Innovative Courts Programs: Results From State and Local Program Workshops. Innovative Courts Programs Results From State and Local Program Workshops Sponsored by the State Reporting and Evaluation Program Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice July 1995 Prepared by the Justice Research and Statistics Association 444 North Capital Street, N.W. Suite 445 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-8560 Acknowledgements This report is a product of a cooperative effort by the States and the Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the State Reporting and Evaluation Program, which is coordinated by the Justice Research and Statistics Association. The staff of the Oregon State Police, Criminal Justice Services Division contributed to the coordination and implementation of this workshop. A special thanks to LeRon R. Howland, Superintendent of the Oregon State Police, and Charles A. Moose, Chief of Police, Portland Police Department, for delivering welcoming addresses. Special acknowledgement is made to the outstanding moderators of the working meeting: Roger Przybylski, Associate Director, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, and Jill Kateman, Program Analyst, Evaluation and Technical Assistance, Bureau of Justice Assistance. The State Reporting and Evaluation Program relies on the expertise of the States to insure the success of workshops and publications. The following individuals contributed their knowledge and time to make this workshop and publication a success: Joseph R. Farmer, Program Manager, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission; Kim English, Director, Office of Research and Statistics, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice; Ruth Cardella, Consultant; Serena Fisher, Consultant; Jonathan Guth, Policy and Planning Specialist, Policy and Planning Division, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Frank LePage, Program Specialist, State and Local Division, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and Susan M. Tashiro, Program Specialist, Discretionary Division, Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) prepared this document under the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. The following JRSA staff compiled and edited the information for this report under the supervision of Assistant Director for Special Projects, Kellie J. Dressler: Andrea G. Richards, Program Associate; Tara L. O'Connor, Program Assistant; Andr‚a Tisi, Program Assistant; and Chris Derby, Intern. Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Perspective on the Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Problems and Solutions in the Criminal Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 State and Local Programs: Innovative Courts Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Arizona: Maricopa County Adult Probation Department After-Shock Transition Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Arizona: Southwest Key Program, Inc. Outreach and Tracking Program . . . . . . . . . 16 Arkansas: Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Arkansas: Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Colorado: The Emergency Courtroom: Denver County Court Protective Orders Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Connecticut: Alternative Incarceration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Hawaii: Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Illinois: Cook County Night Narcotics Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Iowa: Batterer's Education Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Massachusetts: Juvenile Diversion Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Massachusetts: Quincy Court Domestic Abuse Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Mississippi: South Mississippi Family Child Center's Child Victim/Witness Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Montana: Victim/Witness Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 New York: Midtown Community Court Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 North Carolina: The North Carolina Intensive Services Program. . . . . . . . . . . . 90 North Dakota: Stutsman County Victim/Witness Assistance Program. . . . . . . . . . . 95 Oklahoma: Alternative Training, Treatment, and Correction (A.T.T.A.C.) and Drug Court Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Oregon: Malheur County Multi-Disciplinary Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Oregon: Sanctions Treatment Opportunities Progress (STOP) Drug Diversion Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) . . . . . . .115 Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 Introduction This publication reports the results of the Bureau of Justice Assistance State Reporting and Evaluation Program State and Local Programs Working Meeting: Innovative Courts Programs held May 11-13, 1995 in Portland, Oregon. This meeting brought together over 50 State planners and local practitioners as well as researchers, analysts, and law enforcement officers from 16 States who have previously been or currently are involved in implementing and/or evaluating programs designed to improve the criminal justice system, and especially the court system. This publication identifies and documents programs that focus on innovative courts programs that improve the criminal justice system at the State and local levels. The first section of the publication presents a perspective on problems and solutions for the criminal justice system. The second section of the publication documents the State and local programs that were presented at the workshop. Perspective on the Courts Problems and Solutions in the Criminal Justice System LeRon R. Howland, Superintendent of the Oregon State Police, provided the following remarks at the opening of the State and Local Programs Working Meeting: Innovative Courts Programs. The work that is done at these sessions is very important to the criminal justice system in general, but, more specifically, your work is also important to law enforcement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is setting forth new initiatives, program strategies, and funding priorities for the Byrne Formula Grant funds that are second to none. I highly commend you for the excellent work that you are doing at BJA. Oregon's new governor, Governor Kitzhaber, in his inaugural address this past January said that Oregon cannot be a good place to live for anyone until it is a good place to live for everyone. This statement is really the driving force behind all branches of State government right now. When it comes to criminal justice, we are seeking new and innovative ways to make our government more efficient and effective. But above all we are making government more accountable. The same could be said of our country. In order for it to be the best place to live and to be the best that it can be for all of our citizens, we must learn how to deal with our societal problems in new and different ways. The bottom line is that our basic systems of government need new solutions. That is what you have been trying to do, and that is why you are here today. I agree with you that the answers to crime are not going to be found in individual components of the criminal justice system, but in how we relate to one another and how we look at our treatment programs and deterrents. In a larger sense, the answers to crime in this country are not going to be found behind the walls of our prisons, but behind the walls of our own homes. In the next two days, you are going to have the opportunity to share your individual perspectives and programs regarding the future of the American court system, and we are all going to learn a lot about a number of innovative court programs which are being implemented throughout this country. However, you are not merely networking with each other or discussing funding allocations or grant strategies. In reality, what you will be doing here is helping to define a vision for the future; a vision for the future of not only this State, but for the entire country, and, perhaps, for the entire criminal justice system. This morning, I would like to talk a little bit about the American criminal justice system itself. Speaking from 28 years experience in this job, the criminal justice system is absolutely, in my opinion, the most visible form of our government. When people start losing confidence in this system, they are going to start losing confidence in government itself. We in the criminal justice system have to start taking some responsibility for this lack of confidence the American people have in their government. No longer is it good enough for individual criminal justice agencies, be it the Oregon State Police, Portland Police Department, the Unites States Attorney's Office, or the court system, just to say to the American people, "Give me the money to fund my agency because we do a good job." What people want is to see is that the money they are giving is an investment across agency lines that is going to have some kind of effect on crime and make them feel safer. Citizens are asking themselves, "Why are we funding four levels of law enforcement? Why fund federal law enforcement agencies, the State Police, the County Sheriffs Department, and the City Police?" Funding in this way is costing the American people a fortune, and in the end, we are spending duplicate money on administration, and, at least at the State level, aren't those law enforcement agencies trying to do the same thing? People are also asking what we, in the criminal justice system, are doing collectively across State, county, and city lines, so that the American people can get the most bang for their buck. The American people are asking how it is that they fund agencies within the criminal justice system that aren't even working together, when that money is also needed by other agencies, such as education, health, and social services. We, in the criminal justice system, need to sit down and create a strategy to work together. What goes to the heart of why there is an organization such as BJA is that substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) has been driving crime in this country for at least the past 25 years. People are starting to recognize that we are pouring money into a criminal system that is driven by drug and alcohol abuse, and it is time to get our act together. Criminal justice agencies need to stop competing for money and start communicating with each other about how to effectively combat the crime problem in the United States. Much of the current inefficiency within our system can be seen in that there are approximately 900,000 prison beds in the U.S. One hundred sixty thousand of those are tied up with non- violent criminals, such as drug abusers. In 1993, about 15,000 to 18,000 violent, predatory criminals convicted in this country had no prison beds because so many of them were filled up with non-violent offenders. We have chronic drug abusers being arrested every day in this country. They were drug abusers at the time of their arrest, they go into the correctional system as drug abusers, and they come out as drug abusers. In the meantime, we are developing systems to put electronic bracelets on our violent, predatory criminals, I guess so that we can track them to their next victim. The point is, according to Attorney General Janet Reno, it is time for a common sense approach to the crime problem. We will never have an effective criminal justice system in this country until we can learn to collectively work together to treat the symptoms of crime rather than the results. We will never buy or legislate