Upstate Innovation is a semi-annual electronic newsletter from the Upstate office of the Center for Court Innovation in Syracuse, New York. This newsletter is designed to keep a wide audience informed about current developments in problem-solving court initiatives and to provide electronic links to other resources.

UPSTATE INNOVATION
Summer 2007

In This Issue:

  • Mental Health Courts Update
  • Oswego County Students Attend Panel Discussions About Sex Offenses
  • Syracuse Community Court Tackles Litter Problem
  • Syracuse Partnership for Violence Prevention Completes First Year of Training
  • Cayuga Integrated Domestic Violence Court Holds Training
  • Recidivism 101: Evaluating the Impact of Your Drug Court
  • Research: Many Courts Fail to Punish Noncompliance with Batterer Mandates
  • New Yorkers Participate in National Problem-Solving Conferences
  • New Journal Highlights Judicial Innovation
  • Online Problem-Solving Justice Toolkit

To submit ideas for future issues, suggest names for our mailing list or learn more about the Center for Court Innovation's Upstate office, contact Aaron F. Arnold, director, Upstate office, at aarnold@courts.state.ny.us or Tel (315) 671-2094; Fax (315) 671-2092.

Mental Health Courts Update

Mental health courts link mentally ill offenders to long-term treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Since 2002, New York has opened 12 mental health courts, and more are in development. In the Upstate region, Buffalo, Plattsburgh, Lackawanna, Monroe County, Niagara Falls, and Utica have operational mental health courts, while Jamestown, Lockport, and Montgomery County courts are in the planning stages.

Judge Felix Catena sees the success of the existing Montgomery County Drug Court and the experience his team has gained as an indication that “the criminal justice system and residents in Montgomery County will be well served by the implementation of a mental health court. By collaborating with principal stakeholders we have a formidable team of experts to rehabilitate, and not simply incarcerate, eligible defendants suffering from a mental illness.”

Even as these courts are opening, “new methods are being developed to apply problem-solving practices to the challenges presented by people with mental illness who become involved with the judicial system,” according to Judge Judy Harris Kluger, deputy chief administrative judge for court operations and planning for the Office of Court Administration.

In one innovation, the Monroe County Mental Health Court and the Rochester City Drug Treatment Court have been located in the same courtroom. In this way, the courts hope to use staff and court resources more efficiently. Judge Patricia D. Marks presides over cases in both courts.

Another innovative approach is a new model called Mental Health Court Connections recently introduced by the Office of Court Administration and the Center for Court Innovation. This program uses the problem-solving principles and practices of mental health courts but allows jurisdictions to apply them more broadly to courtrooms throughout a given jurisdiction.

Representatives from Albany, Dutchess, Nassau, and Rensselaer counties attended the first Mental Health Court Connections training session in April where they learned how to foster collaborations in their individual jurisdictions. These jurisdictions will be working to create protocols for alternative case processing and sentencing options that include linking defendants to community-based treatment and utilizing judicial supervision to help motivate compliance with mental health treatment plans.

"The Mental Health Court Connections training session has provided the impetus and a blueprint for Rensselaer County treatment agencies, law enforcement personnel, and court personnel to utilize in developing a comprehensive, countywide program,” said Judge Robert Jacon, one of the training participants.

“Mental Health Court Connections addresses both the treatment needs of defendants with mental illness and the public safety concerns of communities. The program will benefit those counties whose case volume does not justify a dedicated court for defendants with mental illness or that are interested in a broader range of options than a mental health court can provide,” said Carol Fisler, director of mental health court programs at the Center for Court Innovation.

Oswego County Students Attend Panel Discussions About Sex Offenses

The lack of knowledge among high school students about statutory rape and other sex offenses led Judge James C. McCarthy, who presides over the Oswego County Sex Offense Court, to organize panel discussions for 10th, 11th, and 12th graders.

The program, “Sex Offenses: Know the Potential Legal Consequences (AGE Does MATTER!)” was held at Mexico High School in December, Altmar-Parish-Williams High School in January, and Oswego High School in May. Sponsored by the Oswego County Sex Offense Court, panelists discussed topics including definitions of sex offenses, probation versus jail, notification of schools, court costs, restitution, effects of a felony conviction, and a definition of a registered sex offender. Time was available at the end of each program for questions from the student audiences.

"Too many times young people come before me on criminal charges for statutory age violations regarding consensual sexual activity,” Judge McCarthy said. “Most of the time the students believe because their actions are consensual there are no potential criminal consequences. The effects a criminal conviction has on the rest of their lives are so profound that we felt we had a duty to tell them of the potential consequences. If they have the appropriate knowledge and information perhaps they won't make a decision that could drastically affect them the rest of their lives.”

