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 2008

In This Issue:

To submit ideas for future issues, suggest names for our mailing 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.

Town & Village Justices Attend Drug Treatment “Hub Court” Training

Twenty-eight Town & Village Justices from Oneida, Onondaga, and Oswego counties participated in a new drug court training in January. The drug courts in all three counties have been designated Regional Drug Treatment Hub Courts by the Office of Court Administration. This “hub court” designation enables these courts to accept referrals from any judge in their respective counties, including Town & Village Justices. The training was the first of its kind in New York State and was designed to provide the participants with specific tools for referring defendants to the appropriate Regional Drug Treatment Hub Court.

The day-long training, “Effective Use of Regional Drug Treatment Hub Courts,” was organized by the New York State Office of Court Administration, the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the Center for Court Innovation. During the morning session, Judge John Rowley of Tompkins County presented a drug court overview and discussed the ten key components of drug courts. Steve Hanson, director of addiction and treatment services for the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, followed with a multimedia presentation on the psycho-pharmacology of addiction. The morning session concluded with a review of drug court research and results by Mike Rempel, the Center for Court Innovation's director of research.

In the afternoon, the participants split into three groups to discuss the drug court referral procedures in their respective counties. These sessions were led by county drug court coordinators Kathleen Spatuzzi (Oneida County), Kimberly Kozlowski (Onondaga County), and David Guyer (Oswego County). Participants were led through the referral process and encouraged to begin referring eligible offenders for court-supervised drug treatment. According to Judge Howard Allen, Albion (Oswego County) Town Justice, the ability to refer cases to drug court is an important tool. "Most important," says Judge Allen, “it is a way to for the court system to give someone a second chance if he is willing to clean up his act.”

Court Administrators Attend Problem-Solving Courts Workshop

In December, twenty-nine court administrators participated in a day-long workshop on how to incorporate problem-solving courts into the daily administration of justice. The participants produced a series of recommendations to handle challenges they’d encountered. Those recommendations include increased participation in the coordination and planning of problem-solving initiatives and more efficient reporting practices.

The New York State Office of Court Administration, the Center for Court Innovation, and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance developed and hosted the workshop, which was held in Syracuse. The primary goal was to engage chief clerks and deputy chief clerks from the 5th and 7th Judicial Districts in a discussion about the current state of problem-solving courts and the role of non-judicial staff in the creation and administration of these courts.

The morning program included an overview of problem-solving justice, a review of the latest research, and a primer on the psycho-pharmacology of addition. The afternoon session consisted of small-group breakouts followed by a large-group reporting session. During the breakout sessions, participants were divided into three groups based on their court affiliation: city court clerks, family court clerks, and supreme & county court clerks. Each group was asked to identify current challenges associated with problem-solving courts and propose solutions, which included suggestions for new trainings, improved technology, and enhanced communication as new reforms are implemented.

Overall, participants expressed support for the principles of problem-solving courts and noted the tangible results that these courts have achieved, including reduced recidivism, increased community service, meaningful alternatives to jail, enhanced linkages with community-based services, reduced drug use, and improved outcomes for children and families.

Building Capacity in Family Treatment Courts

A roundtable discussion in April brought together judges, court administrators, child protective services staff, and attorneys to identify strategies for building capacity in New York State's 54 family treatment courts.

The New York State Office of Court Administration and the Center for Court Innovation hosted the day-long roundtable discussion. Counties represented were Albany, Chemung, Erie, Franklin, Lewis, Nassau, Queens, Rockland, Suffolk, Tompkins, Ulster, and Warren.

During the morning session, participants identified common barriers to capacity-building. Topics discussed included eligibility standards, participant screening, child abuse and neglect investigations, and the use of sanctions and incentives. In the afternoon, participants shared ideas for overcoming the challenges identified during the morning session.

Later this year, the Center will produce a detailed report outlining the barriers identified during the discussion and the proposed solutions for overcoming those barriers. For additional information, contact Aaron Arnold, director of the Upstate office of the Center for Court Innovation, at aarnold@courts.state.ny.us or (315) 671-2094.

Schenectady and Onondaga Courts Host Visitors

What drew S. Phillip Brown, judge of the Bibb County Superior Court in Macon, Georgia, and a seven-member delegation to visit Syracuse was the New York State Unified Court System's national reputation for pioneering effective problem-solving courts in both large and small metropolitan areas, Brown said.