our way out of this problem. On the brighter side, I am very optimistic about what is going on in our nation today because I think this is a time of great awareness that we need to get a handle on the problem, with everyone working together to identify solutions. What I believe is driving this new awareness among us in the criminal justice system, is the economics of getting our act together as well as becoming more aware of the political and moral accountability to the public. Outside people are beginning to step into the criminal justice system and offering to help us get our act together, and I want to personally thank you for that, because it is about time. We cannot serve the people until we involve the people, and many of the answers to our problems are coming from BJA, who is helping to reinforce government and community partnerships. I believe we are going in the right direction. For instance, in Oregon for the first time in the history of the United States, we have created a cooperative policing agreement where city, county, and State law enforcement agencies have sat down, identified their roles, and determined how they can cooperatively work together toward some kind of measurable outcome in crime. In addition, they are trying not to duplicate services or compete with each other but compliment each other as they work toward a common goal. In closing, what it is that you are doing here does have an impact, does make a difference, and does influence the criminal justice leadership. Your efforts are helping this country become a safer place to live, and you are helping America to be what it should, is, and will continue to be. State and Local Programs: Innovative Courts Programs Arizona Maricopa County Adult Probation Department After-Shock Transition Program Statement of the Problem In 1988, Shock Incarceration, a "military style program which is designed for youthful offenders and which includes intensive physical exercise, physical labor, and academic education," became a sentencing option in Arizona. The program is available to both male and female offenders and is intended to divert youthful offenders who would otherwise have been sent to prison. This is a high-risk group of offenders requiring significant control. On Maricopa County's Sentencing Continuum, only the State Prison provides a higher level of control than Shock Incarceration. The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department recognized that a significant number of Shock Incarceration graduates immediately fail to comply with probation requirements. A 1991 study revealed a 38% failure rate for Shock graduates with 50% of these failures occurring within the first 90 days following graduation. Research reflected that the problem in Maricopa County was not unique and appeared to be a national dilemma. In 1989, New York State Parole Board Chairman Ramon J. Rodriguez stated he would like to "create Shock halfway houses to ease departing inmates through the difficult transition from the highly structured military discipline of the camp to the chaos of city life." (Newsday, June 11, 1989, p.4) Mark W. Oslear pointed out in his recent article, "Shock Incarceration: Hard Realities and Real Possibilities," that "we cannot hope for decreased recidivism unless `bridge services' are provided." He further noted, "the problem of resocializing an offender in a military manner and then returning him to his community without continued guidance is to do only half of the job." (Federal Probation, March 1991, p.40) The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department believed the failure rate for Shock graduates could be directly attributed to the transition from the highly structured, secure living environment of the Shock Incarceration Program to the chaotic, unstructured demands of reintegration into the community. Shock graduates are immediately faced with the need to secure housing, employment, educational or vocational training, and treatment to comply with probation requirements. Further compounding these challenges, Shock graduates suffer the stigma of a recent release from prison without the reasonable privileges afforded probationers allowed to remain in the community. Many are destined to return to a dysfunctional or unstable neighborhood and/or residence that subjects them to peer influence (typically gang members) or family problems which only serve to exacerbate the existing problems. In response to these problems, the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department developed the After-Shock Transition Program. Goals and Objectives The purpose of this program is to develop and implement effective correctional options to divert non-dangerous youthful offenders from incarceration and deter them from further criminal activity. A comprehensive continuum of treatment and services are utilized with emphasis on the development of a substance-free lifestyle and attainment of adequate educational and vocational skills and employment. Through program design, non-dangerous youthful offenders are safely managed in the community, reducing jail and prison crowding. The program has seven goals. They are to: expand the range of intermediate sanctions in Maricopa County; reduce jail and prison crowding; reduce recidivism by youthful probationers; assist youthful probationers with educational and vocational development; improve the employment status of youthful probationers; reduce drug use and alcohol abuse by youthful probationers; and evaluate the effectiveness of correctional options. The goal to expand the range of intermediate sanctions in Maricopa County is reached by developing and implementing a jail diversion program for youthful probationers and a transitional program to follow Shock Incarceration. The goal to reduce jail and prison crowding has as its objective to divert at least 350 youthful probationers from the Maricopa County Jail and at least 708 youthful offenders from the Arizona Department of Corrections. The objectives of providing youthful probationers with close supervision on specialized caseloads; developing and utilizing a continuum of treatment and services which address the individual needs of youthful probationers; and determining a baseline recidivism rate for the target populations and demonstrating a reduction in the rate by program participants, are used to meet the goal of reducing recidivism by youthful probationers. The fourth goal, assisting youthful offenders with educational and vocational development, has the following objectives: to provide youthful probationers with literacy, basic education, and GED studies; to provide youthful probationers with life management skills training; to conduct vocational assessments on youthful probationers; to place youthful probationers in vocational training; and to assist probationers in obtaining higher education at a community college or university. The goal to improve the employment status of youthful probationers has two objectives: to provide job preparation workshops for probationers and to assist probationers with job placement. The goal to reduce drug use and alcohol abuse by youthful probationers has two objectives: to provide youthful probationers with substance abuse education/treatment and to monitor the drug-free status of youthful offenders with random urinalysis throughout the supervision period. The final goal, to evaluate the effectiveness of the correctional options, has one objective: to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice in the evaluation of the program. Program Components The mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department After-Shock Transition Program is to assist Shock graduates through their transition into the community and through their successful completion of Intensive Probation Supervision. This is accomplished by using a specialized team approach which builds upon the ideas and principals of the Shock Incarceration Program. The After-Shock Transition Program was developed to assist Shock Incarceration graduates returning to the community. Maricopa County created a specialized Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) caseload in the county in 1991 to provide a smoother and more gradual transition for Shock Incarceration graduates. The specialized IPS caseload is supervised by three probation officers and two surveillance officers, commonly referred to as the "Shock Team." They handle an average caseload each of 20 to 25 probationers. The Shock Team provides more enhanced supervision and surveillance than IPS and attempts to maintain some of the structure of boot camp. Every effort is made to foster continued cohesion among the Shock Incarceration graduates, as it has become evident that they provide positive peer pressure and support to one another. In addition to regular IPS stipulations, the Shock Team has developed a curriculum of group activities including job search, community service, and athletic pursuits, which emulate the programming experienced in boot camp. Approximately one-third of Shock Incarceration graduates are believed to have gang affiliations. Through positive peer group activities and frequent group discussion regarding the consequences of gang membership, these youthful probationers find help and support in developing new lifestyles. Some Shock Incarceration graduates need a place to live until they can establish independent living arrangements. Some are homeless when they leave boot camp, and others need alternative housing to separate from gang associates or other negative circumstances. In April 1992, the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department opened an After-Shock Transitional Living Center, which is currently called the Garfield Shock House. This setting allows probationers to participate in educational classes and counseling, seek employment, and perform community service without the burden of a negative environment. The location of this housing is in the same facility as the Literacy Center. The center is also open to the community, and community members take classes free of charge. Participants in the After-Shock Transition Program share a continuum of treatment and services with offenders on the Youthful Offender Day Reporting Center (DRC) caseloads. These services include counseling, specifically for substance abuse and educational/vocational skill enhancement services. Residents of the Garfield Shock House are under house arrest, requiring them to have prior permission from a member of the case management team to be absent from their residence at any time. Additional monitoring is provided through random urinalysis and breathalyzer testing, random room, building and grounds checks, daily checks of program attendance, and weekly checks with their employer of record. Each resident pays rent equivalent to what he makes per hour plus $1 per day. Clients must be constantly employed, and restitution is automatically paid through their paychecks. While in the residential program, the participants follow a highly structured daily schedule. This includes: full-time employment or post secondary educational/vocational training; participation in available programs; daily housekeeping chores; community service projects; and organized group physical training. Programs offered on site at the Garfield Community Probation Center include: intensive outpatient substance abuse counseling and aftercare; drug education; Adult Basic Education curriculum; high school diploma testing; life skills programming; and one-on-one mental health counseling. Counseling services are provided by Mountain Valley Counseling, educational services are provided by the Literacy Center, and