UPSTATE INNOVATION
Fall 2005

In This Issue:

• Rochester Mental Health Treatment Court Celebrates First Graduation
• "Good Courts": First Book on Problem-Solving Courts Released
• Rural Innovation: Domestic Violence and Town and Village Courts
• Seeing Eye-to-Eye? Research Examines Upstate Drug Court
• National Association of Drug Court Professionals Annual Conference
• Court Staff Provide Outreach at Steuben County Fair
• Training Held for Pilot Sex Offender Courts
• Upcoming Trainings

The Rochester Mental Health Treatment Court, one of five such courts in New York State, awarded silver ribbons to graduates of its program August 4. Speakers at the ceremony included Judge Judy Harris Kluger, the deputy chief administrative judge for court operations and planning, Dr. Kathleen C. Plum, director of the Monroe County Office of Mental Health and Judge Patricia Marks, supervising judge of Criminal Courts in the Seventh Judicial District, who presides over the docket.

Studies indicate that people with serious mental health issues who receive ongoing treatment for their disorders have reduced involvement in the criminal justice system. Mental health court participants agree to receive treatment for their mental health disorders and medical needs while their charges are pending so that either the charge or sentence might ultimately be reduced. For low-level felony and misdemeanor defendants, this may mean staying on medication, attending treatment programs and reporting regularly to Judge Marks.

“Partnerships are key to this effort,” Judge Marks said. “The collaboration between so many partners makes it possible for individuals to receive treatment for an illness they have grappled with for years. These participants still receive sanctions for their criminal behavior. In fact, at the end of their treatment, they better understand the consequences of their actions.”

At the August graduation, participants all chose to address the audience. One woman thanked those who had supported her and then began to cry. After regaining her composure, she reassured the audience that hers were tears of joy. Ribbon recipients thanked lawyers, probation officers, treatment providers and Judge Marks for their support.

Judge Kluger noted that “by addressing both the treatment needs of defendants with mental illness as well as the public safety concerns of communities, mental health courts link defendants with mental illness to long-term treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It is evident to me, by hearing from the participants themselves at the silver ribbon ceremony, that the Rochester Mental Health Court has accomplished that goal.”

The silver ribbons were developed by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill to help eliminate the stigma against those who suffer from mental health issues.

Also attending were Judge Thomas Van Strydonck, administrative judge of the Seventh Judicial District; Judge Roy King, of the Rochester City Court; Judge John Schwartz, of the Monroe County Court; Monroe County District Attorney Mike Greene; and Monroe County Public Defender Ed Nowak.

"Good Courts": First Book on Problem-Solving Courts Released

In June, the New Press officially launched Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice with a party attended by New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman. In the book, Greg Berman and John Feinblatt—the current and former director of the Center for Court Innovation, respectively—document how problem-solving courts reengineer the way everyday crime is addressed by focusing on the underlying problems that bring people into the criminal justice system. The first book to describe this cutting-edge movement in detail, Good Courts features profiles of problem-solving experiments, including the Midtown Community Court and the Red Hook Community Justice Center, portraits of practitioners in the trenches and a review of the growing body of evidence that the problem-solving approach to justice is producing positive results around the country.

“Sociologists and those within the legal system will no doubt be intrigued by this accessible and provocative call for change,” Publishers Weekly said in its review.

George Kelling, author of Fixing Broken Windows called Good Courts “an excellent documentation of a powerful movement” written in “a wonderfully straightforward, jargon-free style.”

All authors' proceeds from the book benefit the Center for Court Innovation. Click here to order from Amazon.com.

Rural Innovation: Domestic Violence and Town Village Courts

As domestic violence courts continue to spread across the state, many jurisdictions are wrestling with questions about how to administer these courts effectively in rural areas with limited resources. Giving all courts the tools to improve the judicial response to domestic violence ensures that victims have equal access to justice throughout the state.

