DOCSLIB.ORG

Pulaski County District Court Sherwood District Court Jacksonville/Maumelle District Courts Perry County District Court EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pulaski County District Court Sherwood District Court Jacksonville/Maumelle District Courts Perry County District Court EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - STATE DISTRICT JUDGE 2O2O Case Plans for District Courts Little Rock District Court (including Wrightsville and Cammack Village District Courts) North Little Rock District Court Pulaski County District Court Sherwood District Court Jacksonville/Maumelle District Courts Perry County District Court EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - STATE DISTRICT JUDGE The undersigned State District Judges, pursuant to and under the authority of Ark. Const. Amend. 80, Sec. 7; Ark. Code Ann. Sec. l6-t7-102 and Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 18, Sec. 6, agree that they permit the respective judges to sit in the respective courts other than their own. Further, by signing this Exchange Agreement, the District Judges will have the authority to hear circuit court cases with jurisdiction and venue in Pulaski County and Perry County that have either been referred to them or which have been transferred to them by consent In addition, the undersigned District Judges agree to the proposed Case Assignment Plan for the 6th Judicial Circuit and agree to hear child support cases originating with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and other related issues thereto, final Petitions for Orders of Protection and unlawful detainer cases referred by the Circuit Court. The District Judges fi.tther agree to hear these cases at the Pulaski County Courthouse effective January 1,2020. Dated this 28th day of June,2019. Y¡e N6 fi¿spwvpd lr'4 e/44çÃ- þ"e044 ,#ttw*¡ h mÅ-{ - hf þ-tf Í,tåg" Rita Bailef ¡"hËë úic rtemíng err**!- ¡n 4 þ, ¿*;*"û-/¿'fulq ws 'Wayne 'Ft Åønø*<¿ Gruber Judgé Milas H. "Butôh" Hale øqåJ-6-to-ø nÌ' htß J Paula Juels Jones Judge Mark llils Aû-14 l]rrtwtl 4 e"r¿, baøf w J Melanie Judge Randy Morley Little Rock District Gourt Wrightsville District Gourt Cammack Village District Gourt (Abolished by Local Ordinance) DISTRICT COU RT ADMII t\¡ISTRATIVE PLAN Little Rack District court, wrightsvitte District Court, and Cammack vi$age D¡str¡ct court, oll in the Thirty-First District, os established by Ark. Code Ann. Sec. J-6-L7-1.j.0 whereas Arkansas code Annotated sectian 16-17-L10 (E) provides that ,.Ëffective January L,2a17, the Thirty-First (31st) District shall continue to have eleven (11) departments that shall be served by eight (g) state district judges,,; and, Whereas the referenced statute further provides that the judges of the above mentioned courts "shall be electecl districtwide and shall have district-wide territorial jurisdiction"; and, whereas the 31st District pulaski is defined as being County, Arkansas; and, whereas the referenced statute provides further that "The Little Rock District Court- First Division shall be served by one i1.)judge,,; and, "The Little Rock District Court- second Division shafl be served by one (L)judge,,; and, "The Little Rock District court - Third Division, the wrightsville District court and the cammack village Dístrict court shail be served by one (J.)iudge,,; and, Whereâs, it ¡s now appropriate pursuant to the applicable administrative orders of the Arkansas Supreme court, that the below three judges of the above referenced courts set forth the administrative plan for said courts, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED, AGREED, ESTABLISHËD AND SET FORTH by the below signed judges as follows, for sul:mission to the Arkansas supreme court for its approvaf. 1"' Judges: The Liltle Rock District court is served by three state District Judges: Mel anie Martin Division 1 Vic Flenring Division 2 Mark Leverett Division I Additionally, Judge Marl< Leverett serves as a state District -ludge in and for the wrightsville District cor"rrt and the camnracr< Viilage District court. 2. CAURT SE55tOÂf5: LlrrLE RocK DtsrRtcr couRT sessí¿¡ns are reguiarly scheduled as follows; Division l" Mon.