DOCSLIB.ORG

Community Court: the Research Literature: a Review of Findings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community Court: the Research Literature: a Review of Findings A Review of Findings Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice authors year about this publication Kelli Henry 2011 This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-DC-BX K018 awarded Senior Research Associate by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance Center for Court Innovation is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Dana Kralstein Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Associate Research Director Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Center for Court Innovation Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not rep - resent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This report is an update of Community Court Research: A Literature Review , by Dana Kralstein, published in 2005. COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE | 1 COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 com - munity court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement IbNetTwReOenD cUitiCzeTnIOs aN nd the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for low- Lleovrelm, “ qipusaulimty -doof-lolirfe s”i to affmenedt,e crosn, sspeecetedtiuere ra nadi pmisocrien gm eelaitn, isnegdf udli acmas en orensuomlumtioyn nsi,b ahn edu ciosmst osda vtiinngcisd. uInn at duvt anc - lianogr teheet sdeo gloorael sm, caogmnma aulniqituya cmou errtast g veonluetrpalalyt. mUta kwei sgi reenaitmer auds em oifn icmom vmenuianmity, -qbuaise ndo satrnucdti oexnesr tchi atant itorand uitliloamna-l corupretsr (sHuasckiuptiat ,l oSobroorutissh niaisnl ,u atn adl iKqruailps teexin e, a2 0co0m8;m Kaotdzo, 2c0o0ns9e; qSuviartid. Dofufi se ta ault.e, 2m0 0ve0l; eWuemid inrieurr aen ddo lDoar vinis ,h 2e0n0d0re).rit iAnm vounlpgu ata staem vpeliet oefs s2e5 mcoomlemstuien citoyn csoeuqrutas ts, uvrevl eilyleudm i nd o2l0o0re7, e9u2 fpeeurgcieantt n ruolulati nfaecliyl iusisse a cto vmermo uenroitsy e ste arvciccuem msan - edta tiues,t oan odd i8o4 d pigernciessnitm ro quutii nbelalyn duiste p sroaceisael nste rluvipcteast muman zdzaritle dse (lKeanriat fainu,g 2u0e0 d8u). is dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. LoreTmhi si ppsaupmer d roelvoier wsist tahmee rte, sceoanrscehc ltieteturaetru ardei tpois dciantge ealbito, uste dco dmiammu nnoitnyu cmoumrtys n. Cibohm emuiusnmitoyd c eoxuerrtc si ttuadtiioens have uemllapmlocyoerdp ear nsumscbipeirt olofb doifrfteisr ennistl r uets eaalirqcuhi pm exth eoad cso, rmefmleocdtion gco tnhsee vqauraiat.tion in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. The community courts studied are the Midtown Community Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feu - Court in Manhattan, New York (opened in 1993); the Hartford Community Court in Hartford, Connecticut giat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit (opened in 1998); the Hennepin County Community Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota (opened in 1999); the augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York (opened in 2000); the Harlem Community Justice imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Center in Harlem, New York (opened in 2001); the Philadelphia Community Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut (opened in 2002); Bronx Community Solutions, in the Bronx, New York (opened in 2005); the Seattle laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcor - Community Court in Seattle, Washington (opened in 2005); the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre in per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in Liverpool, England (opened in 2005); the Salford Community Justice Initiative in Salford, England (opened in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et 2005); and Melbourne’s Neighbourhood Justice Centre (opened in 2007). In addition, one study surveyed 25 iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem community courts around the globe with the primary objective of identifying common community court ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore goals, performance measures, and benchmarks (Karafin, 2008). 2 | CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Table 1. Community Court Evaluations Court Date Citation Data Source Comparison Key Impacts and Other Findings Opened Group Bronx Jan. Katz (2009) Official records Pre-implemen - • Increased alternative sanctions (25% vs Community 2005 tation cases 9%, p<.001). Solutions • Reduced sentences without ongoing (Bronx, NY) obligations (73% vs 58%, p<.001). • Reduced jail sentences (18% vs 16%, p<.01). • Reduced jail days served per case (1.7 vs 1.5, p<.05). Harlem May Abuwala & Pro se tenant Centralized • More positive tenant perceptions of Community 2001 Farole interviews and downtown the judge experience (98% vs 85%, Justice Center (2008) structured housing court p<.001), which directly contributed to (Manhattan) courtroom greater overall satisfaction with the court observations experience at Harlem. Hartford Nov. Justice Offender and None • Offenders, stakeholders and focus Community 1998 Education stakeholder group members generally supported the Court Center interviews and Court’s work. (Hartford, CT) (2002) focus groups Hennepin June Eckberg Random tele - Pre-data from • Reduction in days from case filing to County 1999 (2001) phone surveys similar earlier disposition (reduced by 36%). Community of community survey; criminal • Increased number of hearings per case Justice Project members cases from out - due to greater judicial monitoring. (Minneapolis, side catchment; • No change in prevalence of community MN) and pre-imple - service sentences. mentation cases • Increased community service compli - ance rate (nearly 25% higher for com - munity court defendants). • A majority of residents were willing to pay slightly increased taxes and/or trans - fer tax money from other criminal jus - tice agencies to fund the continuation of the Court. Hennepin June Weidner & Official records Centralized • An approximate net cost of $704.52 County 1999 Davis (2000) and defendant downtown per case to run the Community Court. Community and service criminal court • 66% of respondents willing to reallo - Justice Project provider inter - cate taxes towards a community court. (Minneapolis, views • 64% of respondents willing to pay MN) additional taxes for a community court. Midtown Oct. Hakuta et al. Official records Centralized • Increased alternative sanctions (76% vs Community 1993 (2008) downtown 55%, p<.001). Court criminal court • Reduced jail sentences (13% vs 19%, (Manhattan) p<.001). • Reduced time-served sentences (7% vs 21%, p<.001). • No impact on net number of jail days served per case. COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE | 3 Court Date Citation Data Source Comparison Key Impacts and Other Findings Opened Group Midtown Oct. Sviridoff et Official Pre-implemen - • Lower average arrest-to-arraignment Community 1993 al. (2001) records, com - tation cases time (18.9 vs 29.2 hours). Court munity survey, • Reduced use of “primary” jail sen - (Manhattan) and offender tences and increased use of “secondary” interviews jail sentences imposed in response to initial noncompliance (multiple signifi - cant effects for key charges); no net impact on jail days for most charges. • Mixed recidivism impacts; no clear effect on individual offender recidivism. • Reduced street prostitution and vend - ing arrests in the Midtown neighbor - hood. • Estimated savings of $1,270,000 to $1,418,000 annually from criminal jus - tice system cost savings and community service value. Midtown Oct. Sviridoff et Official Pre-implemen - • Increased use of alternative sanctions Community 1993 al. (2000) records, com - tation cases (multiple significant effects for key Court munity survey, charges). (Manhattan) offender and • Increased community service compli - court staff ance rate (75% vs 50%). interviews, and • Positive stakeholder, resident and courtroom offender attitudes about the Court. observations Neighbourhood Jan. Ross et al. Official Metropolitan • Reduced residential burglaries by 26% Justice Centre 2007 (draft) records; Magistrates’
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building a Community Court
    BUILDING A O ~ ii COMMUNITY COURT I N 1. R (O I.) U s II 0 N " ~HIS CATALOG OFFERS TOOLS, advice and resources about community courts. What are community courts? Community courts harken back to a bygone era, when courthouses stood at the center of the village green. Like the courts e of yesterday, community courts embrace old- fashioned notions of accountability, tying a cr~me to its consequences, and lending a helping hand to those in need. Community courts are located in neighborhoods rather than centralized office complexes. More important than their location is their philosophy: community courts take an aggressive approach to solving neighborhood problems like vandalism, landlord-tenant disputes, juvenile delinquency and drugs, e Colllnltlniry cotlrts use the authority of the justice system to restore neighborhoods that have been victimized by crime, neglect or disorder. They encourage greater citizen involvement, asking local residents and merchants to identify and prioritize neigh- borhood hot spots and eyesores. And they b,'ing an array of new partners into the justice system -- mediators, drug counselo,'s, :o k ,d!d doctors, teachers, employment specialists -- transforming the court into a hub for social services. What's the point? Why would anyone want to spend the time and energy and money to build one of these new courts? The answer is simple: community courts have proven effective in addressing quality-of-life problems and improving public confidence in justice. The first such court was the Midtown Com- mu,3itv Court in New York. Since Midtown opened in 1993, a number of other states have picked tip on the idea-- from Florida to Oregon, from Pennsylvania to Colorado i';.~;'.~.~ ~o.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court
    Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court By: The Justice Education Center, Inc. Date: December 2002 Acknowledgments The Evaluation of Hartford Community Court was conducted by the Justice Education Center, Inc., for the Connecticut Judicial Branch. The Center gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Community Court personnel for their tremendous cooperation and support throughout the evaluation process. Judge Raymond Norko and Court Planner Chris Pleasanton’s doors were always open. Their assistance in providing data to The Center’s research team and enabling team members to utilize the Community Court facility both during and after hours for interviews and focus groups was of immeasurable value and indicative of the openness and flexibility of the Court as a whole. A tremendous debt of gratitude is also extended to Harold Moan, the Judicial Branch’s Official Court Reporter and his staff for allowing The Center to use the recording and transcription equipment of the Court. Transcribing the focus group discussions could not have been accomplished without the excellent services of Susan Frederick, Administrative Assistant of the Superior Court. Also, special thanks are extended to Community Service Coordinator Christopher Mena and his entire staff of field supervisors in assisting with the coordination of client exit interviews, and to all Community Court marshals for their day-to-day cooperation. Extended thanks are given to the hardworking team of focus group facilitators and exit interviewers: Brian Smith, Gabriela Campos, Hector Ortiz, and Victor Alvaladero. Further, The Justice Education Center wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Robert Price, Project Coordinator, whose extraordinary efforts in managing the evaluation process, conducting interviews and co-facilitating focus groups were critical to the success of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Claims Courts: an Overview and Recommendation