vocational services are provided by technical schools. Also provided on site are job and career development services, parenting classes, and 12-step meetings for Alcoholics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous. Participants are dismissed from the program and arrested on the property for possessing drugs, alcohol, or weapons or for assaulting a staff member or another client. Dismissal for positive urine analyses or breathalyzer analysis is determined on a case-by-case basis. All these programs are offered at no cost to the clients of the After-Shock Transition Program whether they reside in the Garfield Shock House or are supervised while residing in the community. Results and Impact Performance Measures The program seeks to divert at least 350 youthful probationers from the Maricopa County Jail and at least 708 youthful offenders from the Arizona Department of Corrections. An evaluation of the program by a local university is underway to determine its success rate and monitor any improvement in the self-esteem and problem solving abilities of the participants. Implementation Problems and Successes One problem is obtaining and maintaining funding for the program. Without funding from State and Federal sources, clients would be unable to obtain services, and the facility could not be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition, clients would be unable to get to work at the start of their employment without money for bus tickets. Successes and Accomplishments Approximately 70 Shock Incarceration graduates benefit from this program during the grant period. Last year, 107 offenders graduated from Shock Incarceration and received Intensive Probation Supervision in Maricopa County. If numbers remain approximately the same, the After-Shock Transition Program will handle over 40% of the County's Shock Incarceration graduates during the grant period. Since the Shock Team and the Transitional Living Center were created, there has been a significant reduction in the recidivism rate of Shock Incarceration graduates in Maricopa County. Before the After-Shock Transition Program, the recidivism rate for Shock Incarceration participants was in the 44 to 48% range. After the introduction of the After-Shock Transition Program, recidivism rates were reduced to 22%. There have been no rearrests for new offenses of After-Shock Transition Program participants. All arrests made have been for probation violations such as curfew violations, not new crimes. Participation in the After-Shock Transition Program is less expensive than incarceration in the State prison or the county jail. The costs are $35.70, $43.87, and $35.76 per day, respectively. Prospects for Replication As a demonstration site, the After-Shock Transition Program could reach its full potential and be thoroughly and objectively evaluated, with the results made available to other jurisdictions. To be successfully replicated, program staff must be motivated, dedicated, and willing to devote ample time to the program. The community must support the program and be willing to provide resources for it. There must be adequate funding. Contact Information Dan Zorich Janet Kasha Supervisor Deputy Adult Probation Officer II Intensive Probation Supervision Maricopa County Adult Probation Maricopa County Adult Probation Department Department 1022 East Garfield 1022 East Garfield Phoenix, AZ 85006 Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 254-1148 (602) 254-1148 (602) 254-1036 fax (602) 254-1036 fax Janet Blake Deputy Adult Probation Officer Maricopa County Adult Probation Department 1022 East Garfield Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 254-1148 (602) 254-1036 fax Arizona Southwest Key Program, Inc. Outreach and Tracking Program Statement of the Problem Throughout the United States, juveniles have been institutionalized and then released into the community without an established continuum of care. Traditional means of dealing with delinquent youth, primarily out-of-home placement in institutional settings, have not proven effective, as is evidenced by high recidivism rates and increasing numbers of juveniles entering the adult correctional system. The Southwest Key Program, Inc. believes strongly that children belong at home with their families and that troubled youth are most effectively treated in their own communities with the participation of family members, school personnel, employers, and community resources. Accordingly, all of the Southwest Key programs place a great deal of emphasis on family development and family involvement in the therapeutic process. Goals and Objectives The overriding goal of the Outreach and Tracking Program is to help troubled youth reform under strict supervision within their own communities while living at home. This forms the foundation of the program and is the basis from which service delivery occurs. Southwest Key, Inc. is committed to achieving the following primary goals: preventing acts of delinquency and self-destructive behavior among youth referred to the program; mainstreaming troubled youth into society's traditional activities such as education and employment, thereby facilitating a positive, productive lifestyle; strengthening the role of the family in determining a youth's behavior; fostering a preventive, rather than a reactive, approach to treating troubled adolescents; developing a comprehensive support network composed of family, friends, schools, employers, and community resources to maximize the client's opportunity to succeed on his/her own; improving family dynamics by actively involving and impacting each member of the family; and encouraging client success by setting attainable goals and teaching positive social skills such as teamwork, cooperation, and self-discipline. The following objectives ensure that these goals are met: hiring well-qualified and professional personnel who appropriately represent the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the client population and can establish positive, trusting relationships with the clients and their families; delivering services to each client cost-efficiently and effectively; informing and involving funding sources in client treatment; ensuring that clients have their needs assessed from a psychological (behavioral) perspective by the caseworker and reviewed by the clinician and program supervisor on an ongoing basis; ensuring that all clients have an Individualized Development Plan (IDP) written by the caseworker and reviewed by the program supervisor that is based upon their unique needs assessment, which delineates goals, services, and environmental needs to be provided by Southwest Key, the youth's family, other agencies, and support groups; ensuring that all clients are provided casework services to meet individualized goals by receiving a minimum of five hours of counseling services weekly; working closely with each member of the family to enhance their contributions to the success of the family unit; and making a minimum of two face-to-face contacts per day with each client, 365 days per year. Program Components In 1987, the Southwest Key Program, Inc. was established with the objective of developing community-based treatment programs for troubled youth as an alternative to institutionalization. The private, nonprofit organization provides intensive supervision of youth. The agency operates 28 community-based treatment programs with six different models for delinquent youth and their families in Texas, Arizona, and Puerto Rico. The program employs more than 300 staff and provides services to over 1,000 children, youth, and families on any given day. The programs span the entire continuum of care. In addition to the Outreach and Tracking Program, Southwest Key provides Day Treatment, Residential Treatment Centers, In-Home Services for abused and neglected youth, a family preservation program, and the High Impact Program. Essentially a supplemental part of the court system, the Outreach and Tracking Program serves 60 to 70 offenders at a time, approximately 10 to 15% of all youths on probation in Phoenix. Clients are ages ten to seventeen, 15% of whom are girls (out of a juvenile population of 25%). The court offers youths on parole the opportunity to come to Southwest Key, and Southwest Key is required to take the youths who choose it. Many youths who are on probation are also referred to the program, although the program has some discretion in refusing youths who are not appropriate for community supervision. Crimes committed by these youth range from grand theft auto to gang involvement and firearms violations. Youths spend a minimum of three months in the program and are on probation or parole for an average of one to one and a half years. Southwest Key staff work diligently with parole or probation officers on long-term planning geared toward preventing future involvement with the juvenile justice system. Program staff take full responsibility for assessing the client's needs in such areas as education, vocational training, mental health, physical health, social skills, family work, and intensive direct intervention or referral of clients to appropriate services provided by other agencies. The focus is to develop intervention and treatment strategies that enhance the client's capability to remain in the community and complete the program in one to three months. A Contract with the Client Immediately upon intake, all clients sign a contract in which they agree to abide by certain rules and regulations. Contract expectations include cooperation with parents or guardians, daily attendance and participation in school, cooperation with caseworkers, active employment searching (where appropriate), attendance and participation in all mandatory recreational activities, compliance with a predetermined curfew, and no use of illegal drugs or alcohol. A series of consequences for contract violations include grounding, time in the Southwest Key office, riding with caseworkers, earlier curfew, restitution, and staff-initiated meetings with parole or probation personnel. Compliance with the contract may bring special privileges such as later curfew or individual recreation with a caseworker. The program also incorporates work on targeted behaviors for individual clients to ensure that his/her own special problematic behaviors diminish. The staff develops a highly specialized program to meet the needs of the individual in his/her specific areas of difficulty. Each client's service plan is designed to provide growth and development by teaching him/her how to control impulsive behaviors and build internal self controls. Clients, as they progress through the program and gain self-confidence, are expected to work toward becoming productive citizens and need less frequent intervention from outside service providers. Multi-Cultural Awareness Multi-cultural awareness, education, and training are provided to both the staff and clients. The Southwest Key staff is chosen to represent appropriately the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the client population. Advocacy for the Client Southwest Key serves as an active advocate for the client in areas such as legal, medical, educational, and vocational needs. Staff members accompany clients to scheduled court appearances, meetings with attorneys, parole or probation meetings, and school meetings with teachers to provide active support for clients and their families. Individual Development Plan (IDP) Treatment planning for each client commences immediately at the intake meeting. An initial IDP is written to cover the first 30 days. This plan is developed jointly by the caseworker, program