All the important facets of a community justice collaboration can be enhanced through the use of technology. Here is a list of commonly asked questions about the subject.

Q: I want to develop an information system for my community court. How do I start?

A: Here are some steps to take if you are developing or adapting an information system:

• Identify the key players in your community court who will use the information system. At a minimum, these probably include the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, on-site clinical staff and treatment providers.
• Ask the key players: What information do you need? When do you need it? How would you like to see the information displayed on the computer screen? Also ask about the functionality they need from an information system. For example, how will the information system alert community court staff if a defendant is not in compliance? Does the judge need to be able to record comments on individual cases? How many people need access to the system?
• Based on these conversations, decide what information you need in your computer application. Is it already being collected? Who's collecting it? How are they collecting it? Determine which data are not being collected and if it is possible to develop the procedures to begin collecting it.
• Write a design document, which is a memo describing your information needs. Include information on community court case flow and caseload (e.g. approximately how many cases will the information system need to keep track of?); a list of data fields; functional requirements, sketches (hand-drawn is fine) of what the computer screens should look like; and any ‘business rules' (e.g., specifications about who has access to different pieces of information).
• Enlist the help of an information systems professional to help you conduct an analysis of what type of information system you need. The analysis should answer the following questions: Based on your needs (as outlined in the design document) and budget, should you build your own information system or should you adapt an information system developed by another community court? What will be your software and hardware needs? How long will it take to develop or adapt an information system? What will be your ongoing maintenance needs?

Q: How much does it cost to develop a community court information system?

A: Below are some of the items to include in a budget for a community court information system. The actual costs will vary depending on the size and scope of your community court and our technology needs. You will have a good understanding of this once you develop a design document (see previous question).

• Project Management. Because of the number of people and steps involved in the development of a community court technology system, it is wise to designate one individual to manage the entire project.
• Programming: Whether you build your own computer system or adapt an existing system, you will have initial programming costs. It is also likely that you will have ongoing programming costs for modifications and/or enhancements once the initial programming is complete.
• Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance of a computer system usually requires a system administrator who can handle matters such as account additions or changes.
• Hardware: This may include personal computers for individual users and a server computer and related hardware to house the computer application.
• Software: A community court technology system typically consists of an underlying database and a front-end application that allows the users to see or edit the data. Depending on the level of sophistication necessary for your community court, these two components may be included in one software package (e.g., Microsoft Access) or may be different software packages (e.g., Sybase database software and Powerbuilder software for the front-end application.)
• Training and Technical Support: Users typically need both initial training and ongoing support to use the information system correctly.

Q: How do community court information systems handle issues of confidentiality and access to client information?

A: All community courts should become familiar with federal and state regulations governing the release of information about an individual's criminal justice history and participation in substance abuse treatment programs. For treatment program participants supervised by the criminal justice system, confidentiality regulations usually allow the exchange of treatment-related information between affiliated community court agencies, or with other criminal justice or community agencies. Once consent for release of information is provided within the criminal justice settings, it generally cannot be rescinded until the participant completes or leaves the program. Individuals who receive confidential information may disclose and use it only to carry out their official duties with respect to the release. Once rules about who has access to what set of information are understood, they should be clearly stated in a written document. The system administrator can use the written document to create security procedures for the information system. These usually involve setting up tiers of access and controlling access to the different tiers through individual accounts with passwords.

Q: Will community court staff require training to use the community court information system?

A: Yes. Once the information system has been developed, you should schedule training sessions for community court staff who will use the system. The training will ensure that all users understand the features of the information system and have an opportunity to ask questions. You should keep training and support needs in mind when designing the information system. If the system is clear and easy to use, you will spend fewer resources on training and support.

Q: Are there best practices in the community court information systems that my system can adopt?

A: These are some of the features that can make community court technology easier to use:
Use colors that make intuitive sense to the users. For example, when displaying compliance information use green for good outcomes and red for bad outcomes.
Flashing buttons can attract the users attention to important information.
Visual displays can make it easier to digest information, especially in a busy courtroom. For example, a picture of a beaker next to a date can indicate a drug test.

Q: Are there other issues we should be thinking about as we design a community court information system?

A: These are some additional items to think about early on:

• Performance (i.e., processing speed)
• Protection against data loss (i.e., system back-ups and contingency plans)
• Screen appearance varying from PC to PC depending on local Windows settings.

The following guide is a starting point in addressing the planning, development and implementation of community court technology.