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 9 1976 Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation Alexander Domanskis University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Courts Commons, Rule of Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexander Domanskis, Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation, 9 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 590 (1976). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol9/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SMALL CLAIMS COURTS: AN OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION A... problem is to make adequate provision for petty litiga- tion, to provide for disposing quickly, inexpensively, and justly of the litigation of the poor, for the collection of debts in a shift- ing population, and for the great volume of small controversies which a busy, crowded population, diversified in race and lan- guage, necessarily engenders. It is here that the administration of justice touches immediately the greatest number of people. Roscoe Pound' Small claims courts have been in operation in the United States for over sixty years.2 They were established to function as inexpensive, efficient, and convenient forums for resolving claims which could not be brought eco- nomically in ordinary civil courts because of the costs and delays accom- 3 panying ordinary civil court proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide for Drug Court Applicants
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: FY 2010 Enhancing Adult Drug Court Services, Coordination, and Treatment Solicitation Requirements Resource Guide Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 About the Requirements Resource Guide .......................................................................................................... 1 Assistance with the Proposal .............................................................................................................................. 1 The Drug Court Movement ................................................................................................................................. 1 Partnership with Treatment ................................................................................................................................. 2 Key Components of Drug Courts........................................................................................................................ 2 General Information................................................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Provisions ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Community Court
    with future court dates set at least 30 days out. Many simply failed to appear for their next hearings. Data gathered by the Philadelphia Police Department showed that approximately 70 percent of the arrestees were using illegal drugs or alco - hol upon arrest and an overlapping 20 Philadelphia percent had mental health issues. Thus many of these defendants were returning to the streets to commit the same crimes Community Court: — or worse — for the same reasons. Those given summary citations did not A Model for Other have bail hearings, but they otherwise fit A Model for Other the same description. Pennsylvania Cities In January 1994, Center City District staff visited New York City’s Midtown By William Babcock Community Court in Manhattan. The Midtown Community Court was the first of its kind and was created to address the same quality-of-life problems in the Times Square district as those identified in Center City Philadelphia. Visits to the community court by representatives of Philadelphia criminal justice, social service and community organizations followed. These groups then formed a steering committee to determine the via - bility of a community court in Center City Philadelphia and to raise the funds needed to hire a project coordinator. In 1998 I was hired by the Center City District to fill that role. We formed a working group and spent the next four years planning the project, which opened in February 2002. he Center City District The Center City District surveys its vari - is a business improve - ous audiences annually to find out what The largest hurdle was the drafting of ment district located in people like and don’t like about the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Community Justice | 1
    A Guide for Community Court Planners author year about this publication Greg Berman 2010 This report was supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance under Director grant number 2009-DC-BX-K018 awarded to the Center for Court Center for Court Innovation Innovation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also This document builds on an earlier includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of version (1997) drafted with the help of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, John Feinblatt. the Office for Victims of Crime, the Community Capacity Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE | 1 PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE: A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY COURT PLANNERS Instead of focusing exclusively on reacting after the fact to individual crimes and offenders, many criminal jus- ticeINTRODUCTION agencies have begun to think more broadly about how to improve public safety and the quality of life in crime-plaguedLorem ipsum dolor neighborhoods. sit amet, consectetuer This process adipiscing began in elit,the sedfield diam of policing. nonummy Starting nibh aeuismod little more tincidunt than a ut genera- tionlaoreet ago, dolore several magna overlapping aliquam reform erat volutpat. movements Ut wisi emerged: enim ad broken minim windows veniam, policing, quis nostrud community exerci tation policing, ullam and- problem-orientedcorper suscipit lobortis policing.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Staff Analysis