supervisor, and the parole or probation officer with the client and his/her family. IDPs are reviewed monthly, and the goals and specific interventions are reviewed and adapted for each client based on his/her progress in the program. Southwest Key staff continually monitor care and treatment plans and service delivery through weekly service planning meetings, facilitated jointly by the program's clinician and program supervisor. Weekly Group Counseling Sessions Two group peer counseling sessions per week dealing with accountability are mandatory for all clients. Southwest Key staff may also organize smaller group sessions to address specific issues such as family conflict, problem solving, and drug use. These groups allow clients the opportunity to give and accept constructive peer feedback and build positive social interaction skills. Therapy Clients are involved in individual and/or group psychotherapy when appropriate. Clients who have their own therapist at intake are encouraged to continue that relationship. When a client does not have an actively involved therapist at intake, and individual therapy is needed, these services can be provided directly throughout the program and then a referral can be made for ongoing therapy after completion of the program. The program supervisor and caseworkers maintain consistent contact with all therapists to provide support, pass on information, and obtain input for ongoing treatment planning. Family Counseling and Focus There are three family counseling sessions per week. Family counseling and support is a major focus of the program because many clients live in dysfunctional family settings. Parental support is provided daily by caseworkers who track clients at home and maintain daily contact with parents. This allows for the communication of special concerns, planning services, and monitoring of performance and progress. If more regular meetings are needed with the family, they are scheduled by the caseworkers and led by the program's clinician. In the event that family therapy is deemed appropriate, Southwest Key either provides counseling services directly or works with the family to make a referral to an appropriate therapist. Families are encouraged to participate in service planning meetings and quarterly review meetings, and to call the Southwest Key office for 24-hour support should a problem develop. Crisis Intervention Clients and their families are encouraged to call the center any time, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year to receive assistance in order to respond to crises in a timely fashion. Tracking Procedures The cornerstone of the Outreach and Tracking Program is the tracking component. All clients are required to report their whereabouts in the community at all times. It is the client's responsibility to be in a location where he/she can be found by the caseworker on duty. All clients are seen face-to-face by caseworkers a minimum of twice each day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. Tracking becomes a counseling tool that provides structure and accountability while building a working relationship between the caseworker and the client. This enhances the caseworker's ability to forecast emerging problems and provide preventive rather than reactive interventions. Progress Planning Client status including accountability, crises, appointments, needs, and consequences is reviewed three times daily. The client's progress compared to individual goals and target behavior is reviewed weekly. Community-Based Education Each client participates in a community-based educational program that addresses his/her emotional, physical, social, educational, and vocational needs. Southwest Key staff track clients daily in school to monitor attendance, progress, and performance, and provide support to both clients and school personnel. A major emphasis is placed on developing strong, ongoing working relationships with teachers, guidance counselors, and school administrators to provide the best opportunity for success in the school setting. Part-time Employment Clients are encouraged to find part-time employment after school whenever possible and appropriate. Southwest Key staff help clients in obtaining working papers, completing job applications, and preparing for interviews. The staff also locates work training programs in the community in which clients are paid and supervised. Any client who is working in the community is tracked at work to provide support to the client and employer and to monitor performance. Recreational Programming Recreational programs are designed to provide exercise and opportunities to build social skills and positive peer interaction. Recreational activities include basketball, roller-skating, movies, field trips, and cultural events. All clients are expected to participate in at least two recreational activities per week. Client Transportation The Southwest Key staff provides transportation to all Key-sponsored activities and other activities as needed such as legal, medical, and educational advocacy, 24- hour-crisis intervention services, aftercare services, and planning. Release Planning The staff works with the client, his/her family, the referring agency, and appropriate community resources to develop a release plan that will establish ties with the community support network and ease the transition into a new environment. Results and Impact Performance Measures Perhaps the most meaningful, long-term measure of the success of the Outreach and Tracking Program is whether the program helps youth avoid future crime. Recent tracking data provided by the Texas Youth Commission about the Texas Southwest Key program has indicated reduced recidivism rates. The Phoenix program is only now evaluating outcomes, yet baseline data from 1993 and 1994 reveals information on the number of youth who successfully terminated the program and completed probation. In the future, the Phoenix program will be examining recidivism rates against adjudicated and incarcerated youth, keeping in mind that intensive supervision might lead to greater knowledge of recidivism by Southwest Key staff and affect the numbers. Implementation Problems and Successes The State and county's initial reception of the Outreach and Tracking Program was uncertain, because this was the first program of this type for which they had contracted services. At first, there were many obstacles. Judges can automatically order youth to the program. For youth on parole, Southwest Key has no right of refusal. Southwest Key feared they would prove a dumping ground for problem paroled youth, but this has not happened. Communication with parole and probation has evolved over time. State and county agencies were at first suspicious of a private organization providing these services, but they have become accustomed to and welcomed the Southwest Key Program within their community as they have seen a positive impact. Staff development has been an issue. Staff are expected to have a four-year undergraduate degree and a minimum of one year working with juveniles. They receive a two week in-house training and a two-week field training. Keeping up with training demands as the program expands has taken effort. Staff suffer from burnout because they work 50 to 60-hour weeks. A 24-month concept has been developed for workers. Unless they are promoted to a higher position, they are encouraged to move on after two years in order to replenish their energies. Because many of the staff are recent college graduates, the program serves as a good training ground for them before they go on to receive further professional degrees. Successes and Accomplishments Recent tracking data provided by the Texas Youth Commission about the Texas program indicated that one year after completing the Outreach and Tracking Program, clients have a 65% lower re-arrest rate than youths released from institutions directly into standard parole services. This high success rate is even more significant because the Outreach and Tracking Program typically receives clients who juvenile justice agencies have deemed too difficult for standard parole or probation. The Phoenix program is only now evaluating outcomes, and the baseline data from 1993 and 1994 show that 40 to 45% of parolees terminated the program successfully and 70% of those on probation completed successfully. Across the Southwest, different Federal, State, and county agencies use the Outreach and Tracking Program to reduce the ever-growing demand and costs for additional institutional facility space. More important, these agencies are turning to the Southwest Key Program, Inc. because they have found that these programs are effective in helping troubled youth and their families re-direct their lives. Prospects for Replication Many different State and county agencies across the U.S. have come to recognize Southwest Key Program, Inc. as an innovator and leader in institutional alternatives for juvenile delinquents. Most recently, the States of Nevada, Wisconsin, and California have utilized the Southwest Key Program, Inc. as a model to develop Outreach and Tracking programs. The implementation of the Outreach and Tracking Program continues to expand nationwide, as the need for alternatives exist in a growing number of communities. Contact Information Melissa Jenkins-Simon Russ Cavan Regional Director Staff Development Administrator Southwest Key Program, Inc. Southwest Key Program, Inc. 827 North 5th Avenue 827 North 5th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 256-9552 (602) 256-9552 (602) 256-2059 fax (602) 256-2059 fax Arkansas Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) Statement of the Problem As in most states, the juvenile courts in Arkansas are charged with rehabilitating young people in the least restrictive setting possible. However, with crime rates increasing, particularly for violent offenses, the scenario looked bleak. The judges and probation staff decided to analyze the driving forces behind the crimes and the probation failures. Along with violence, many of the young people coming into the juvenile justice system were charged with substance abuse- related crimes or were identified as having unacknowledged substance abuse problems. Assigning serious substance abusing youth to probation staff with excessive case loads compounded these problems. Most of the young people going through juvenile court come from unstable living situations. Parents or guardians were often unable or unwilling to enforce curfew orders issued by the court. The court often learned of curfew violations when a probationer picked up new charges, was cited for violating a local curfew, or was reported by school personnel who were attempting to explain a juvenile's poor performance in school. Arkansas law already allowed a juvenile judge to require a youth to complete community service work as a dispositional alternative. However, with no one to recruit placements or to monitor progress, this method of rehabilitating young people was most often not used. The Division of Youth Services (DYS), a division of the Department of Human Services, is charged under Arkansas law with rehabilitating the most serious juvenile offenders. Pulaski County commits the largest number of juveniles to the Division of Youth Services, and Pulaski County has a 24% recidivism rate. This recidivism rate is underestimated because Arkansas law grants prosecuting attorneys the discretion, within certain parameters, to charge juveniles between the ages of 14 and 17 as adults. Goals and Objectives The goal of the Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) is to reduce the recidivism rate of juveniles by providing