Address
unique issues concerning problem-solving courts in
the modification of the ABA Model Code
- Consider
periodic meetings of the group and expanded group
- Sponsor
quarterly conference calls of participating
organizations to share information and enhance
collaboration and coordination of effort
In
many respects, the fact that this summit was held
suggests there is a great deal to celebrate. In
seventeen years, this movement has grown from a single
court to more than two thousand courts in all fifty
states, as well as in the territories and other
countries. But if problem-solving principles and
methods are to be truly institutionalized, the work
has just begun.
To
obtain more information on problem-solving curricula,
contact the Center
for Court Innovation; for problem-solving court
statistics and information, contact American
University; for education and training, contact
the National
Association of Drug Court Professionals or the National
Judicial College; and for more about the work of
this committee, contact the National
Center for State Courts.
Participants
in the National Problem-Solving Court Summit
Liberty
Aldritch and Greg Berman, Center for Court Innovation
Frank Broccolina, state court administrator, Maryland
Mary McQueen and Dawn Rubio, National Center for State
Courts
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson, National Association of
Drug Court Professionals
Judges Stephen Rubin, Dale Koch, and Mary Mentaberry,
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Judge William Dressel, National Judicial College
Dean David Link, International Centre for Healing and
the Law
Carolyn Cooper and Joe Trotter, American University
Judge Karen Howze, National Association of Women
Judges
Steve Katsurinis, Office of National Drug Control
Policy
Dr. Redonna Chandler, National Institute on Drug Abuse
Judges Jonathan Lippman and Judy Kluger,
administrative judges for the State of New York
Elizabeth Griffith, Office of Justice Programs
Janice Munsterman, State Justice Institute
Susan Salasin, Substance Abuse Services and Mental
Health Administration
Judges Mary Terrell, D.C. Superior Court
Judge Eileen Olds, Chesapeake (Virginia) Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court
Richelle Uecker, asst. chief executive officer, Orange
County (California) Superior Court
CCJ
Supports Mental Health Leadership Initiative
Kay
Farley
The Judges' Criminal Justice/Mental Health Leadership
Initiative (JLI) has been established to 1) provide
support to judges involved in criminal
justice/mental-health partnerships and 2) encourage
other judges to work with their state or local
mental-health systems to improve options for
individuals with mental illness in contact with the
criminal justice system. The JLI is supported jointly
by the TAPA Center for Jail Diversion and the Council
of State Governments' (CSG) Criminal Justice/Mental
Health Consensus Project. Chief Justice Shirley
Abrahamson (Wisconsin), Patti Tobias (administrative
director of the courts, Idaho), and Kay Farley are
liaisons to JLI representing the Conference of Chief
Justices (CCJ), the Conference of State Court
Administrators (COSCA), and the National Center for
State Courts (NCSC).
Chief
Justice Abrahamson hosted a plenary education program
on criminal justice/mental-health partnerships and the
JLI at the CCJ Midyear Meeting in January 2006. The
panelists included Justice Linda Trout of the Idaho
Supreme Court; Connecticut state representative Mike
Lawlor, who cochairs CSG's Consensus Project; and the
JLI's cochairs, Associate Justice Evelyn Stratton of
the Ohio Supreme Court and Administrative Judge Steven
Leifman of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Following
the midyear-meeting presentation, the Conference of
Chief Justices (CCJ) adopted Resolution 11, "In
Support of the Judicial Criminal Justice/Mental Health
Leadership Initiative," on January 18, 2006
that called attention to the growing numbers of people
with mental illness involved in the criminal justice
system. The resolution also recommends that CCJ
members "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." The resolution
also supported CCJ's continuing involvement in JLI.
Some
of the methods for supporting judges presiding over
these types of cases include the establishment of a
JLI listserv, publication of a JLI quarterly
newsletter, and a soon-to-be-launched JLI Web site.
Courts
Can Use Nonprofits to Fund Special Projects
Anne
Skove and Whitney Myers
How can a court raise money for special projects and
maintain its ethical posture? Many programs have
established nonprofit arms with 501(c)(3) status
specifically for this purpose.
The
National Association for Drug Court Professionals
calls such nonprofit arms "the most effective way
to obtain a single source of funding" (Tauber
et al., 2000: App. C). The NADCP's Resource
and Funding Guide contains a
brief description of how to establish a nonprofit
organization, along with examples of such programs and
how they can help the courts.
California:
In Los Angeles, Comfort
for Court Kids is funded via a 501(c)(3). The
group provides emotional support in the form of teddy
bears to children involved in dependency proceedings.
The program is supported by the superior court, CIVIC
partnership, bar associations, foundations, law
offices, corporations, individual attorneys, and the
public through fund-raising activities in the
Children's Courthouse and in the community. Similar
programs exist in San Bernardino and Riverside
counties.
The
Orange County Superior Court Drug Court receives funds
to help meet their "Cultural Awareness
Requirement" and other programs, such as the
Alumni Board. Daily operations of the court, however,
are not funded by the 501(c)(3). Contact Tina Payne,
(714) 834-4719 for more information.
Hawaii:
Hawaii's Children's
Justice Centers are programs of the state
judiciary set up as part of a national program of
Children's Advocacy Centers in which a
multidisciplinary team investigates child abuse and
neglect. The centers involve public-private
partnerships. Each neighbor-island center is supported
by an affiliated nonprofit Friends of the Children's
Justice Center. In O'ahu, the supporting organization
is the Children's
Alliance of Hawaii.
New
York: The Center
for Court Innovation (CCI) is the nonprofit
arm of the New York State Unified Court System. CCI
runs a variety of court-community projects.
North
Carolina: Durham's drug
court has a nonprofit.
Mecklenburg
County (Charlotte) established a nonprofit called
Justice Initiatives to support innovative and
nontraditional court programs. Its purpose is:
- To
educate and advocate regarding the needs of
judicial branch offices and programs within the
26th Judicial District.
- To
apply for grants at the request of a judicial
branch office within the 26th Judicial District.
- To
receive, hold, and disburse funds donated by
individuals, foundations, corporations, and
governmental entities that are earmarked for
particular offices, programs, or services within
the 26th Judicial District.
- Upon
application, to award unrestricted funds as seed
money to judicial branch offices within the 26th
Judicial District for innovative and
nontraditional programs and services and to help
bridge the gap (one year) when funding shortfalls
are experienced for valuable programs and services
administered by Judicial Branch Offices within the
26th Judicial District.
- To
sponsor fund-raising events and campaigns for new
initiatives, programs, and services at the request
of a judicial branch office within the 26th
Judicial District.
- To
consider and advance reforms related to judicial
branch organization, structure, or administration.
The
Institute of Government (IOG) at the University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill has established the Drennan
Fund for Judicial Education to provide
"high quality, diligently nonpartisan education
for judges, magistrates, clerks of court, district
attorneys, public defenders and other court
officials."
Oklahoma:
The Payne County drug court is funded via a 501(c)(3)
with the Department of Corrections and Department of
Mental Health for treatment options, and the
Stillwater United Way helps fund the juvenile drug
court.
For
More Information
Anne Skove (2001). "Non-profit
Status Options for Courts." Report
on Trends in the State Courts, 2001.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Jeffrey
Tauber et al. (2000). Resource
and Funding Guide.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court
Professionals. Appendix C, "Establishing a
Non-profit Organization," lists several courts
that have benefited from such funding arrangements.
The
FAQ
for the Funding
State Courts section of CourTopics
contains basic information about funding trial courts.
Institute
for Court Management: Managing
Court Financial Resources, October 16-18, Addison,
Texas.
|
