A conversation with our Recovery and Reform team on their new name, the intersection of the justice system and substance use, and taking on racial disparities in treatment courts.
For years, a team of experts at the Center has been nurturing reforms that offer treatment and resources, not prison, to people struggling with substance use. Now, they’re pushing systems to embrace recovery in all its facets, even before people are facing serious charges. In this conversation, our Recovery and Reform team reflects on their new name, mental and behavioral health in the criminal legal system, and what it means to take on racial disparities in treatment courts.
After 13 years fostering reform under the “Treatment Courts” banner, you’re now the Recovery and Reform team. What’s behind that change?
We’ve been working with treatment courts across the country for years, and we’ve had an identity in that work for a long time. But what we find is, when it comes to the intersection of substance use disorder and the criminal legal system—or mental and behavioral health and the legal system—it’s such a big issue. There are so many pieces of it that aren’t encompassed just by treatment courts. And there's so much more that our skills as consultants and trainers can offer to the field that touches on other parts of the system.
People coming into treatment courts are a high-risk, high-needs population. But there are lots of other places where the system can be doing a better job of connecting people to services—folks with histories of substance use, mental health needs, trauma. So our work naturally started moving upstream, to earlier intercept points where we could better serve folks who are entering the criminal legal system with these challenges. And we really wanted our name to reflect the breadth and depth of that work.
What do you think has changed about the way the criminal legal system responds to substance use since you started doing this work?
Treatment courts have historically reflected a traditional system response focused on punishment and sanctions, even though the goal was to get folks treatment and bring down recidivism. It wasn’t uncommon to see programs staffed by people who didn’t necessarily have clinical training. Over the years, treatment courts and the criminal legal system in general have moved towards making sure that there are clinical folks in the room to help with program planning, assessing people’s needs, and so on.
There’s also been a slow transition towards more people-centered approaches. One thing we’re really interested in promoting is looking more closely at individual needs and letting clients have more of a say in how the programs work. Someone who’s dealing with substance use disorder might want to say, “Actually, I don't want to go to residential treatment for 30 days. I have kids. It might be too much for me too quickly. I'd rather start in outpatient a couple times a week. Can we try that?” That’s not something treatment courts are necessarily used to, but it’s going to mean a stronger engagement with that person overall. To really move forward, we have to recognize that every single person in the criminal legal system is an individual, not a statistic.
We talk about the “criminal legal system,” but in some ways there are many criminal legal systems in the United States—every jurisdiction looks very different. How do you navigate that while trying to help all these systems work for people, instead of causing more harm?
It’s about practicing what we preach—meeting people where they are in each jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction wants to be better no matter what, and we’re there to help them figure out what that looks like for them. If we go in and say, “We know best and here’s what you need to do,” that’s not necessarily going to result in implementation and change—and that’s the goal, at the end of the day. So we have to make sure that we're setting them up to actually do that.
Our real value-add is that we can come in and help you identify the barriers to implementing change. What are the conversations that need to happen in order to get to a place where the system is working for people, not causing harm? Who are the partners you need to bring to the table that you may not be communicating with?
And all of that work we’ve done in treatment courts—talking to people, figuring out what the challenges are, collecting data, creating strategic plans for change—all of that can be mapped onto other systems, too. That’s why we were able to use the same process with the Moving Justice Forward project in Connecticut, where we helped develop an action plan for reform in the state’s prosecutors offices. It wasn’t about treatment courts, but the process is very similar—getting all these pieces together to make sure that changes actually get implemented, which is where things often fall apart.
You recently published a guide on addressing racial and ethnic disparities in treatment courts, which has become even more central to your work throughout the years. What do anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices look like in this field?
The reality is that there are severe disparities across the board in the criminal legal system, and problem-solving courts replicate those disparities. Treatment courts tend to serve white males; they don't tend to serve a lot of Black people. But what makes treatment courts interesting is that they have an affirmative obligation to actually identify disparities and do something about them. And so one of our roles in the last few years has been helping them figure out how to do that.
Often, the first thing we have to do is broach the subject and get it out on the table so that we can move forward. We really want to encourage courts to make sure that they're collecting the data and assessing for disparities in the first place. Then we look at where they can actually make a difference across the whole continuum of the court. There might be bias in screening, people with certain criminal histories getting excluded from the program. There might be disparities in the incentives and sanctions people face. And then there’s the “meat” of the programs, the services, which might not support success for non-white clients because they’re not culturally responsive.
We know that the “one-size-fits-all” approach doesn’t work. What works for one group of people or population won’t necessarily work for another. That’s why there are treatment programs out there that are specifically tailored to young Black men, or to women of color, for example. If we really want to encourage recovery in all its facets, we need to offer services that connect with people’s lived experiences and help them move through these challenges in a way that works for them.
If you could use our Recovery and Reform team’s help with launching a new initiative, implementing a change, or tackling a problem in your jurisdiction, get in touch today.