-Fri 8:30 a.m. * finish Division 2 Mon-Thu. B:30 a.rn. - finish Fri. As and rvhen needed Division 3 Mon., Wed., Thu 1-:00 p.m. - finish ïue. L:30 p.m. * finish WRIGHTSVILLE DlsTRlcT couRT sessîons are regularly scheduled as fo¡ows: 2nd and 4th Tue. 9:00 a.m. _ finish cAMMACK VILLAGE DlsTRlcT couRT sessions are regularly scheduled as follows: 4th Fri. 9:00 a.m. * firrish PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT coURT sessions: The 31st D¡str¡ct state D¡strict court Judges of the above courts sit for the sixth Judicial circuit courtJudges, in the Pulaskicounty courthouse (in the state District court courtroom on the second floor) on ceftain days, as follows: Judge Martin {1" & 3'd Thu.) 1:00 p.m. _ finisli Judge Fleming (Znd & 4rh Tue,) 1:00 p.m. _ finish Judge Leverett (1't & 3'd ïue.) g:00 a.nr. _ finish 3. TVPES AF CASES: a Little Rock District court, 600 west Marlcham street; Little Rock, AR7220r; Division L Non-traffic misdemeanors (arraignment, plea, trial) Felonies (probable cause and bond issues) Division 2 Traffic violations and misderrìeanors (arraignment, plea, trial) Felonies arising from traffic cases (probabie cause anci bond issues) Division 3 Environmental, civír, small claims, all city ordinance violations b' Wrightsville District Court, 13204 Hwy. 365 South, wrightsville, AR 72183:Any case that might properry be rodged in district courts in Arkansas. c. Cammack Village District Court, 600 West Markham Street, Little Rocl<, AR 72207: Any case that might properly be lodged in district courts in Arkansas. d. Pulaski County Circuit Court, 401 W Markham 5t., Little Rock, AR 7220:r: Any cases assigned by the Circuit Judges of the 6th Judicial Circuit. Currently, these dockets are limited to child support, paternity, domestic battery, and unlawful detainer cases. sET FoRTI-i AND APPROvED by the unde¡,.signed on the dates so indicated S-r¡ Melanie M Date 77*/ Mark Dist Date r-72-t1 Vic Flemin g, District iud Date SPECIALTY PROGRAMS: The following Specialty Programs are provided: Pulaski Counfy Mental Health Court Little Rock District Court-First Division Judge Melanie Martin, Presiding a. Tvne ofProsram and on of Onerations: Pulaski County Mental Health Court - Little Rock is a voluntary, post-adjudication, highly intensive supervision program designed to address the needs of high risk/high needs persons with a mental illness or co- occurring disorder with current misdemeanor criminal cases. Mental Health Court is available only to defendants meeting program eligibility requirements; the defendant must be an adult resident of Puiaski County, having no uruesolved felony offenses or active watïants, no prior or pending sex-related ofienses, and no prior or pending violent felony offenses. Mental Health Court is a minimum of twelve (12) months. Mental Health Court is held the second and fourth Thrnsday of each month at2:30 p.m., at Little Rock District Court-l't Div. Criminal,600 V/. Markham, Little Rock, AR. Admission to the Mental Health is comoleted in a serles of steos: o Step One: Application- Ifthe defendant meets the above criteria, he/she or defense counsel may make a request for a referral to Mental Health Court, which then must be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney's Offrce. Speedy trial will be tolled during the entire process. o Step Two: Preliminary Approval - After the request is submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the Deputy Prosecuting Attomey will review the pending charges and criminal history. If the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney determines that the defendant's request should be considered for fuither review and approved, the defendant will be scheduled for an assessment. o Step Three: Probation Assessment - An assessment will be administered by a Probation Officer to determine the defendant's risk and needs. The Probation Officer will schedule a subsequent assessment with a Mental Heaith Treatment Provider. o Step Four: Mental Health Assessment - Another assessment will be administered by a Mental Health Treatment Provider in order to determine clinical appropriateness for the program. Entry into Mental Health Court is usually limited to those who are determined as high risk/high needs and meet program criteria. o Step Five: Mental Health Court Team Review - After the completion of the assessments, the probation officer and treatment providers will share the information with the Mental Health Court Team for a final review. o Step Six: Plea - If the defendant's request is approved by the Mental Health Court Team, he/she will be provided a date for acceptance of plea before the Mental Health Court Judge. Prior to the court date, the defendant must make an appointment with defense counsel to complete all necessary forms. o Step Seven: Sentencing - The defendant will appear at a hearing before the Mental Health Court Judge to be formally accepted into Mental Health Court. b. Statutorv