a disposition with enhanced structure, rehabilitation, and accountability for serious juvenile offenders who abuse drugs and alcohol and/or violate statutes regarding drugs and alcohol. The following objectives were developed to pursue this goal: all juveniles will be enrolled in some form of education such as regular or alternative school, GED classes, literacy classes, or vocational school; all juveniles will be engaged in paid employment or approved community service work to ensure accountability; enhanced supervision will be provided with an attempt to divert the juvenile offender from the adult system and increase rehabilitation success; appropriate dispositions will be provided for juvenile offenders who have reached or are nearing their eighteenth birthdays and are ineligible to be committed to the Division of Youth Services; the recidivism rate of juveniles will be reduced; commitments to the Division of Youth Services when the juvenile is unable to follow the rules of probation or court orders will be reduced; there will be swift consequences for violent or habitual juvenile offenders who violate ISP guidelines and community safety; an intermediate sentencing program that is less restrictive than incarceration, but more rehabilitative in nature will be provided; strict compliance with community service work, restitution and fine payments, adherence to curfews enforced by Surveillance Officers, and participation in random drug screens and treatment programs when indicated will be required; and assessments and screens will be provided in order to detect drug and alcohol addictions and refer youth for appropriate treatment and aftercare. Program Components The ISP operates on a three level design. Phase I lasts four months. During this phase, the offender must attend five face-to-face visits per week in the probation office; have three phone contacts weekly with his/her Probation Officer; undergo weekly drug screens; attend school; attend five Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous (NA/AA) groups if applicable; perform regular community service hours; make a regularly scheduled fine or restitution payment; and receive 24-hour adult supervision or supervision as set by the court. During this phase, the Probation Officer makes appropriate referrals to community-based programs for the rehabilitation of the juvenile. If treatment facilities are required on an in-patient basis, the juvenile is admitted at this time. Also during Phase I, Surveillance Officers maintain curfew checks on participants on a daily basis. If a participant is in school, the Surveillance Officers do spot checks to determine compliance. Job contacts are made weekly to determine if the participant is performing satisfactorily. Participants are required to submit to searches by the Surveillance Officers if there is cause to believe the participant is in possession of a weapon, narcotics, and/or alcohol. The Surveillance Officer also determines if the participant is associated with any known felons. During the four-month Phase II, the offender is required to attend three face-to-face visits per week with Surveillance Officers; make one phone contact weekly with his/her Probation Officer; complete his/her community service work if it is not completed in Phase I; continue making regular restitution, fine, court cost, probation fee, and other payments; attend three AA/NA meetings per week, if applicable; maintain an 8:00 p.m. curfew or as set by the court; submit to monthly drug screens; attend school; and be employed, if applicable. If technical violations occur during Phase I or II which are of a minor nature, such as a missed phone contact or missed AA/NA meeting, the Probation Officer has the discretion to intensify the supervision in an attempt to gain compliance. However, if at any time a violation of greater significance occurs, such as a re-offense or blatant refusal to follow the majority of the program conditions, a revocation is filed, and the juvenile is returned to court. If during the four months of Phase III there remains a reason to continue supervision for the purpose of monitoring the payment of fines, restitution, community service, or obtaining treatment goals, but intensive supervision is no longer required, the participant is referred to the regular probation staff for supervision until termination is appropriate. If the participant should re-offend during this period, he/she will be ineligible to begin the process a second time, unless it is ordered by the presiding judge and the initial probation period is extended beyond the year time frame. If the participant has successfully complied with all of the conditions set by the ISP and all treatment goals have been met, he/she is eligible for early release from the ISP at the beginning of Phase III. The participant has successfully completed the Intensive Supervision Program when he/she: does not re-offend during the duration of participation; remains drug-free for the period of supervision; fulfills all financial obligations under the conditions of ISP; completes all court- ordered treatment plans; maintains contact with the Probation Officer or Surveillance Officer as outlined in the phase levels; completes court-ordered community service; secures and maintains employment; and completes the GED or subscribed educational plan. One component of the ISP is a fund established for restitution. Program participants are eligible to earn up to half of the court-ordered restitution through community service supervised by court personnel. Through employment, the participant is held responsible and accountable for repaying his/her debt to the community. The Community Resource Officer develops contacts with victims who have experienced a loss which can be repaid by the offender through services, as opposed to monetarily. By implementing this component of restitution, the victim/community is repaid, increasing trust in the judicial system, and the juvenile offender is held accountable to his/her community. The Community Resource Officer makes all referrals for community service, tracks completion of this work, monitors all community service as it relates to restitution, and provides a thorough report as to compliance with community service and restitution obligations. The electronic bracelet was added in lieu of detention to the ISP to enhance the supervision of juveniles who have minor rule infractions. Approximately 10 bracelets are available for use at all times. In the event of a violation, such as a curfew violation or school truancy, the bracelet becomes an intermediate consequence prior to detention. Any violations are immediately detected and reported, prompting swifter consequences. Parenting skills facilitators provide an ongoing weekly series of parenting skills classes required for all parents of ISP participants. The goal of the classes is to strengthen parental understanding of and cooperation with the program. Furthermore, it is the intent of the parenting classes to strengthen parents' ability to supervise the juvenile adequately by strengthening their ability to set limits, impose consequences, and improve communication. Results and Impact Performance Measures In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, the following factors will be examined: the target population of serious habitual offenders who have previously been committed to DYS to determine if these participants completed the ISP requirements successfully; the number of community service hours performed, the amount of restitution paid to victims, the amount of fines, court costs, and probation fees collected, the number of participants successfully completing treatment programs, the number of participants securing and maintaining gainful employment, the number of participants successfully engaging in or completing an educational program, and the number of participants who do not re-offend during their involvement in the ISP program; and the number of successful participants in relation to participants who do not complete the program and are eventually committed to the Division of Youth Services. The program has several performance indicators. These include: (1) the number of contacts with ISP Probation and Surveillance Officers; (2) the number of AA/NA meetings attended; (3) the number of phone contacts with Probation Officers; (4) the number of successful treatment programs completed; (5) the number of drug/urine screens conducted; (6) the number of educational programs attended or completed; (7) the number of successful job placements; (8) the number of community service hours completed; (9) the amount of probation fees, restitution payments, and fines collected; (10) phase movements; and (11) reassessment scores. Implementation Problems and Successes When the program was first implemented, the juvenile judges were unclear as to which types of juvenile offenders were appropriate for admission to ISP. With more training and increased use of the program, this problem was resolved. It has been difficult to get bids for electronic monitoring equipment. The equipment currently being used was chosen by the County purchasing office because it was inexpensive. This equipment is less reliable, and the juveniles do not have faith that it works and tend to disregard its presence. The documentation required by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to maintain a grant was overwhelming to program administrators. Nine months into the program a part-time employee was hired to keep statistics on the program and act as a liaison between Probation Officers and the Surveillance Officers. Successes and Accomplishments ISP has been able to achieve in large part its original goal. It generally has been well received by the parents and the juvenile participants, and some juveniles have actually requested to participate in this program. Feedback from participating agencies has been extremely positive. The best measure for program evaluation is that many substance-abusing, young offenders have been kept in a less restrictive setting due to this program. During the first full year of operation, a total of 46 juveniles were served, and a recidivism rate of 11% was observed versus the prior rate of 34%. The program has achieved several successes during the time it has operated. In the first year, 100% of the participants were enrolled in school. All program participants were either employed or performing community service, and 1,000 hours of community service were completed in the first program year by ISP participants. To implement the program successfully, community support is crucial. This support has been obtained in different ways. In order to ensure strict compliance with curfew orders, Surveillance Officers were needed. The courts cooperated with local police agencies, and the Police Chiefs in both Little Rock and North Little Rock were requested to submit names from their certified staff to serve as Surveillance Officers during their off-duty hours. While both Police Chiefs supported this program in concept prior to funding, use of their staff as Surveillance Officers has built a bridge of better understanding between the courts and the police agencies. Since this program is directed at substance-abusing youth, partnerships with existing programs have been strengthened. Initial drug screens are performed by the probation staff, but all further assessment and treatment are performed by local providers in a cooperative and mutually satisfying arrangement. Another area of cooperation has been with the local school districts. Most, if not all, of the participants in the ISP have either academic and/or behavioral problems at