Based on the collective experience of the New York State domestic violence courts—misdemeanor, felony and integrated—two core principles have emerged that are transferable to every setting, according to Liberty Aldrich and Robyn Mazur, authors of a new report from the Center for Court Innovation. The two principles are: coordination with victim services and other providers and judicial monitoring. Regardless of the size or composition of the jurisdiction, these principles can improve the court’s response to domestic violence.

The first core principle, coordinating with victim services and other providers, involves:

• providing victims with immediate access to advocates;
• making sure victims have immediate and thorough access to social-services;
• making certain that victims are informed about the progress of their cases;
• scheduling cases promptly; and
• creating strong collaborations with a wide range of partners.

The second principle—judicial monitoring—is also transferable and can take a number of different forms.

• A judge new to a domestic violence court docket should participate in special judicial training since the judge’s ability to hold a defendant accountable is compromised if he or she is not aware of the dynamics of domestic violence and how they may influence the case presentation in the courtroom.
• The judge should schedule regular compliance hearings to monitor defendants who have been convicted or taken a plea. Even if a court does not meet frequently, curfews, phone check-ins, and ankle monitors are all techniques that courts have explored. Also, local probation departments are often able to provide information about defendant compliance.
• If the judge creates a separate compliance docket, he or she sends the message that the judge is still “watching” the case.
• Judges also can use their authority to build strong relationships with service providers such as batterers’ programs and substance abuse treatment providers, which ensures that when a defendant is noncompliant, the court is notified right away and can act accordingly.
• Finally, a judge’s ability to think creatively can have a great impact on the success of a domestic violence court, especially in a rural area with limited resources.

To download a PDF of the white paper click here.

Seeing Eye-to-Eye? Research Examines Upstate Drug Court

An Upstate drug treatment court, which is not identified to protect the anonymity of participants, was one of three courts studied recently by researchers at the Center for Court Innovation. The study compared staffers’ and participants’ different perceptions of drug court operations.

Staff and participants were interviewed in separate groups about a number of topics. Among other things, researchers explored why participants agreed to enter drug court; their expectations when entering the program; and their perceptions about the judge, staff, court rules and procedure.

Researchers found that staff regularly sought feedback from program participants and incorporated this feedback into the court’s policies and procedures. Indeed, many suggestions for improvement offered by participants were already being implemented by the time staff met with researchers.

The study, “Seeing Eye to Eye? Participant and Staff Perspectives on Drug Courts,” included two other New York courts. Researchers targeted well-established courts that were diverse in terms geography and court policies. One court was urban, one suburban and one was in a semi-rural setting.

Some key findings of the study include:

• Participants enter drug court primarily to avoid incarceration, not to enter treatment and get off drugs. Participants, however, frequently reported that their reasons for ultimately staying in the program had more to do with the positive changes they associated with getting off drugs and alcohol.
• Most participants believe the rules of drug court are fair. Participants spoke favorably about how the judge and other staff take participants’ “personal situations” into account when making decisions such as sanctions and phase advancement.
• Participants cited the dedication of the judge and the rest of the treatment court staff as a key motivator. Participants noted the commitment of the entire treatment court team, which they described as fair, sympathetic, encouraging, and dedicated to the success of participants.
• Heightened monitoring, drug testing, and the threat of prison are key motivators to remain clean and in the program. Just as most participants entered drug court to avoid prison, the continued prospect of incarceration is a powerful motivator to keep them in the program. Participants also cited heightened monitoring, especially frequent drug testing, as a critical component of drug court.
• The courtroom experience is critical to drug court participants. Drug court participants clearly personalized the experience of appearing before and speaking to the judge in court; it appears to have a powerful effect. Sitting in court and seeing other cases also appears to be effective.
• Drug court participants also offered suggestions for improving the program, including reducing charges for those who successfully complete treatment court, aiding with transportation to and from treatment and court, and changing the name from “drug court” to “treatment court” to minimize stigma.

