“Strategies to Address the Challenges”

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. What’s a judge to do? • Jail and prison population is 2.2 million as of 1/11/07 • 5% of the world’s 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

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” Nat’l 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 • Reduce recidivism in criminal cases • Save incarceration and other costs of social services, e.g., foster care • Have great public support • High participant satisfaction • 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 court’s 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, Int’l, MH • Local needs, community response, legal culture • Structure may differ • Criteria may differ • Funding structures

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 • >66% 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

27. Re-Entry Drug Court • Facilitates the reintegration ofdrug-involved offenders into communities upon their release from custody. • The offender is involved in regularjudicial monitoring, intensive treatment, community supervision, anddrug testing. • Reentry drug court participants are provided withspecialized 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 court’s 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 • 50:0 Chief Justices voted to support “Problem-Solving Courts” • Will develop Best Practices • Recognizes collaboration and interdisciplinary training Resolution22, 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. 50:0

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 King’s Bench, England, 1600s “A court must never engage in a vain act, lest the courts become laughingstocks.”

42. Win:Win • 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!