school. The three juvenile judges have been meeting periodically with the Superintendents of the local school districts in order to discuss problems and solutions. As a result of these meetings, another grant has been requested to develop an alternative county-wide dispute resolution program to be implemented in the schools, involving teachers, students, parents, local government, the courts, and other interested parties. The most recent act of cooperation with area agencies involved contracting for parenting services. Upon determining that one of the weakest links in providing services to ISP participants was parental involvement, particularly in setting limits and enforcing rules, a parenting component was added to the program. The program contracted two experienced parenting instructors who also work full-time as high school counselors. The Community Resource Officer has increased the number of participating community service sites from less than 10 sites before the program began to 116 sites. Several positive benefits can be identified from this program. First, the juvenile is giving something back to his/her community in a positive way and in a location near his/her home. This juvenile is also obtaining some work experience useful in future job searches. Several of the young people have been offered paid employment at their community service site based on the quality of their service. Community service work demonstrates to the community that all kids are not bad and that courts take crime seriously. Prospects for Replication Several items are important for the replication of the Intensive Supervision Program. First, this type of program is suited to a more urban area, especially those with high crime rates. The second important consideration in implementing an ISP is the recruitment and training of high quality staff who are committed to working with juvenile offenders and their families. A community must be willing to support this type of programming for it to be successful. One of the best ways to engender community support is to actively seek and maintain ties with other community groups and institutions that are working with youth. Contact Information Carol Wilkins Chief Probation Officer Pulaski County Juvenile Division Circuit/Chancery Court 300 West Roosevelt Road Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 340-6726 (501) 340-6788 fax Arkansas Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program Statement of the Problem The incidence of juvenile crime in Arkansas' Sixth Judicial District caused the juvenile court system to become overwhelmed. This congestion was causing a tremendous delay in getting juveniles into the court system and was affecting the quality of treatment and punishment of juveniles once they were brought to trial. It was clear that an alternative system was needed to cut down on the number of cases filed in juvenile court and provide more appropriate treatment for juveniles charged with less serious offenses. The Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program was developed in an effort to address these problems. Goals and Objectives The Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program is designed to provide youthful offenders with sentencing diversion as an option to formal adjudication in juvenile court. The program's primary purpose is to discourage juvenile crime and recidivism and teach meaningful lessons about accepting responsibility and developing self-esteem. Program Components The Pre-Charging Diversion Program is designed for youths ages 12 through 17 who have been charged with a non-violent misdemeanor or certain felony offenses in Pulaski County. The nature of the offense is reviewed by deputy prosecutors to determine whether basic eligibility criteria have been met. If the youth is eligible for the Pre-Charging Diversion Program, the parents are contacted and a meeting is arranged to enroll the juvenile in the 45-day program. Once enrolled, the youth is required to report to a peer group judgment panel for the purpose of alternative sentencing. The peer group judgment panel is made up of youths who have successfully completed the Pre-Charging Diversion Program and have been received appropriate training. The peer group judgment panel assigns a constructive punishment designed to cover the following areas: payback, new friends, education, and peer group judgment panel/respect for the law. The peer group judgment panels, held on the weekends, are sponsored by the Watershed Human and Community Development Agency, Inc. and Black Community Developers Program, Inc. The Watershed Agency's mission is to empower people through self-help. Watershed provides job training, child care, and assistance with housing, food, transportation, and other necessities. In addition, Watershed has developed a number of services for at-risk youth, including the Get Ready Program, which provides youthful offenders with the tools and skills necessary to become responsible, productive members of the community. The Black Community Developers Program is a non-profit, non-sectarian, community-based program formed to work toward improving the quality of life for economically disadvantaged Arkansans. The juvenile is required to perform a certain number of hours of community service to be supervised by the community or a non-profit organization. These activities could include removing graffiti, cleaning up city parks, or washing police cars. Three to sixteen hours of community service must be performed, and tasks are designed to be performed on the weekend. On the second weekend, the juvenile is required to participate in area programs and presentations designed to acquaint the youth with constructive community relationships. In addition to interaction with the Watershed Agency and Black Community Developers, youths are referred to programs and services at New Futures for Little Rock Youth, Stepping Stone, Operation Safe Summer, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, the Boys Club, and other similar organizations. On the third weekend, the juvenile is required to utilize the library or other literary programs available to complete an autobiography or a book report. The youth learns firsthand about the consequences of criminal activity through presentations by Arkansas Department of Corrections inmates. Information on various vocational and educational opportunities is presented by the Watershed Agency and the Black Community Developers Program. Having successfully completed these three phases of the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program, the juvenile learns the importance of accountability and responsibility by sitting in judgment over incoming youths who will be participating in the program. The juvenile sits as a member of a peer group judgment panel on three occasions and imposes alternative sentences as outlined above. This final portion of the program is especially important because it gives the juvenile a sense of coming full-circle and helps him/her to perform the critical analysis process which is designed to result in the acceptance of responsibility for wrongful conduct. Failure to complete the program results in prosecution in juvenile court. Results and Impact Performance Measures To assess the success of the program, many performance measures will be utilized. The project will maintain records on the number of youth served by the project; the number completing the project who have additional charges filed with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office; and the number who continue to be involved in community service or formal community programs following their completion of the program. Changes in attitude and behavior of youths will also be measured through a survey administered to parents at three and six-month intervals following the completion of the program. Implementation Problems and Successes The problem with the panel being composed of juveniles who are, or were, considered to be at- risk is that they are not always dependable. The success of this program depends on the reliability of the panel and the group that is putting the panel together. Follow-up on the punishment aspect of the program is imperative to the program's success. Because the Watershed Agency works on a limited budget, it is difficult to provide the necessary workers to ensure that all of the elements of the program are completed. It is important to this program that punishment is swift, just, and not a hollow threat. The solution to these problems is for the prosecutor's office to be associated with a dedicated community support group that has a staff that can satisfy the requirements of the program. It is a time-consuming process to organize the panel and follow-up on whether the juvenile is completing his/her assigned punishment. Successes and Accomplishments Each year, approximately 3,500 cases are referred to the Pulaski County Prosecutor's Office for the filing of juvenile delinquency petitions. These cases involve approximately 2,096 Pulaski County juveniles. The prosecutor estimates that approximately 240 of these juveniles could be served per year by the Pre-Charging Diversion Program, and as many as 700 youths per year after future expansion. The success rate for the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program is dramatically illustrated by statistics from the first year of the program at the Watershed Agency. Since July 1993, 120 youthful offenders have been diverted to the program. Only fourteen of those youths have been charged with additional crimes after completing the program, indicating a 12% recidivism rate. The vast majority of juveniles who have completed the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program stay clear of further trouble with the law. Part of the success of the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program has been that the peer group review panel typically comprises at-risk youth who have made strides toward turning their lives around. Youths who have been in trouble with the law are true peers of the juvenile referred by the prosecutor's office and relate more easily to the referred juvenile. This is supported by the success of this particular program and manifested in the candor displayed by the program's participants on both sides of the table and in the referred juvenile's willingness to follow through with the punishment assigned to him/her. Prospects for Replication The success of putting together the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program depends largely on the dedication of a community support group, such as the Watershed Agency. This is because the community support group is responsible for the most essential elements of the program: the peer group review panel and follow-up on the punishment assigned by the panel. The prospects for success of the Prosecutor's Pre-Charging Diversion Program rely on the dedication of the prosecutor's office and the community support group. This community-based organization must be reliable, well staffed, and appropriately funded. Contact Information Mark Stodola Prosecuting Attorney Sixth Judicial District 122 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 340-8000 (501) 340-8049 fax Colorado The Emergency Courtroom: Denver County Court Protective Orders Court Statement of the Problem The most lethal time in domestic abuse cases is when a battered woman is leaving the relationship. This is also the most critical time for judicial intervention. In these cases, litigants in need of immediate individual attention are in a crisis situation, when a judge's decision can have life-saving consequences. In many courts, restraining