Authoritv: Pulaski County Mental Health Court - Little Rock was established pursuant to the Arkansas Code Annotated Sections 5 16-98-201 and $ 16-98-301-307 et seq. c. Certification of Compliance: Pulaski County Mental Health Court - Little Rock operates in compliance with all applicable sentencing laws. This includes fines, court costs, fees, probati on as sessments, and sentencing altematives. d. Use of Court Resources: The Pulaski County Mental Health Court - Little Rock team includes one (1) full-time District Court Judge, (1) back-up District Court Judge, (l) fül- time Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (1) back-up Deputy Prosecuting Attorney" (1) full-time Deputy Public Defender, (1) back-up Deputy Public Defender, (l) Coordinator, (1) Probation Officer, (1) Law Enforcement Officer, (1) Court Coordinator, and (3) Representatives from community treatment providers, including Little Rock Community Mental Health, Professional Counseling Associates, Department of Human Service, and Children and Family Therapy. Team members have attended training programs offered by the State of Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts. Pulaski County Mental Health Court- Little Rock was implemented and operates according to the MHC Best Practices and Arkansas law. e. Sources of Funding: Pulaski County Mental Health Court - Little Rock receives support from the City of Little R.ock, the Public Defender Commission, the Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, and Federal Providers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creating a Domestic Violence Drug Court
    The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice Volume 22 Number 2 Article 2 5-2020 Lessons Learned, Lessons Offered: Creating a Domestic Violence Drug Court Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez Bexar County Court at Law #13 Dr. Stacy Speedlin Gonzalez The University of Texas at San Antonio Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thescholar Part of the Counseling Commons, Counseling Psychology Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Family Law Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez & Dr. Stacy Speedlin Gonzalez, Lessons Learned, Lessons Offered: Creating a Domestic Violence Drug Court, 22 THE SCHOLAR 221 (2020). Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thescholar/vol22/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the St. Mary's Law Journals at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice by an authorized editor of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Speedlin Gonzalez and Speedlin Gonzalez: Creating a Domestic Violence Drug Court LESSONS LEARNED, LESSONS OFFERED: CREATING A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DRUG COURT JUDGE ROSIE SPEEDLIN GONZALEZ* & DR. STACY SPEEDLIN GONZALEZ INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 222 I. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: STATISTICAL INFORMATION .................... 224 A. Systemic Issues That Perpetuate Domestic Violence ........
    [Show full text]
  • Don't Reinvent the Wheel: Lessons from Problem-Solving Courts
    best practices A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System Don’t Reinvent the Wheel Lessons from Problem-Solving Courts Written by This publication was supported by Grant No. 2005-PP-CX-K0008 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Robert V. Wolf Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 2007 Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view and opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily repre- sent official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. About the Author Robert V. Wolf is director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people, who provided- support and advice during the writing of this report: Greg Berman, Carol Fisler, A. Elizabeth Griffith, Heather Jefferis, Julius Lang, Wendy Lindley, Preeti P. Menon, Kim Norris, Carolyn Turgeon, and Chris Watler. DON’T REINVENT THE WHEEL Lessons from Problem-Solving Courts Introduction In the short history of problem-solving courts, practitioners’ understanding of them has evolved. Initially, they were thought of as separate entities. Drug courts occu- pied one universe. Domestic violence courts another. Community courts a third, and so on. Although the different kinds courts sometimes relied on overlapping resources, they more often than not had separate calendars, staffs, and service providers. Each type of court also developed its own tenets.