Network vs. Stand Alone

Determine if the information system will be housed on a network or on a stand-alone desktop PC. Influencing your decision will be such things as the size of the court, its caseload and whether you're sharing technical resources with a larger court system. An information system specialist may need to help decide how best to proceed.

Integration

Does your community court need to retrieve information from existing legacy data sources? Your management team should determine early on if you need to integrate with an existing data source like a mainframe or enterprise wide system. If you do, what scope of integration will meet your community court's informational needs? This requires analyzing whether you need a system that responds immediately to data processing (known as real time) or one that uploads data based on a series of commands (know as batch file processing). Alternatively, you may be able to achieve what you need without building a costly new system. The appropriate strategy may be to interface with existing information systems within your community court.

The above two points will largely shape the scope of your project. For example, network-based client-server system with read/write capabilities to a legacy data source is a very large undertaking requiring a significant financial, operational a physical resource outlay. On the other hand, a stand-alone system that operates on a few PCs in the drug court requires substantially fewer resource outlays.

Physical Infrastructure

Conduct a detailed survey of your location's technology infrastructure. Know what types of computers, server (s), network (LAN) are in place. Also, develop partnerships with the individuals or departments responsible for purchasing and supporting this infrastructure. They will be key to the success of the community court technology.

Partnerships

Recognize the importance of building partnerships with entities that have a stake in the community court. In many cases, partners can bring critical resources to the table for the developing new technology. These partners can be vital in leveraging resources both financially and operationally.

Budget

Establish a bottom-line dollar figure you can spend on planning, development and implementation of the community court information system. Understanding your budgetary limits will further help define the scope of the project. If your court is working with a budget of $100,000 and you would like to develop a client server based system that runs on the network to be used daily, it is safe to assert that your costs including programming and equipment will exceed the available budget. In this case, you would need to raise additional funds or modify the scope of your project.

Needs Assessment

Identify the specific information/data needs of our project. Reach out to all partners to assess their needs, especially those relating to evaluation.

Identify the information key community court players want. You'll want to find out, among other things, how the data is currently being collected, if there is any data entry operation, and what reports will need to be created. Once these questions have been answered a formal proposal or design document outlining your community court's needs should be prepared.

Application Functionality

Develop a detailed plan for application functionality, which would address issues including user access, security and defendant confidentiality. It might help to examine what community courts nationally are doing in this area.

• Learn which federal and state regulations apply to the release of information and confidentiality about defendant's criminal history and involvement in substance abuse programs.
• Incorporate visual displays that make the information accessible and easy to understand.
• Establish rules and guidelines regarding data access and write them up for community court staff.
  Appoint someone to administer the system and to create a security protocol based on the user access guidelines.

Project Management

A community court may fail to achieve its stated technology goals because it has not closely managed the project. To avoid this, designate a person, or if the scope of the project is large, a group of people who will oversee the information system development process. The project manager will be responsible for coordinating all planning and development activities, including:

• staffing, organization and management of the project team;
• troubleshooting;
• assessing project needs;
• training;
• designing documentation and procedures to assist the project team.

Build vs. Adapt

Understand the advantages and disadvantages between building a new information system and adapting an existing community court information system.

The disadvantage of building a new system is that it's expensive to customize software scratch. The advantage may be that your community court can build a system tailored to its specific needs.

Understand that technology is not static and is constantly changing, as will your community court's needs. For this reason, you should plan for on-going costs including maintenance, protection against data loss, expansions, upgrades, modifications, programming, training and technical assistance. 

Roughly 70 percent of those who appear at the Midtown Court are unemployed and many lack the skills to find work. Court planners realized that to reduce recidivism, the Court needed to help offenders obtain skills and find jobs. The question was: How could job training and job placement be incorporated into the functioning of the Court?

Problem

In its effort to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods of Clinton, Chelsea and Times Square, Manhattan's Midtown Community Court holds low-level offenders accountable for their actions while addressing some of the underlying factors, such as drug addiction and homelessness, that fuel offending. One of the most tenacious problems facing the Court, and many of the defendants who appear in it, is unemployment. Roughly 70 percent of those who appear at the Midtown Court are unemployed and many lack the skills to find work. Court planners realized that to reduce recidivism, the Court needed to help offenders obtain skills and find jobs. The question was: How could job training and job placement be incorporated into the functioning of the Court?