In addition to Judge McCarthy, panelists included representatives from the defense bar, district attorney’s office, police and probation departments, and a local victim advocacy organization.

Syracuse Community Court Tackles Litter Problem

The Syracuse Post-Standard recently published the following letter by Aaron Arnold, director of the Center for Court Innovation’s Upstate office, in response to a column calling on readers to submit their ideas for cleaning up Syracuse.

To the Editor:

Columnist Sean Kirst recently encouraged The Post-Standard readers to share their ideas for beautifying Syracuse and tackling the region's litter problem. As readers respond to Mr. Kirst's call for fresh, new ideas, it is worth pointing out that the Syracuse Community Court is already working to clean up the city of Syracuse through its innovative community service program.

Begun in 2001, the Syracuse Community Court handles nearly 5,000 cases per year involving littering, loitering, excessive noise, open container (drinking in public), and park curfew violations. Rather than punish these quality-of-life crimes with a "slap on the wrist" or a small fine, the Community Court orders these low-level offenders to repay the community through meaningful community service.

Three days per week, a Community Court van transports offenders to sites across the city where they remove litter and brush, paint over graffiti and shovel snow, among other projects. Since the Community Court's inception, 2,609 defendants have worked on 589 work crews that have contributed 15,543 hours of labor to the community. The Syracuse Community Court is working to expand its community service program even further.

The dedicated staff of the Syracuse Community Court should be applauded for their hard work and commitment.

Aaron Arnold
Center for Court Innovation

 Syracuse Partnership for Violence Prevention Completes First Year of Operation

Don McPherson, an award-winning Syracuse University and professional football player, was the keynote speaker at the February kickoff for the Syracuse Partnership for Violence Prevention, a unique collaboration between Syracuse University and the Center for Court Innovation to train peer educators in sororities and fraternities in the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program. The program is designed to empower students to assume leadership roles in confronting abuse, harassment, and homophobia.

McPherson, a member of the original Mentors in Violence Prevention Program development team at the Center for Sport in Society at Northeastern University, introduced the program to 60 student educators, who were later joined by Syracuse University deans, Office of Student Affairs staff, and representatives from the Center for Court Innovation, Vera House Inc. (the local domestic violence advocacy agency), and the media. McPherson is currently the executive director of the Sports Leadership Institute at Adelphi University on Long Island.

Following the kickoff, the peer educators attended intensive training sessions led by staff from Syracuse University, Vera House, and the Center for Court Innovation. The sessions covered the five topics in the MVP program: gender roles, battering, alcohol and consent, sexual harassment, and homophobia. A total of 196 peer educators and members of fraternities and sororities completed the training.

The Syracuse Partnership for Violence Prevention will resume in the fall, training additional peer educators in sororities and fraternities.

Cayuga Integrated Domestic Violence Court Holds Training

The Cayuga County Integrated Domestic Violence Court in Auburn, New York, hosted a half-day training program in May entitled “Critical Issues in Responding to Domestic Violence: Best Practices for Attorneys & Service Providers.”

Kristine Herman, associate director of Domestic Violence Programs of the Center for Court Innovation, addressed the issue of abuse in adolescent dating relationships, while Kathryn Ford, a domestic violence program associate at the Center, focused on intimate partner sexual assault. In addition, Claire Bobrycki from Cayuga Counseling spoke about referral issues pertaining to court-mandated services.

Continuing legal education credit was provided to participants who included judges, town and village justices, advocates, probation officers, mental health professionals, court staff, substance abuse treatment providers, child protective services personnel, batterers’ program staff, school administrators, police officers, and supervised-visitation providers.

For further information or to schedule a similar training, please contact Kathryn Ford at (212) 373-1692 or kford@courts.state.ny.us

 Recidivism 101: Evaluating the Impact of Your Drug Court

Recidivism 101: Evaluating the Impact of Your Drug Court, a new publication from the Center for Court Innovation, explains how practitioners or researchers can determine whether or not a drug court is reducing recidivism among participants.

While reducing recidivism is a universal goal of drug courts, court administrators and staff are routinely uncertain how to go about obtaining a valid analysis. The paper discusses: (1) which drug court participants to include in a recidivism analysis, (2) what is an appropriate comparison group, and (3) how to ensure that the final drug court participants and comparison samples are truly comparable.

The complete report can be downloaded from the research page of the Center's web site at http://www.courtinnovation.org/research_publications.htm.