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 919 Community Courts SPONSOR(S): McClain and others TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Criminal Justice Subcommittee 13 Y, 0 N Jones Hall 2) Justice Appropriations Subcommittee 3) Judiciary Committee SUMMARY ANALYSIS Problem-solving courts are specialized, non-traditional courts addressing the underlying causes of crime to reduce recidivism and promote rehabilitation. Florida has over 170 problem-solving courts, including drug courts, veterans courts, mental health courts, early childhood courts, permanency courts, and DUI courts. Community court is another type of problem-solving court that addresses the underlying causes of crimes specific to a particular community. Community courts: Divert eligible offenders from the normal judicial channels of prosecution; Require participants to participate in treatment programs; Provide sanctions for failure to comply with the programs; and Allow for imposition of terms other than traditional jail time. HB 919 authorizes each judicial circuit to establish a community court program for defendants charged with certain misdemeanors as designated by the chief judge. A community court must adopt a non-adversarial approach, consider the needs of the victim and the defendant, provide for judicial leadership, and monitor compliance. Each community court must establish an advisory committee of community stakeholders including the chief judge, the state attorney, and the public defender. The advisory committee reviews each case and makes recommendations, but the judge has final decisionmaking authority on sentencing. The bill requires each judicial circuit to report certain community court data to the Office of State Courts Administrator for community court program evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities with International Tribunals and Foreign Courts
    Opportunities with International Tribunals and Foreign Courts YALE LAW SCHOOL • CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Why work at an International Tribunal or Foreign Court? 2. What is in this Guide? 3. How to Pursue a Position with a Court outside the U.S. Chapter 2 International Tribunals A. Tribunals Offering Opportunities 1. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2. Court of Justice of the European Union 3. European Court of Auditors 4. European Court of Human Rights 5. European Free Trade Agreement Court 6. Inter-American Court of Human Rights 7. International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration 8. International Court of Justice 9. International Criminal Court 10. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 11. Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 12. Permanent Court of Arbitration 13.World Bank International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 14. World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration & Mediation Center 15. World Trade Organization Appellate Body B.Additional Tribunals 1. Caribbean Court of Justice 2. Central American Court of Justice 3. Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa Court of Justice 4. Court of Justice of the Andean Community 5. East African Court of Justice 6.Economic Community of West African States Community Court of Justice C. Organizations Engaged in Tribunal Work 1. War Crimes Research Office Chapter 3 National Courts A. Opportunities 1. High Court of Australia 2. Federal Court of Australia 3. Courts of Denmark, Faroe Islands, and Greenland 4. Supreme Court of Israel 5. Courts of New Zealand 6. Constitutional Court of South Africa 7. Supreme Court of Canada 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American
    T O EN F J TM U U.S. Department of Justice R ST A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE SENTENCING & CORRECTIONS Issues for the 21st Century September 1999 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections No. 3 Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American Sentencing and Corrections Directors’ Message It is by now a commonplace that the number by Leena Kurki of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As rograms based on restorative and com- In contrast to this bottom-up approach, a result, the sentencing policies driving that munity justice principles have prolifer- recent changes in sentencing law are premised number, and the field of corrections, where ated in the United States over the past on retributive ideas about punishing wrong- the consequences are felt, have acquired an P unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined decade simultaneously with tough-on-crime doers and on the desirability of controlling more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and initiatives like three-strikes, truth-in-sentenc- risk, increasing public safety, and reducing expense than by any consensus about future ing, and mandatory minimum laws. Restor- sentencing disparities. Restorative and com- directions. ative justice and community justice represent munity justice goals of achieving appropriate, new ways of thinking about crime. The theo- individualized dispositions often conflict with Are sentencing policies, as implemented through ries underlying restorative justice suggest that the retributive goal of imposing certain, con- correctional programs and practices, achieving government should surrender its monopoly sistent, proportionate sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs Courts Neighborhoods