Solution

The Court formed an advisory board of residents and employment specialists. In looking at the job market in the Midtown area, the board determined that back-office support—the work of mailrooms, copy centers and internal messenger services—was a fast-growing field. Court planners also examined a program already in existence at Midtown: Times Square Express, a bulk mail house staffed by offenders mandated to community service, which offers free services to local non-profits. Offenders sentenced to this facility in the courthouse often reported that they had received good hands-on training while completing their sanctions.

Based on this input the Court, with the assistance of East Harlem Employment Services/Strive—a not-for-profit leader in the workforce development field—and two local office support companies, designed a job-training program. To take advantage of the infrastructure already in place, planners decided that the Court would be an ideal location for the program. Given the limited space available at the courthouse, however, the program had to be small—no more than 25 people could be enrolled at any one time—and any vocational training needed to be limited to office-support services.

Using the basic training structure developed by Strive, the Court customized the program. Because of the nature of office support, a minimum level of literacy and mathematical ability was required even for entry-level positions. In order not to duplicate existing on-site programs, it was decided that adult education would not be included in the curriculum itself. Instead, participants would be encouraged to attend the Court's GED program after training hours. Likewise, drug-treatment services could not feasibly be part of the Court's job-training program: people who were drug addicted and wished to participate in job training could first gain access to drug treatment through the Court, and focus on job training later. In keeping with the Court's emphasis on accountability, defendants who wished to participate in the job-training program would need to complete their mandated community service first.

In the planning phase, program planners from the private sector stressed that job skills required for entry-level positions were not nearly as important as the attitude of potential employees. Individuals who had never had jobs before were less likely to understand the importance of timeliness, proper work attire, respect for coworkers and supervisors, and a good attitude. Yet these things can make the difference between finding a job and keeping a job. Because attitude is such an important factor, planners decided that the service could not be mandated like other social services offered at the Court; participation would need to be voluntary.

Implementation

The result of this collaborative planning was Times Square Ink, a 10-week job-readiness and training program for careers in office services. Funding for Times Square Ink comes from a variety of private sources, including Strive. Key Features of Times Square Ink include:

Trained Staff: Two full-time employees staff Times Square Ink, but the program draws on the skills and assistance of other Court employees—such as community service, social service and administrative staff—for recruiting, counseling and other functions. The job readiness trainer, whose duties include job development, works with participants to develop proper work habits, builds relationships with potential employers and links graduates to further job-training opportunities. The office services trainer teaches participants the "hard" skills they will need in an office environment. Times Square Ink is a member of the Strive Employment Group, which provides training and technical assistance and sets goals for the program's yearly performance measures. The Times Square Ink trainers are graduates of the Strive Academy and attend regular retreats to sharpen their skills.

Participants: The program is available to low-level ex-offenders and community members over the age of 18, many of whom are recruited after appearing in the Court. Before being accepted into the program, each participant must fill out an application and speak with a counselor who identifies possible barriers to successful completion of the program. Participants must also be drug-free. For those who have come out of a drug treatment program, at least five months of sobriety must be demonstrated. For the first six weeks of the program, trainees are given carfare to and from the courthouse five days a week and are provided with lunch. During their last four weeks, trainees are given a small stipend in place of carfare and lunch.

Job Training: Training at Times Square Ink focuses on three areas: self-assessment, hands-on skills and job-search techniques. In the self-assessment phase, trainees learn how to set goals and identify their individual strengths and weaknesses. In the skills phase, they learn concrete tasks such as mailroom operations, copying, faxing, filing, and basic computer skills. They practice what they are learning as they fulfill Court-generated jobs such as mailings, copying and filing. Towards the end of the program, trainees participate in a one-week internship with a local company or agency. This gives trainees experience in an office environment while building their confidence for future job interviews. Particularly important to future employers is the job-search phase, which teaches participants how to prepare a resume, write cover and thank-you letters, dress appropriately, cooperate with co-workers, and interact with employers.

Placement Services: Times Square Ink actively assists trainees with their job searches and 85 percent of the graduates are placed within a month of program completion. One reason for this success is that each trainee is assigned a Court-based counselor to help resolve outside issues, such as childcare, that may be barriers to successful employment. Counselors continue their involvement even after graduation to ensure that alumni have the support needed to advance in their careers.

Supportive Services: Further training opportunities, such as the GED program and Strive's advanced training, are also available at the Court. An Alumni Association allows graduates to support one another and keep in touch with program staff. The Association also makes suggestions about how to improve the training program and keep it as current as possible.