The delegation from Bibb County is one of many examples of visitors looking to New York for guidance in responding effectively to problems, like drug addiction, mental illness, and domestic violence that bring defendants and litigants to court.

The Georgia delegation included staff from the River Edge Behavioral Health Center and the Georgia Division of Family & Children Services, which are working with Judge Brown to develop a domestic violence court. The Bibb County delegation chose to observe courts in Onondaga County because of the similarities between the two counties, Brown said.

The site visit included a roundtable discussion with Judge Michael Hanuszczak of the Onondaga County Integrated Domestic Violence Court, Judge Stephen Dougherty of the Syracuse Domestic Violence Court, and Liberty Aldrich, the Center for Court Innovation's director of domestic violence programs. The Georgia delegation observed sessions of both courts and had multiple opportunities over the two-day visit to meet with court staff, as well as representatives from Vera House, the Onondaga County Department of Social Services, the Onondaga County Department of Probation, the District Attorney's Office, and the defense bar.

In another example of New York’s courts sharing their knowledge, eight people from the Bennington, Vermont Integrated Domestic Violence Court visited the Schenectady Integrated Domestic Violence Court. The Bennington court was in the early stages of implementation at the time of the visit and took the opportunity to meet with staff and stakeholders, and observe Judge Vincent J. Reilly, Jr. preside over a calendar with compliance, family, and criminal cases all relating to the underlying issue of domestic violence.

Preliminary Results from Adult Drug Court Evaluation

Drug court participants are significantly less likely to use illegal drugs or engage in criminal activity than similar offenders in a conventional court, according to preliminary findings of a new study.

In collaboration with the Urban Institute and the Research Triangle Institute, the Center for Court Innovation recently released preliminary findings of a five-year study of 23 drug courts and six comparison sites around the country. Eight of the sites are from Central and Western New York, including the adult drug courts in Auburn, Batavia, Canandaigua (both the misdemeanor and felony courts), Lackawanna, Niagara, Syracuse, and Wayne.

The results indicate that over a six-month tracking period, drug court participants were significantly less likely than similar offenders who were processed in conventional courtrooms to use illegal drugs or engage in criminal activity. In explaining these findings, the data points to the importance of the drug court model’s intensive supervision regimen, which involves frequent court appearances, case management meetings, and drug tests, and to the greater likelihood that drug court participants believe that they were treated fairly by the judge.

The study will conclude in September 2009. The final report will examine whether findings over a longer 18-month tracking period mirror the initial six-month results. In addition, the report will seek to identify drug court practices that are important to the model’s overall effectiveness. The study will also include a cost-effectiveness analysis.

To view the Center’s earlier statewide evaluation focusing on the impact of six New York drug courts on official recidivism rates, go to: http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/drug_court_eval.pdf

Journal of Court Innovation Debuts

Using the Internet to impanel jurors, smoothing the transition of parolees from prison to the community, and learning from failed criminal justice reforms are all topics tackled in the first issue of the Journal of Court Innovation, which was published in March.

The journal is produced jointly by the Center for Court Innovation, Pace Law School, and the New York State Judicial Institute. The goal of the Journal is to spark new thinking about how courts work and the role they play in our society. The Journal of Court Innovation publishes in-depth examinations of complicated subjects, as well as shorter pieces describing provocative experiments, interviews with leading thinkers and practitioners, and book reviews that highlight cutting-edge scholarship.

To subscribe to the Journal or access articles from the first issue, visit http://www.courtinnovation.org/journal.html

Drug Courts Meet in St. Louis

The theme of the 14th National Association of Drug Court Professionals Conference in St. Louis, Missouri last month was Taking Drug Courts to Scale: Healthy Families, Healing Communities. The four-day conference offered a choice of 12 general sessions, 24 training tracks, and 26 Skills Building Workshops.

This year, New York’s Unified Court System and the Center for Court Innovation participated in eleven separate sessions, covering a range of innovative initiatives spotlighting New York’s ambitious efforts to apply the problem-solving approach to the needs and challenges posed by litigants in our justice system.

Last year, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals selected New York to receive its National Leadership Award in honor of the state’s work to “go to scale” with drug courts.