New York City courts have been applying some of the principles of harm reduction to increase access to substance use treatment. But how much can they incorporate an approach which views individual wellness and avoiding coercion as axiomatic? NYC RxStat, an interdisciplinary group of public health and safety experts, partnered with us to facilitate an event on this question and more. This report documents the day's major themes.
Oregon broke with the War on Drugs three years ago, decriminalizing the possession of most illicit drugs. The measure promised instead a "health-based approach." But the state has just ended the short-lived experiment. The law faced stiff headwinds from the start: from fentanyl's arrival to a relentless opposition campaign. But part of what went wrong was a challenge for any legislation: implementation. How do you make a sweeping new approach work on the ground?
The criminal legal system has a well-documented history of racial disparities and mistreatment of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Treatment courts are a part of this same system and unfortunately, have not been exempt from racial and ethnic disparities in its programs. American University and the Center for Justice Innovation collaborated to assist treatment courts in several states in tackling racial and ethnic disparities.
Drug courts use an evidence-based approach to addressing the underlying substance use disorders that often contribute to crime. One of the major critiques of drug courts, however, is that they raise constitutional and legal concerns related to due process, right to counsel, access to appropriate treatment, confidentiality of information, and other fundamental legal protections.
The Statewide Drug Court Certification Toolkit was created to offer guidance and assistance to states creating a drug court certification process. This toolkit is specifically for adult drug court programs, but can be applied to other types of treatment court models. It features sample certification documents for users who are looking to create or enhance their statewide certification process.
As one component of the Strengthening the Foundation – A Researcher and Practitioner Partnership project funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, this research brief provides a snapshot of the existing evidence base behind the adult drug court model, while also identifying potential areas of interest to seed the next generation of drug court research. Our findings document the data-driven successes of the drug court model, the evidence-based mechanisms that are associated with positive participant outcomes, and lastly, our recommendations for future research.
A recent two-day training for Manhattan prosecutors was a drumbeat on the harms of incarceration, part of a wider effort by D.A. Alvin Bragg to expand the use of alternatives such as treatment and restorative justice. But in a newly cramped climate for criminal justice reform, can that effort become a reality? New Thinking investigates.
Prosecutors make many of the most vital choices in a case unilaterally. Yet little is known about how they arrive at decisions in the most consequential cases: those charged as violent. Results from our national survey of prosecutor offices show a willingness to try new approaches but also suggest how prosecutors conceive of and prosecute violence can be rife with inconsistencies.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit New York in March 2020, it forced drug courts across the state to hear cases remotely and use teleservices for many daily drug court operations—appearances, case management, graduation ceremonies. This report details a three-year project to implement an Opioid Reduction Teleservices Program, discussing outcomes, lessons learned, measures toward sustainability, and recommendations for future Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) projects.
In 2019, the Center for Court Innovation received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to assist five states in the development and implementation of statewide strategic plans for their Veterans Treatment Courts (VTC). The selected states were California, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Each state participated in a needs assessment process that included a document analysis and stakeholder interviews.