Partnerships: Times Square Ink has cultivated a variety of partnerships with organizations that enhance the program's effectiveness. The Court is a member of the New York City Employment and Training Coalition, which provides training workshops, as well as a community of providers that can provide strategic advice. The United States Postal Service also provides training workshops for our office services supervisor and for participants themselves. In addition, many non-profit organizations provide supportive services for our clients, including StreetWise Partners (a mentorship and computer training program) and the Legal Action Center (which helps ex-offenders "clean up" their rap sheets). Finally, Times Square Ink has relationships with organizations that provide proper business attire for Times Square Ink participants, including Dress for Success New York and Career Gear.

Business Involvement: Through involvement in the classroom as guest speakers and in the job market as intern hosts or employers, local businesses play an important role in helping the Court train participants and prepare them for the job market. Other businesses donate theater tickets, free dinners and merchandise, such as neckties and scarves, to reward and encourage participants and alumni.

Obstacles

Recruiting: The target population for Times Square Ink is low-level ex-offenders who have completed their mandate at the Court. In Times Square Ink's early stages, the Midtown Court struggled to engage defendants in the program. In the fall of 1999, the Court's newly designated director of recruitment began a coordinated recruitment strategy that included weekly open houses for prospective participants and public graduation ceremonies, attended by defendants before performing their community service. The strategy utilizes all Court staff as recruiters, from Court officers to community service crew supervisors to social service staff; the number of participants in the program has doubled as a result.

Engagement: Forty percent of those who enroll in the program drop out before graduation. The program sets rules and guidelines that simulate a typical work environment. But the rules present a difficulty for some participants. For example, the program requires participants to arrive at 9:00 am every morning and wear proper work attire (e.g., shirts and ties for men). Participants must meet all program requirements in order to advance through the three modules, and then on to graduation. Disciplinary panels are convened for trainees whose behavior is inappropriate and punishments range from class presentations about why the behavior is inconsistent with the work environment to termination from the program.

Funding: The initial business plan contemplated a "social venture:" a self-sustaining copy shop that would give participants on-the-job experience while generating operating funds for the initiative. This idea, which was developed with the help of two large office support companies, was abandoned within a year. The cost (in management energy as well as financially) of running a start-up business was prohibitively high, and distracted staff from the more important task of training clients. Times Square Ink closed the copy shop, but simultaneously expanded its scope to the full range of office-support services. Since then, it has been able to maintain its high standards of training and continue to attract top-notch employers for its graduates while raising funds from private foundations to offset the income that was to have come in through the copy business.

Job Retention: Times Square Ink graduates, many of whom have never held a job, need extra support to retain their jobs and move ahead in their careers. Counselors reach out to graduates every few months to find how they are doing and offer continuing services. The program began an Alumni Association in the fall of 2000 to help improve job retention, and its activities have become an important tool for staying in touch with graduates—sharing their successes, helping to brainstorm strategies for promotion, and working to get them re-employed if they should lose their jobs.

Results

From 1997, when the program began, through the end of 2000, over 180 people graduated from the program and found employment with companies such as Pitney-Bowes, Archer Management, IKON Office Solutions, Kinko's, Velocity Express and area law firms. The average starting wage is $6.70/hour. The program has an 85 percent placement rate, and 73 percent of graduates are still working after one year.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following is a summary of the Chippewa Indians’ winning proposal.

The Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, in partnership with a Peacemaker Steering Committee comprised of representatives from seven Tribal Divisions/Departments, is creating a Peacemaker Court (Bemaadziiwiin, or “Peaceful Life”) for its Tribal community, based on the concepts of restorative justice as well as traditional Indian notions of justice. Viewing crime and offending as a conflict between individuals, restorative justice seeks to reconcile parties and find solutions to conflict through the active participation of victims, offenders, and communities. Many Tribal Communities have adopted or “reclaimed” this form of justice within their communities.
 
The Peacemaker Court seeks to combat high risk factors for victimization and incarceration, and to restore balance in the lives of defendants and plaintiffs by using community mediators to assist individuals and families. A major focus of this project is to provide alternative methods of adjudication for Tribal membership: the Court will enable the Judge to offer this voluntary program as a sentencing option if the client meets the criteria determined by the Peacemaker Steering Committee as appropriate and necessary for remediation. Based on screening and assessment of defendants and plaintiffs, the Peacemakers will identify needs, determine which offenders enter early diversion, or are placed on the Peacemaker Court docket, as well as provide means of aiding victims with their identified priorities.