    think piece A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System Drugs, Courts and Neighborhoods Community Reintegration and the Brooklyn Treatment Court Written by This publication was supported by a grant from the State Justice Institute. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of Greg Berman the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. David Anderson 1999 About the Authors Greg Berman is a deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. David Anderson is acting director of communications at the Ford Foundation and a former member of the editorial board of the New York Times. DRUGS, COURTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS Community Reintegration and the Brooklyn Treatment Court New Experiments In recent years, courts across the country have begun to re-think how they do in Justice business, testing whether new approaches could improve case processing and result in better outcomes. Two of the more prominent examples of this wave of experimentation are drug courts and community courts. Drug courts offer addicted defendants who plead guilty to drug charges the opportunity to have their cases dismissed if they successfully complete drug treatment. Their progress in treatment is rigorously monitored by the drug court judge and by court-based case managers. Drug courts seek to halt the revolving door of addiction and arrest, using a graduated system of rewards and sanctions to help substance abusers attain — and maintain — sobriety. The drug court movement began in Florida in 1989 with a single experiment initiat- ed by Attorney General Janet Reno, then the elected prosecutor of Miami’s Dade County.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report
    INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT JULY 2013 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT About the Commission The Re-entry Policy Study Commission was established by City-County Council Resolution 80, 2012 anD later amenDeD by Council Resolution 90, which expanDed the membership of the Commission. The Commission was directeD to: Examine anD investigate the current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenDers and the economic and community impact of reducing recidivism in Marion County, Hold public hearings and take public input, and Report to the Council findings and recommendations for improvement. The mission of the Re-entry Policy Study Commission is to increase public safety in Marion County by breaking the cycle of criminal activity by ex-offenders who are re-entering the community. This will be accomplisheD by examining, investigating and facilitating the implementation of policy and proceDures related to the re-entry of ex-offenders with a focus on the economic anD community impact of those measures. Re-entry Policy Study Commission Members Mary Moriarty Adams Jose Salinas Commission Chair Judge Chair, Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee Marion Superior Court Indianapolis-Marion County Council Angela Smith Jones Joyce Dabner Director of Public Policy Re-entry Coordinator Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce Starting Over Corps Valerie Washington Rhiannon Edwards Deputy Director/Chief Financial Officer Executive Director
    [Show full text]
  • A Look Into Court-Based Behavioral Health Diversion Interventions
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: MAY 2020 A Look into Court-Based Behavioral Health Diversion Interventions Recognizing that people with behavioral health needs are overrepresented in the criminal justice system,1 many communities have developed alternatives to incarceration that connect eligible people to community-based treatment and supports. While efforts around “The overrepresentation of people with preventing people from entering the criminal justice system and developing law enforcement behavioral health disorders in the criminal diversion interventions are critical to connecting people to treatment community wide, this justice system is a problem that cannot be brief focuses on diversion efforts led by those working in courts, such as judges, ignored and should not be tolerated. As a prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court administrators. For information on other diversion opportunities, see Behavioral Health Diversion Interventions: Moving from judge, I have been uniquely positioned to Individual Programs to a Systems-Wide Strategy, and other associated resources. bring criminal justice and clinical professionals together with community partners to develop Why set up court-based behavioral health diversion interventions? and implement behavioral health diversion programs that offer hope and recovery to Court-based behavioral health diversion interventions focus on connecting people with needed community-based care, usually after someone with mental illnesses,2 substance people whose lives have been devastated use disorders, or both,3 is booked into jail. These connections, which may be provided by addiction and mental illness. At the same 4 at a person’s initial court appearance or at subsequent court appearances, can be done time, these efforts promote public safety by through programs operating in a court or prosecutor’s office or as a pre-plea component of dramatically reducing the likelihood that they an existing problem-solving court (e.g., drug courts,5 mental health courts,6 opioids courts).
    [Show full text]