    [Show full text]
  • BCSC Coalition Resource Guide (PDF)
    For a printed copy contact (210) 335-0835 or Email [email protected] For a digital copy, go to https://www.bexar.org/1833/County-Court-12 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Mission & Purpose 4 Treatment Recovery Accountability Court - A (Adult Drug Court) 5 Treatment Recovery Accountability Court - D (DWI Court) 6-7 Mental Health Court 8-9 Veterans Treatment Court 10-11 Reflejo Court (The Domestic Violence Court) 12-13 Esperanza Court 14-15 Felony Drug Court 16-17 Felony Veterans Treatment Court 18-19 Bexar County Family Drug Court 20 Bexar County Early Childhood Court 21 Felony Mental Health Pretrial Diversion 22 Juvenile Pre-Adjudication Drug Court and Specialty Dockets 23 Juvenile Post-Adjudication Drug Court and Specialty Dockets 24 Court Programs 25-27 501C3 Community Partners 28-29 Definitions 30 The 10 Key Components of Specialty Courts 31 3 Introduction The Bexar County Specialty Courts Coalition was formed in July 2019 by Judge Yolanda Huff. The Coalition is comprised of the Bexar County Specialty Court Judges and court staff, members from the District Attorney’s Office, Department of Behavioral Health, Office of Criminal Justice and Court Administration. The Coalition will identify barriers to implementing best practices and gaps within the Specialty Courts and will work with County officials to resolve. Specialty courts differ from traditional courts in that they focus on one type of offense or offender. The specialized dockets offer intensive judicial supervision for people with mental health, substance use or co-occurring disorders. Specialty courts include pre-adjudication and post-adjudication dockets. Specialty courts provide judicially supervised, community-based treatment plans to participants who meet specific eligibility criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court – Two Year Review: July 2010 – June 2012
    Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court – Two Year Review: July 2010 – June 2012 Prepared by: Anne Caron, MLS - Research Analyst II 612-348-5023 [email protected] January 2013 Fourth Judicial District Research Division: Marcy R. Podkopacz, Ph.D., Research Director 612-348-6812 [email protected] Anne Caron, MLS - Research Analyst II Tracy Loynachan, M.A. - Research Analyst II Fourth Judicial District Research Division Page 1 Table of Contents Page Number Executive Summary 3 Introduction 6 Overview of Veterans Court Mission and Goals 7 Program Structure 7 Eligibility Criteria 8 Screening Process 8 Veterans Court Phases 8 Graduation Criteria 9 Termination Criteria 9 Research Design 10 Data Sources 10 Limitations 11 Demographic Profile of Defendants Screened for Veterans Court 11 Profile of Defendants Accepted Into Veterans Court 12 Offense Type 14 Military Service 15 Type of Military Discharge 15 Deployments 16 Court Appearances 16 Achievement of Veterans Court Goals Goal 1: Reduce criminal recidivism 17 Goal 2: Promote participant sobriety 19 Goal 3: Increase compliance with treatment and other court-ordered conditions 20 Goal 4: Improve access to VA benefits and services 21 Goal 5: Improve family relationships and social support connections 22 Goal 6: Improve life stability 22 Participant Satisfaction with Veterans Court 24 Summary and Recommendations 25 Appendix A. Veterans Treatment Court Key Components 28 Appendix B. Military Discharge Types 29 Appendix C. uSPEQ® Survey Results - Year 1 Compared to Year 2 30 Fourth Judicial District Research Division Page 2 Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court - Two Year Review Executive Summary • The Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court began in July 2010 as a voluntary problem-solving court for veteran offenders with treatable chemical dependency and/or mental health issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Report
    HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT 2019 Note: Diacritical marks used in Hawaiian language words have been omitted from this report to ensure online compatibility with screen reader programs, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Hawaii State Judiciary recognizes the importance of proper use of the Hawaiian language, including the okina and kahako in Hawaiian words, names, and place names, and continues to use them outside of the online environment. Hawaii State Judiciary Annual Report 2019 This report describes the ongoing eforts of the Hawaii State Judiciary to administer justice for the people of Hawaii. The mission of the Judiciary, as an independent branch of government, is to administer justice in an impartial, efcient, and accessible manner in accordance with the law. Contents Welcome ..........................................................................................................................................................5 Equal Access to Justice for Everyone ....................................................................................................7 Keeping Communities Safe ....................................................................................................................16 Supporting Children and Families .......................................................................................................30 Stewardship in our Communities .........................................................................................................40 Language Assistance Services