It is the intent of the Tribal Court that this program be available in five sites within the seven county service area. Therefore, representatives from each area will be provided the opportunity to become a Peacemaker, review cases for Tribal members, and conduct a peacemaker Court proceeding in their respective locations. 

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from the Clackamas Countys’ winning proposal.

The Clackamas County Oregon District Attorney’s office has developed a Community Court pilot in the Overland Park neighborhood, which has Clackamas County’s highest crime rates. The Community Court pilot, started in late January 2005, is based on a restorative justice approach and diverts misdemeanant defendants from the traditional criminal justice system. Cases eligible for community court are: Theft in the Second Degree; Theft in the Third Degree; Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree; Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree; Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree; Offensive Littering (non-environmental); Disorderly Conduct; Unlawfully Applying Graffiti; Unlawfully Possessing Graffiti Implement; Unlawful Entry Into Motor Vehicle (not related to identity theft).

The proposed problem-solving initiative will support the Court’s efforts through social service case management and employment services. With a funded case management position, individuals will be connected to the community supports that will allow them to be successful, reduce recidivism and increase community quality of life. Defendants will be assessed and referred to social service, vocational and mental health resources, and supported through completing required activities and accessing services. Individuals who voluntarily take part in the community court program will complete mandatory community service and work with a Case Manager provided by either Clackamas County Social Services or Community Solutions. 

Community oversight and feedback will be provided by the Overland Park Coalition Against Drug Crime, a local citizens organization.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from San Diego’s winning proposal.

This community-based problem-solving criminal justice initiative involves the planning and implementation of a community court model to serve the Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, and Mission Bay Park communities, known as the Beach Area, in the City of San Diego. The lead agency is the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, working in partnership with the San Diego Superior Court, San Diego Police Department, other criminal justice agencies, and community-based organizations.

The proposed Beach Area Community Court will focus on adult offenders who commit misdemeanors and infractions, especially low-level alcohol-related offenses, that impact the local quality of life. Eligible offenders who choose to participate will be diverted from the San Diego Superior Court. They will be held accountable to the community by attending a community impact panel and performing community service. They will also be screened and referred as appropriate to educational and rehabilitative programs to curb future criminal conduct, with compliance closely monitored. Community members will serve on an Advisory Board, overseeing the Court’s development and implementation.

The Beach Area Community Court will join the City of San Diego’s two existing community courts, the Downtown Community Court and the Mid-City Community Court, in a community court network dedicated to sharing resources and best practices, with the goal of improving community-based criminal justice throughout the City of San Diego.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Seattle’s winning proposal.

The Seattle Municipal Court in partnership with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office proposes to apply the problem-solving philosophy of its recently inaugurated Community Court to its thirty-year old diversion program and provide those first-time offenders who may be headed down the path of further criminal justice system involvement a chance to avoid this result and improve their lives.

The Seattle pre-trial diversion program is one of the oldest diversion systems in the United States. The existing program allows first-time offenders who commit non-violent crimes an opportunity to have those charges dismissed and retain a clean criminal record.  Defendants are required only to pay a $75 fee, which is frequently waived, and to not re-offend within 90 days. Although it provides an opportunity to defendants to avoid a criminal conviction, the existing program does little to provide specific assistance to defendants whose criminal behavior may be driven by mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness, or the lack of an education. Under its problem-solving initiative, Seattle aims to use the grant to identify those individuals early on and intervene to provide them with the help and services they need. 

In addition, the current diversion program provides no mechanism for defendant accountability to the victims—individuals and communities—who are impacted by criminal behavior. Defendants are required to pay only $75 and not re-offend.  While this is efficient for the criminal justice system it often leaves victims feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system.

Under its problem-solving initiative, Seattle seeks to address significant shortfalls in the existing pre-trial diversion program by incorporating it into and leveraging the resources of the Seattle Community Court. Under this proposal, diversion-bound defendants will benefit from social service referrals available through Community Court. Defendants will also pay back the community they offended by performing useful community service work.

For more about Seattle's program, watch this video.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Pima County’s winning proposal.

The  Pima County Juvenile Court Center proposes to address the problem of juvenile domestic violence under its community-based problem-solving criminal justice grant, seeking to develop a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary prevention, response, and rehabilitation plan to divert domestic violence cases from the system when possible, and to more effectively process domestic violence referrals, including post-dispositional supervision of offenders.