order cases are squeezed between other matters on the docket and are often heard by judges who do not want to handle these cases but do so as part of a regular rotation. This can lead to irritations due to delays and interruptions of the regular docket and can result in untrained judges making mistakes in high-risk cases. The traditional dispersement of cases to judges leads to a lack of individualized service to the already traumatized victim, as well as delay and inconvenience for other litigants. Goals and Objectives Denver's Emergency Courtroom has two primary goals: (1) to improve judicial intervention in restraining order cases; and (2) to increase citizens' use of the courts when violence and threats are imminent. The objectives designed to meet these goals include the following: to protect victims from violence through court orders; to reduce violence by identification of high-risk cases, safety planning, and appropriate referrals; to humanize the process by providing a smaller and more user-friendly court; and to provide referrals and easy accessibility to outside services. Program Components Since April 1992 the Denver County Court has provided a dedicated Protective Orders Court, in which one judge presides over all restraining order cases and contempt hearings. Unlike the traditional system in which judges try to squeeze protective orders cases between regularly scheduled cases, this court provides ready access, court services, and trained personnel so that the court can intervene when violence is imminent. The courtroom is self-sufficient and the filing process is simplified, since the vast majority of the parties represent themselves. The judge and all staff develop expertise through regular training in domestic violence matters and maintain close ties with related community agencies such as police, advocates, prosecutors, Legal Aid, and treatment providers. Ongoing training is also provided for police officers and the sheriff concerning the proper handling of domestic violence cases and restraining orders. Volunteer victim advocates as well as volunteer lawyers and guardians ad litem participate actively in the courtroom. The following community programs work in conjunction with the court to provide services to the victims, as well as to the victims' children. Project Safeguard is a domestic violence advocacy program that provides this court with victim advocates, whose function in the court is two-fold: to work with the court to conduct victim orientation, providing information on restraining orders and community services; and to assist the plaintiffs and watch for crisis situations such as high-risk victims who are indigent or have children who are victims. In such cases, the victim advocates refer clients to Legal Aid. Project PROP, which stands for "Permanent Restraining Order Program," provides legal aid by linking volunteer attorneys with victims. These victims are frequently referred by the victim advocates from Project Safeguard. All services provided by the attorneys are free. Voucher Program is a child therapy program for children who have witnessed violence in the home or have been victims. In this program, the court, funded by a City Council grant, provides vouchers for child treatment services which amount to six therapy sessions at $20 each. GAL Program, or the Guardian Ad Litem Program, is part of the Children's Legal Clinic, which recruits volunteer attorneys to represent child victims. GAL is the children's counterpart to Project PROP, in which all legal aid is free. At the beginning of each day in court, parties are assisted by the staff in filling out necessary paperwork. Victim advocates conduct an orientation and inform victims of community resources that are available to them. Next, the judge speaks generally to the public about the need for calling the police if there is trouble; returning to court to have the order made permanent; and getting additional help from the community, particularly if children are in trouble. Finally, the afternoon docket is heard. The court's philosophy is based on the belief that where the court is accessible, the public will resort to the use of the courts instead of taking the law into their own hands. Thus, the court's hours, ease, language assistance, clerk assistance, expertise, and emphasis on service all work towards making the Protective Orders Court a place where people are willing and able to go for help in a crisis involving threats, harassment, and violence. Results and Impact Performance Measures The Urban Institute Study provided baseline data on the impact of and factors affecting the success of restraining orders. The study assessed the impact of retraining orders in domestic violence cases and provided information useful to judges who respond to petitions for protection. This study was instrumental at the inception of the Denver County Court Protective Orders Court. Court personnel designed a tracking system to identify outcomes of particular groups of cases. The National Center for State Courts selected Denver as one of three sites for its study of the effectiveness of civil protection orders. This study was funded by the National Institute of Justice and the results are forthcoming. Implementation Problems and Successes There was a problem overcoming resistance to change within the judiciary. The judge of the Protective Orders Court had to be more pro-active on behalf of victims, especially women, which could have been construed as gender bias against men. There was a need for additional resources outside of the courtroom to refer the victims. The staff had to be trained regarding the new court philosophy. Additional security measures had to be taken to protect the victims appearing in court. Lawyers had to be provided for the children who needed them. This was problematic because the lawyers were not experienced enough to handle these cases. As a result, the judge was making fewer and fewer referrals to them. The attorneys need training to become more skilled at working with traumatized children. Successes and Accomplishments The following is a list of selected accomplishments: an increase in the number of plaintiffs represented by a lawyer at Permanent Restraining Order hearings from 4% in 1991 to 30%; an increase in the percentage of police referrals to Protective Orders Court, from 56% in 1991 to 61% in 1994; successful staff training in domestic violence; training being given by the court clerk to clerks statewide; decreased homicides; development of a judicial benchbook concerning protective orders, called The Purpose of Law is Justice; featuring of the court on "The Killing Fields," a CBS 3-hour documentary reported by Ed Bradley in February 1995; and regular judge participation in training attorneys and other professionals about domestic violence issues. Prospects for Replication One key element to implementing a similar court is the judge. Judicial desire is crucial, as there is little variety in the types of cases heard. The judge must be skilled in handling domestic violence, pro se parties, crisis intervention, stress management, gender bias issues, and public speaking and writing. The help of programs in the community, such as Legal Aid and victim advocacy programs, has also been crucial to the success of this court. It is important that any community desiring to implement a court such as this have a strong resource network in the community. Alternative Incarceration Program Statement of the Problem The State of Connecticut has faced unprecedented growth in its correctional system. During the 1980's, the total Department of Correction (DOC) population tripled from 5,500 to 16,000. This rapid growth in population outstripped the State's ability to add correctional beds and forced the DOC to rely heavily on early release programs. As a result, during 1989 most incarcerated offenders served only 10% of their sentences. The State's limited ability to incarcerate offenders sharply reduced the deterrent effect of sentencing. Offenders realized that the amount of time they would actually serve would be much less than the length of their sentence. In addition, the prison population growth caused serious disciplinary problems for the DOC. Offenders realized that they did not need to comply with DOC rules governing prisoner behavior, and they would still be released early, because the DOC did not have a sufficient number of correctional beds to hold them. Goals and Objectives Presently, the Connecticut Legislature appropriates $22 million to the Office of Alternative Sanctions (OAS) for the purpose of diverting approximately 4,000 jail-bound offenders each day. To accomplish this goal and the corresponding increase in time served for incarcerated offenders, OAS contracts private non-profit agencies. Connecticut's Judicial Branch has developed a unique set of objectives to reach its goal. The objectives are to: divert approximately 4,000 jail-bound offenders on any given day from incarceration to credible, structured, community-based sanctions; increase the length of time incarcerated inmates serve to at least 50% of the stated sentence; provide judges with a graduated sentencing structure which assists them in pronouncing "sentences which make sense;" accomplish these goals at approximately one-fifth the cost of incarceration, without jeopardizing public safety; and gain public support of these programs through extensive and visible community service projects and a well planned public relations effort. Program Components In order to achieve its goals, Connecticut needed to balance a variety of contrasting issues. The State's judges needed programs that would provide meaningful, highly-structured sanctions. In addition to carefully supervising and monitoring the offenders, the programs had to provide feedback to the judges on the offenders' progress. At the same time, the programs had to be capable of encouraging the offenders to continue to participate, since they could only be successful in providing an alternative to incarceration if the offenders continued to attend. Keeping the offenders in attendance is a difficult task; many experts have noted that community- based sanctions are typically more challenging to offenders than prison. According to Jim Greene, Deputy Director of the Office of Alternative Sanctions, "There are two things we can accomplish through AIC (Alternative to Incarceration Center) community service. We can try to move our clients a step forward in their lives, and we can try to move the offenders upward in the eyes of the taxpayers." To accomplish this, the programs seek to engage and coach the offenders and offer them educational and vocational assistance, job development, life skills assistance, housing assistance, and recreation. The programs also seek to address the needs of Connecticut's communities. In order for the communities to embrace the programs, they must see the offenders involved in highly positive activities. Through constant involvement in community service activities, the programs have been able to demonstrate to communities that offenders can produce positive results. During fiscal year 1993-1994, AICs supervised over 200,000 hours of community service. The high level of visibility that is associated with the performance of community service makes it an excellent public relations vehicle. Connecticut has developed an extensive and innovative community service network. Examples of projects are: maintenance of State parks, campgrounds, beaches, municipal parks, and athletic facilities; painting of elementary school classrooms and courthouses; removal of graffiti from public buildings, and of debris at inner city illegal