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Field Ttenen Communitycommunity Prosecutionprosecution Leadershipleadership Profilesprofiles
    SPECIAL TOPICS SERIES CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH INSTITUTE LessonsLessons fromfrom thethe FieldField TTenen CommunityCommunity ProsecutionProsecution LeadershipLeadership ProfilesProfiles American Prosecutors Research Institute 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510 Alexandria,VA 22314 www.ndaa-apri.org Thomas J. Charron President Roger Floren Chief of Staff Michael Kuykendall Director, National Center for Community Prosecution Debra Whitcomb Director, Grant Programs and Development George Ross Director, Grants Management The preparation of the Community Prosecution Leadership Site profiles of Atlanta, Brooklyn, Dallas, Kalamazoo and Minneapolis, and publication of this report, were supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, under Grant Number 2000-PP-CX-K001 awarded to the American Prosecutors Research Institute. The preparation of the Community Prosecution Leadership Site Profiles of Austin, Denver, Indianapolis, Portland and Washington D.C. was supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, under Grant Number 2001-PP-CX-0001-S1 awarded to the Center for Court Innovation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime. This information is offered for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Points of view and opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, or the Center for Court Innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation
    Research A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation Planning, Implementation, Courtroom Dynamics, and Participant Outcomes Kelly O’Keefe Submitted to the New York State Office of Mental Health 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 September 2006 212.397.3050 fax 212.397.0985 www.courtinnovation.org Table of Contents Executive Summary iii Acknowledgements ix List of Exhibits x Chapter I: Introduction 1 Chapter II: Planning 5 Brooklyn Mental Health Court Goals 5 Timeline and Key Events 7 Key Issues in the Planning Process 8 Chapter III: Implementation 13 Brooklyn Mental Health Court Team 13 Referral and Assessment 15 Participation Process 27 Technology 32 Chapter IV: Courtroom Experience 35 Chapter V: Participant Perspective 39 Perceived Coercion 39 Perceived Procedural Justice 40 Attitudes about the Court Team and Specific Program Elements 41 Chapter VI: Communication 43 Network Analysis of Communication 44 Chapter VII: Participant Outcomes 47 Participant Profile 48 Status in the Brooklyn Mental Health Court 49 Graduation and Termination 50 Other Participant Outcomes 50 Chapter VIII: Conclusions 57 References 59 Appendix A: Brooklyn Mental Health Court Participation Guidelines and Contract 61 Appendix B: Participant Profile: Graduated and Terminated 69 Appendix C: Outcome Measures 71 Table of Contents i Executive Summary The Brooklyn Mental Health Court began operations in March 2002 as a demonstration project in the Kings County Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York. Through addressing the treatment needs of the individual and the public safety concerns of the community, the Brooklyn Mental Health Court’s ultimate goal is to reduce recidivism and stop the “revolving door” of the mentally ill in and out of the criminal justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014-Annual-Report-Narrative.Pdf
    District of Columbia Courts Annual Report 2014 Open to All Trusted by All Justice for All Open to All Trusted by All Justice for All CONTENTS From the Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts 1 Message from the Chief Judges 2 Report of the District of Columbia Courts, 2014 3 Governance of the District of Columbia Courts 34 Organization of the District of Columbia Courts 35 Organizational Chart of the District of Columbia Courts 36 Open to All Trusted by All Justice for All District of Columbia Courts 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 879-1700 www.dccourts.gov On behalf of the District of Columbia Courts, I am pleased to transmit our 2014 Annual Report that provides information to the public on the achievements of the District’s judicial branch in the past year as we work to accomplish our strategic goals and fulfill our mission to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively. As an institution that interacts with thousands of our community members each day, the Courts have focused in recent years on the people who make up our organization, who are its face. We have engaged in initiatives to build employee engagement and public service and to incorporate in our daily behavior a set of values, introduced in our 2013 strategic plan. These values, accountability, excellence, fairness, integrity, respect, and transparency, describe how the Courts expect to conduct ourselves as we work to carry out our mission. I invite you to visit our website, www.dccourts.gov, to read the strategic plan and learn more about the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Solving Survey of Judges Prosecutors and Public Defenders