Drug court participants also offered suggestions for improving the program, including reducing charges for those who successfully complete treatment court, aiding with transportation to and from treatment and court, and changing the name from “drug court” to “treatment court” to minimize stigma.

To download a PDF of the study click here.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals Annual Conference

Over 2,400 people, including 75 from New York state, attended the National Association of Drug Court Professionals’ annual conference in June in Orlando, Florida.

The conference, “Enhancing the Permanency of Recovery,” focused on expanding the drug court population to include all eligible non-violent offenders and the important role research plays in demonstrating the effectiveness of drug court programs. The conference included nearly 100 sessions and covered a wide range of topics. There were sessions on re-entry courts, DWI courts, cultural proficiency, tribal wellness courts, co-occurring disorders, evidence-based practices, and faith-based initiatives.

Plenary topics included the surge in methamphetamine use across the country. While methamphetamine use has been well documented in midwest and western states, there is growing concern within the treatment and law enforcement communities that the drug is rapidly moving east. Cheap to produce and 10 times more potent than crack cocaine, methamphetamine is devastating communities and families wherever it appears.

For more information see http://www.nadcp.org.

Court Staff Provide Outreach at Steuben County Fair

The court system reaches out to the community in many different ways. In Steuben County, for instance, court staff have for the past five years attended the annual county fair to educate the community about Criminal Court, Surrogate Court, Family Court, Drug Court, Domestic Violence, Small Claim Courts, and City Court. This year, volunteers offered a slide show and handouts that promoted the theme “Drug Treatment Courts Save Lives and Money.”

Steuben County Chief Clerk William Deninger, who coordinated the Unified Court System's community service program at the 185th Steuben County Fair held August 16-21, extended special thanks to Tom Cornell, Elaine Gunn, Kate Mattoon, Kelly VanSkiver, Lisa Preston, Jamie Hawley, Beverly Michalko, Stacey VanDewater, Peggy Lynn Plank, Laurie Partridge, Betty Gerych, Laura Beltz, Katherine Peterson-Lyle, Lori LeVesque and Elvira Karns. Among the many visitors were Karen Ambrozik and Susan Scott from the District Office.

Steuben County has a rural population of 99,000 and an estimated 50,000 people attended the fair last year.

Training Held for Pilot Sex Offender Courts

Court personnel and stakeholders from three jurisdictions gathered on June 16 at the New York Judicial Institute in White Plains, New York for the first New York State Sex Offender Courts Training. Representatives from pilot sex offender courts in Nassau, Oswego and Westchester Counties attended. Invited participants included two judges from each county, district attorneys, defense attorneys, court attorneys, clerks, court administrators, and representatives of victim agencies, probation departments, sexual offender treatment providers, and parole department.

The one-day training included a comprehensive presentation by Peggy Heil, a national expert on sexual offenders and related research. In addition, Kristine Herman from the Center for Court Innovation provided an overview of the mission statement and key principles of sex offender courts, as developed by the Office of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, Court Operations and Planning, in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation. Break out groups by jurisdiction reviewed case scenarios and planning protocols and procedures for the pilot sex offender courts. These courts will apply the information discussed in the training into next steps in their development.

Upcoming Trainings

Integrated Domestic Violence Court Training for Planning Teams, Judges, and Staff

September 21-23, 2005 at the Judicial Institute, White Plains

Integrated Domestic Violence Court Tech Training

Oswego IDVC: September 29-30, 5th Judicial Computer Training Computer Room, 600 S. State St, Room 801, Syracuse

Fourth Judicial District IDVC: November 18-19, OCA Division of Technology Offices

New York State Office of Court Drug Treatment Training for New Team Members

Nov. 1- 2 at the Judicial Institute, White Plains

The training will cover key drug court operational components, including psychopharmacology of addiction, drug testing protocols, treatment modalities, cultural competence, confidentiality laws, sanctions and incentives. Attendees from each discipline will have the opportunity to discuss drug court issues and challenges specific to their professions. The training will also feature five nationally recognized drug treatment court experts.