Research: Many Courts Fail to Punish Noncompliance with Batterer Mandates

To examine the role of batterer programs in promoting accountability among defendants in domestic violence courts, the Center for Court Innovation, in collaboration with VCS Inc., a social service agency in Rockland County, New York, recently completed a national study whose primary question was: to what extent do criminal courts nationwide advance the goal of accountability by imposing consequences on offenders who are noncompliant with a batterer program mandate? The study examined policy and practice in 260 communities nationwide by surveying a criminal court, batterer program, and victim assistance agency in each community.

The study found that a critical foundation exists in most places on which to build an accountability model. In particular, the study found theoretical support for the goal of “accountability” among the vast majority of survey respondents (more than 75 percent); and found that virtually all batterer programs (more than 95 percent) send compliance reports to the mandating court under at least some circumstances—a prerequisite practice for any effort to hold offenders accountable when they are noncompliant.

However, the study detected important barriers. Although most respondents listed “accountability” as a function of court mandates to batterer programs in theory, most also listed “treatment/rehabilitation.” Clearly, there is widespread belief in the field that batterer programs have a therapeutic benefit even though a research consensus has begun to emerge that casts doubt on the validity of this assumption.

These results may be seen as a useful, if modest, first step in stimulating the field to develop clearer and more consistent policies in the use of batterer programs to hold offenders accountable. The complete report is available on the Center’s web site at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Court_Responses_March2007.pdf.

New Yorkers Participate in National Problem-Solving Conferences

Practitioners from New York, including staff from the Buffalo City Court, participated in a panel on problem-solving justice at the national drug court conference in Washington D.C. in June.

Hank Pirowski, project director of the C.O.U.R.T.S. Program at the Buffalo City Court, and Aubrey Fox, project director of Bronx Community Solutions, explained how their projects apply the principles of problem-solving justice to problems in their communities. The panel was moderated by Julius Lang of the Center for Court Innovation and part of the National Association for Drug Court Professionals 13th annual training conference. (There will be more about this conference in the next issue.)

Practitioners from New York also participated in a two-day conference entitled “Expanding the Use of Problem-Solving Justice: Reflections on What Works, What Doesn’t, and How to Overcome Challenges” that brought together problem-solving practitioners from around the U.S. The conference, which was held in May in Atlanta, was organized by the Center for Court Innovation for the 10 criminal justice demonstration projects selected by the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the U.S. Department of Justice to expand the scope of problem-solving courts by testing the model with wider defendant populations and applying key problem-solving principles (e.g., links to social services, rigorous judicial monitoring, and aggressive community outreach) in new settings.

Included in the faculty of the conference was Aaron Arnold, director of the Upstate office of the Center for Court Innovation. Among the roster of other speakers were Domingo Herraiz, director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance; Preeti Menon, policy advisor for adjudication at the Bureau of Justice Assistance; Lisa Borders, Atlanta city council president; Greg Berman, director of the Center for Court Innovation; and Mike Schrunk, district attorney for Multnomah County (Portland) Oregon.

For more information about the Community-Based Problem-Solving Initiative, please visit:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/cb_problem_solving.html or
http://www.courtinnovation.org/ProblemSolvingJustice_Articles.htm

New Journal Highlights Judicial Innovation

The New York State Judicial Institute, Pace Law School, and the Center for Court Innovation, have founded a new publication, the Journal of Court Innovation.

The Journal invites submissions of articles about innovative programs and strategies in state court systems. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: jury issues, case management, judicial selection and evaluation, court structure, judicial training, technology, problem-solving courts, and efforts to create stronger links between courts and communities. The deadline for submission of articles for the next issue is October 15, 2007.

Submission guidelines are available at http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/submission_guidelines.pdf

Online Problem-Solving Justice Toolkit

The National Center for State Courts recently launched a “Problem-Solving Justice Toolkit,” an online resource designed to help state and local jurisdictions implement problem-solving court principles.

The toolkit features assessment questions designed to help judges determine whether and how to move forward with a problem-solving approach. The questions are followed by detailed instructions for identifying stakeholders, weighing possible problem-solving court models, defining target population, developing substantive program elements, identifying resources, training program staff, and evaluating the program.

The toolkit outlines resources for five specific problem-solving court models: community, domestic violence, and mental health courts as well as adult and juvenile drug courts. The toolkit also provides links to information regarding child support courts, elder abuse courts, gambling courts, homeless courts, reentry courts, and revocation/suspension of license courts.

The toolkit, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the State Justice Institute, was created at the request of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

The NCSC toolkit can be accessed online at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/Documents/ProbSolvJustTool-v16.pdf.