    Problem-Solving in Seattle and King County Courts: A Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program 2009 - 2010 Phase III Project May 2010 Lorri Cox Seattle, Washington Acknowledgements To Fred Bonner, Bob White, Thomas A. Carr, Bob Hood, Dave Chapman, Tricia Lapitan, Robert Lee, and the legion of volunteers and student interns without whom Seattle Community Court could not have served with such distinction - thank you for your dedication to doing the right thing. To the visionaries who are changing the Seattle and King County criminal justice system, thank you for your encouragement, support, and leadership. To the Downtown Seattle Association and the Metropolitan Improvement District, thank you for believing in Seattle Community Court. A special thank you to the National Center for State Court’s Toni Grainer for getting me into this, and to the gracious Nicole Waters for showing me the way out. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................2 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................4 List Figures .....................................................................................................................4 List of Appendices ..........................................................................................................4 Abstract...........................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Problem-Solving Courts: an Evidence Review
    Problem-solving courts: An evidence review Executive Summary The context of this review In December 2015, the then Lord Chancellor Michael Gove MP announced the creation of a working group on problem-solving courts. This working group was to ‘examine models of problem-solving courts and advise on the feasibility of possible pilot models to be taken forward in England and Wales in 2016/17’. This commitment to problem-solving courts was reiterated by Prime Minster David Cameron in his February 2016 speech on penal reform. This review of the evidence on problem-solving courts is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What are problem-solving courts? Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. They embrace a wide family of distinct models, all of which seek to improve public safety and the legitimacy of the justice system in the eyes of the public. The key features of problem-solving courts are: • Specialisation of the court model around a target group. • Collaborative intervention and supervision. • Accountability through judicial monitoring. • A procedurally fair environment. • A focus on outcomes. Do problem-solving courts work? Our review suggests: • There is strong evidence that adult drug courts reduce substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. • The evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Community Court? | 1
    How the Model is Being Adapted Across the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice author year about this publication Julius Lang 2011 This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-DC-BX K018 award - Director, Technical Assistance ed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Center for Court Innovation Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Julius Lang is director of technical assistance at the Center for Court Innovation. Research, ideas, and text were also contributed by Greg Berman, Elvita Dominique, and Robert V. Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation, and Kim Ball and Danica Szarvas- Kidd of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This publication is an update of an earlier version entitled “Community Courts: An Evolving Model,” authored by Eric Lee. WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? | 1 FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE The Midtown Community Court was created in 1993 to respond more effectively to street prostitution, vandal - ism, shoplifting, drug possession, and other quality-of-life offenses that had tarnished—some thought perma - nently—midtown Manhattan’s reputation as a capital of tourism and entertainment.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Court System Work Better for Children: 25 Things Your Court
    MAKING THE COURT SYSTEM WORK BETTER FOR CHILDREN 25 Things Your Court Can Do NCIL O OU F C C AL L IF IA O C R I N D Center I U for A J Families, • • Children A & S D the Courts T M R I N U I O S C T E R A H T I V F T E O F F I C E O CONTENTS Page 1. Adoption Saturday ............................................................................5 2. Children’s Waiting Rooms .................................................................7 3. Chris Adams Girls’ Center: Children Caring for Animals...................9 4. Comfort for Court Kids®, Inc. .........................................................11 5. Court Appointed Special Advocates ................................................13 6. Daycare Facility...............................................................................15 7. Educational Programs for Children Classroom Tours, Job Shadowing, and Lunch With a Judge ..........17 Day in Court (Mock Jury Selection) ............................................20 Field Study in Criminal Case Processing .....................................21 First Impressions Program...........................................................22 Government in Action.................................................................23 8. Educational Rights Project and Project YEA ....................................25 9. Employing At-Risk Youth/Developing Internships...........................27 10. Family Conference Institute ............................................................29 11. Family Court Children’s Fund.........................................................33
    [Show full text]