DOCSLIB.ORG

Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Indianapolis Department of Public Safety Public Advocates in Community re-Entry (PACE) Melissa Benton Andrew Fogle Ex-offenDer Liaison Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Office anD Grant Manager Marion County Prosecutor’s Office Indy-east Asset Development William Gooden Shawn HenDricks Councillor Ex-offenDer Liaison Indianapolis-Marion County Council ReCycle Force Willie Jenkins Re-Entry Administrator Office of the Mayor, Indianapolis Staff Mike Lloyd Fred Biesecker Director of Transitional Facilities anD Community-BaseD General Counsel Programs Indianapolis-Marion County Council Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) Hope Tribble Robert Ohlemiller Chief Financial Officer and Policy Analyst Program Director, Jail Division Indianapolis-Marion County Council Marion County Sheriff's Office Leslie Williams Vop Osili Administrative Assistant Councillor Indianapolis-Marion County Council Indianapolis-Marion County Council Page 2 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT Acknowledgements The Commission acknowleDges with gratitude, the following people anD organizations that participated in the policy study process: Partners The Commission has identified the following organizations as partners in the work to meet its mission. American Institute of Research Marion County Community Corrections Bethlehem House Marion County Jail City of Indianapolis Office of Audit anD Marion County Prosecutor’s Office Performance Marion County Public Defender Agency Community Solutions Inc. Marion County Re-entry anD Drug Court Craine House Marion County Re-entry Coalition Drug Free Marion County Marion County Sheriff’s Department Fathers anD Families Mayor's Office of Re-entry Goodwill Marion Superior Court Probation Department Homeless and Re-entry Helpers Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic HOPE (Helping Others Prosper Economically) PACE Team Recycle Force Indiana Department of Correction State of Indiana – Access to Recovery Indiana Department of Correction – Parole Step Up, Inc. Indiana Department of Workforce Development Trusted Mentors Indianapolis-Marion County Council United Way Indy Chamber Use What You’ve Got Prison Ministries Indy Reads Volunteers of America Indiana University School of Public anD Environmental Affairs Report Writers Additional Contributors Lisa Brueggeman John Alt John Cocco Ed DeLaney Rhiannon Edwards Lena Hackett Julie Fidler Manual MenDez and Office of Audit and Performance Andy Fogle Vanessa Summers Konrad Haight Greg Taylor Roger Jarjoura Mary Leffler Page 3 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT Presenters Sandra Bryan Derrick Franke Mike Lloyd Deputy Chief Probation Officer Visiting Assistant Professor of Criminal Director of Transitional Facilities anD Marion Superior Court Probation Justice Community-Based Programs Department Indiana University Purdue University at Indiana Department of Corrections Indianapolis (IUPUI) John Cocco Cara Misetic Re-entry Case Manager Lena Hackett Regional Behavioral Health Director Step Up, Inc. Community Solutions, Inc. Corizon Marion County Re-entry Coalition Barbara CrawforD Mitzi Wilson Presiding Judge Bruce Henry Staff Attorney Marion Superior Court 9 Director of Human Resources Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic City of Indianapolis Tricia Dierks Bob Ohlemiller Manager of Employment and Denise Jackson Program Director Compensation Indiana Department of Correction Marion County Sheriff’s Office Wishard Health Services Parole District #3 Kevin Potter John Deiter G. Roger Jarjoura Vice President Executive Director Principal Researcher Shiel Sexton Marion County Community Corrections American Institutes for Research Ben SanDman M. Travis DiNicola Willie Jenkins Residential Programs and Re-entry Executive Director Re-entry Administrator Coordinator Indy Reads Indianapolis Department of Public Marion County Community Corrections Safety Rhiannon Edwards Lucia Sheehan Executive Director Angela Smith Jones Criminal Justice Literacy Specialist Public Advocates in Community Director of Public Policy Indy Reads re-Entry (PACE) Indy Chamber Shelette Veal Trelles Evans Gregg Keesling General Counsel Manager of Employment Development President Indianapolis Housing Agency and Training Recycle Force Goodwill Industries Jeri Warner Christine Kerl Executive Director Julie Fidler Chief Probation Officer Trusted Mentors Human Services Grants Manager Marion Superior Court Department of Metropolitan Kay Wiles Development Deron Kintner Supervisor, Homeless Initiative Program Deputy Mayor for Economic HealthNet Inc. Stephen E. Fisher Development Indiana Department of Workforce City of Indianapolis Development Mary Leffler Andy Fogle Director of Community Engagement Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Volunteers of America (VOA) Marion County Prosecutor’s Office Page 4 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT Table of Contents About the Commission 2 Acknowledgements 3 Introduction & Purpose 7 Definition of ReciDivism 10 Re-entrant Statistics and Demographics, incluDing the Re-entrant Population 11 Fiscal Impact 13 Criminal Justice System 14 Policy Issues 17 Economic Impact 18 Uses of Time During Incarceration 26 Wrap Around Services (Case Management) 30 Health, Mental Health and Addiction Services 32 Housing 36 Employment 40 Sentencing Options & Alternatives 44 Policy Improvement Opportunities 48 Measuring & Reporting Progress 51 Appendices Appendix A: Meeting Agendas, Minutes and Handouts Appendix B: Presenter List & Biographies Appendix C: Commission Member Biographies Appendix D: Reference Materials Appendix E: Enacting Proposals to City County Council Page 5 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT Page 6 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT Introduction & Purpose From Mary Moriarty Adams, Commission Chair, and Vop Osili, City-County Councillor The statistics spoke loudly: data from the Indiana Department of Correction and the Marion County Jail indicate that approximately 5,000 men and women are released into Marion County from prisons and jails each year. During the last few years, approximately 51% of those released into Marion County have returned to incarceration within three years of their release date. The average annual cost for an incarcerated offender is more than $25,000. Reducing the rate of recidivism would have significant economic and public safety benefits in addition to increasing the number of productive members of our community. In response, the City-County Council decided to take action to address issues that we found. In partnership with our public safety partners, members of the Marion County Re-entry Coalition, the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and other community organizations, the Council’s Re-Entry Policy Study Commission began its work to examine, on a local level, the number of men and women incarcerated, the number released and the number who reciDivate, costs associated with offenders as they move through the prison system and to develop policies to address concerns about our county’s high recidivism rate as identified by local business, policy groups, community organizations and social service agencies . These numbers, coupled with the costs to local government, challenge the Council’s ability to adequately fund and address concerns raised by our public safety partners, county resiDents, and to realize the successful outcomes of those re-entering our community from incarceration. The Re-entry Policy Study Commission was created and amended by Council Resolutions 80, 2012 and 90, 2012, respectively. Under the authority of the Council, its purpose is to examine and investigate current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders and the economic and community impact of reducing reciDivism in Marion County. From November, 2012 through April of 2013, the Commission held 10 public hearings, received presentations from subject matter experts
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]