For the diversion track, Pima County plans to use three major strategies aimed at providing and ensuring participation in appropriate services while avoiding unnecessary arrests and detentions: 1) development of a comprehensive pre-arrest response plan, 2) revision of law enforcement standing orders and creation of alternatives to arrest of juvenile in domestic violence incidents, and 3) ensuring that referred juveniles successfully complete domestic violence diversion programs.

Pima County Juvenile Court Center will hire a domestic violence coordinator to work with behavioral health service providers, child protective services, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to develop alternative strategies for dealing with domestic violence prior to adjudication.  These would include:

• safety plans for families already engaged in behavioral health system that direct families to crisis counselors and emergency response teams as a first resort in times of crisis, rather than law enforcement; 
• mobile diversion units that may be called upon by law enforcement to respond to families to provide crisis intervention services in lieu of arrest; and
• neighborhood placements—including additional crisis shelter beds, neighborhood foster homes, and relative placements—in lieu of detention.

For juveniles who are referred to the juvenile court on a charge of domestic violence, the domestic violence coordinator will work with the county attorney and public defender to develop criteria for participation in a voluntary domestic violence diversion program.  The domestic violence coordinator, juvenile probation and Community Partnership of Southern Arizona will develop a procedure for the expedited creation of child and family teams for referred juveniles, to ensure early, comprehensive assessment and the development and implementation of appropriate services for the juvenile and the family.  Working with probation, the domestic violence coordinator will develop strategies to encourage juveniles and families to participate in diversion and to identify and overcome obstacles to successful completion of the program so that juveniles may have the charge dismissed.

For cases where diversion from the court system is not appropriate, Pima County will seek to promote:

• A multi-disciplinary approach to assessment and case planning based on a child and family team approach that includes the family in the process and addresses the service needs of all family members. Participation in child and family teams will be voluntary, but will be strongly encouraged;
• Front-loading of services to “jumpstart” the rehabilitation process;
• Frequent contacts with the child and family, not only by the probation officer but also by other team members; and
• Regular judicial review to ensure that plan goals are accomplished, that immediate consequences are imposed for noncompliance, and that progress is acknowledged and rewarded.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Athens County’s winning proposal.

The Athens County Municipal Court Substance Abusing/Mentally Ill Court Project is designed to divert individuals with dual disorders of mental illness and substance abuse with misdemeanor level offenses from incarceration by providing intensive community treatment and supervision. The Court will contract with a dually certified mental health and alcohol/substance abuse treatment agency to provide a “boundary spanner” and treatment team based upon the New Hampshire-Dartmouth Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment model. The Court Project team will provide comprehensive, assertive services according to this model.

Consultations with other justice system players and community collaborators confirmed the need for the criminal justice and behavioral healthcare system to work closely together in a comprehensive and intensive approach to try to break the cycle of relapse and recidivism and intervene positively in peoples’ lives. Although the emphasis of this program is development of specialized services for persons with dual-diagnoses, another vital element is centralized screening, assessment and diversion of all mentally ill or clinically dependent offenders to the most appropriate court program. The program will operate in a rural, economically distressed, Appalachian County that has a history of strong collaborative partnerships between the judicial system and behavioral healthcare system.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from South Carolina’s winning proposal.

For its problem-solving initiative, the 4th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina proposes to implement a coordinated, comprehensive, system-wide problem-solving initiative in four counties. The initiative will target offenders ages 17-30 arrested for drug and drug-related charges.

The goals of the initiative include (1) engaging the community in defining issues of concern to be addressed; (2) reducing recidivism among offenders entering pretrial diversion; and (3) strengthening the resources available to the judiciary for cases that require adjudication and supervision.

The initiative will be piloted first in Chesterfield County, and then expanded to the other three counties: Darlington, Dillon, and Marlboro. Community forums will be convened to engage community residents and key stakeholders.  A part-time Assistant Solicitor will be hired to reduce the time from arrest to entry into the pretrial diversion or adjudication track. Screening, assessment, monitoring and supervision of offenders will be enhanced in both tracks. In the adjudication track, the intensity of monitoring and supervision, and whether participants are diverted to a community process or supervised by the judge through status hearings, will be dependent on the offender’s current charge, criminal background, treatment history, and current assessment. Sanctions and incentives will be used throughout the system to encourage progress and achieve compliance.