dumping sites; ticket collection and refreshment stand operation at Connecticut's annual statewide Olympic Festival; support services for the annual Connecticut Special Olympics; and building gazebos, playscapes, and wilderness trails for local communities. Connecticut's approach in providing community service has been to have all services delivered by crews consisting of one supervisor, one volunteer, and six offenders. Connecticut has expanded the role of community service into areas such as evaluation of offenders, job training, and drug and alcohol counseling. Community service provides a great opportunity and vehicle for impacting the behavior of the offenders. All community service projects are well publicized through press releases which result in frequent newspaper and television coverage. Connecticut is well on its way to changing public opinion concerning the type of judicial sanction which is appropriate for a large group of non-violent offenders. In order to accomplish its strategy, Connecticut has developed a hierarchy of programs. Programs located at the base of the hierarchy need to be the most cost-effective, and serve the largest number of clients. Programs located higher up in the hierarchy serve offenders with special needs and are more expensive. The following programs are listed from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top. Alternative to Incarceration Centers (AICs) -- Currently, seventeen AICs are funded. On a daily basis the AICs serve approximately 1,500 clients. AICs are operated by private non-profit agencies that provide supervision, substance abuse treatment, education and vocational assistance, counseling, and community service. These agencies are selected through a competitive Request For Proposal process within the judicial branch. Panels composed of members from the probation, parole, and bail departments and the Office of Alternative Sanctions select the nonprofit agencies used. Providers must conform to the system developed by OAS, and OAS pays for the services rendered. Community Service Labor Program (CSLP) -- This program permits offenders charged with low-level substance abuse offenses to perform community service in lieu of prosecution. On a daily basis, there are approximately 1,200 active CSLP cases. Electronic Monitoring -- Electronic Monitoring permits the court to ensure that an offender remains in his/her home at night or during other specified time periods. On a daily basis, there are approximately 300 offenders who are electronically monitored. Day Incarceration Centers (DICs) -- Three programs are funded. These programs serve clients who are considered to be the most serious offenders in the hierarchy. Clients are supervised by the program during the daytime hours seven days each week. All of the clients are electronically monitored at night. Youth Confinement Center (YCC) -- This program is designed to meet the special needs of drug-involved offenders ranging in age from 16 to 21. The program, located in New Haven, is available to sentenced offenders. Project Green -- Two programs are funded, one in Hartford and one in New Haven. The programs provide substance abuse treatment. Offenders participating in the programs perform extensive levels of community service in State parks. Women and Children Offender Program -- This program provides the court with a community-based sanctions option that is directed at the special needs of female offenders. The program permits the female offenders' children to live with them during their participation in the program. Traditional Inpatient Drug and Alcohol Programs -- Approximately 200 treatment beds are funded. Among the services provided are substance abuse treatment, work and education programs, and detoxification. The length of programs is different for each offender and can be as long as five to six months. Clients are revoked from alternatives to incarceration on a case-by-case basis for consistently dirty urine specimens and failure to attend the program. Results and Impact Performance Measures The program has undergone two private evaluations by the Justice Education Center, Inc. in association with the Research and Evaluation Services, Child and Family Services, Inc. and Research and Planning Services, The Village for Families and Children, Inc. These evaluations measured the number of jail-bound offenders being diverted from the criminal justice system. They also investigated who appeared in court, attendees of the alternative programs or bail posters, and recidivism rates of both types of offenders. Implementation Problems and Successes A severe problem in the State of Connecticut is a lack of jobs. This affects the offenders because even if they learn new, productive skills, without jobs they cannot practice these skills and often return to crime to earn money. Initially, the probation, parole, and bail systems felt threatened by the OAS programs. Through meetings these fears were alleviated. Judges were unconvinced of the program's effectiveness. Program administrators talked to the judges and hold quarterly trainings to make them aware that using alternatives for jail-bound yet less dangerous criminals allows violent criminals to serve more of their time. This encouraged judges to be creative in sentencing these criminals. A potential problem was the continuation of gang behavior in the programs. Through a leadership model, offenders were taught that gangs would not be tolerated. In addition, the employees of the Alternative Incarceration Program are almost racially equivalent to the offenders in the program. Another potential problem is an offender being rearrested for violent crimes. This is avoided through screening. Violent offenders are incarcerated, and less violent offenders are accepted into the program. Successes and Accomplishments The program has been able to meet, and, in many areas, exceed expectations. Currently, the program supervises over 4,200 offenders on a daily basis. These offenders would otherwise be incarcerated. The diversion of these offenders has allowed the DOC to hold incarcerated offenders for longer periods. Offenders with sentences of over two years currently serve at least 50% of their sentences. Offenders with sentences of less than two years serve at least 45% of their sentences. In addition, the Board of Parole is now able to use its discretion to grant early releases only to offenders who do not endanger public safety. Others will serve 100% of their sentences. Independent evaluations have shown the program's effectiveness. An evaluation of pretrial defendants showed that those released to the program were more likely to keep their court appearances than a similar set of defendants who were released to the more traditional mechanism of posting bail. Program participants were less likely to be arrested during the pretrial period than those in the bail release group. Additional prison and jail space has been saved by the fact that only 6% of offenders successfully completing the pretrial phase are sentenced to incarceration, while 20% of the offenders released on bail are sentenced to incarceration. An evaluation of sentenced offenders showed that 24% of offenders sentenced to participate in the program were rearrested within one year of entry into the program, while 30% of a similar group of offenders who have received a sentence of incarceration were rearrested within one year of their release. This longitudinal study will continue tracking both groups for two more years. The program has produced significant monetary savings. The average cost of a program slot is $5,000 per year, while the average cost of incarcerating an offender is $25,000 per year. Hence, use of the program for 4,200 offenders on a daily basis produces an annual cost savings of $84 million. In addition, use of the program saves the capital costs required to construct new prison space. Since the average capital cost for constructing a prison bed is $150,000, the use of the programs saves $630 million in capital costs. The program has won several awards. The program was selected for the Council of State Governments Innovations Transfer Program during December 1992. This award recognizes that the program deals with a significant problem in an effective and innovative manner. The program was one of two programs selected for the award in the Eastern region of the United States. The program was also selected for the Excellence in State Government award by the Connecticut Policy and Economic Council (CPEC) in May 1993. Only one State government program is selected for this award each year. CPEC cited the cost savings generated by the program as a reason for the award. In 1993, the program was selected as the Volunteer of the Year by the Nutmeg State Games in recognition of the high level of community service work performed on behalf of the Games. Prospects for Replication To be successful, programs must be useful to the offenders so that they will be compelled to participate. By creating user-friendly centers with recreational options after mandatory programming and using incentives like food to encourage participation, programs are more effective. Informing judges about their sentencing options is crucial to the success of the program. Impressing upon prosecuting attorneys that the length of time served for violent offenders is more important than a win/loss record is important so that they will accept alternatives to incarceration as a viable option. Maintaining a unified court, probation, and correctional system without county or district systems creating interference helps in the implementation of the program. Contact Information Jim Greene Deputy Director Office of Alternative Sanctions Connecticut Judicial Branch 1155 Silas Deane Highway Wethersfield, CT 06109 (203) 257-1904 (203) 257-1976 fax Hawaii Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline Statement of the Problem In Hawaii, women and children are killed as a result of domestic abuse. In addition to the deaths, there are countless serious injuries that occur every day to women and children due to domestic violence. Many battered women attempt to secure protection, refuge, and economic support in order to live without the terror, threats, and intimidation they encounter with an abusive partner. Unfortunately, as these women go through the criminal justice system as victims, plaintiffs, witnesses, and defendants, there are multiple opportunities for confusion, uncertainty, disappointment, and disappearance. The challenge to the community is to improve responses by social services to victims, strengthen the enforcement of existing laws by police and courts, and increase the bank of resources available to victims of domestic abuse. As the definition of domestic abuse has changed over the last 15 years, so has the utilization of community resources. What was once considered a mental health or an individual family problem is now recognized as a crime of violence. This necessitates intervention by the justice system. Judicial intervention has proven to be an essential deterrent to continued violence. Understanding the mechanics of the criminal and family law system with its complexity, language, and rules requires confidence and a level of knowledge that many victims do not possess. Often victims lack information about their legal rights and options. Without information about property rights, child custody, and legal protection, a woman may sacrifice what belongs to her and risk her safety and that of her children. The Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline (DVCLH) is a program developed on the premise that the legal community has a great deal to add to the efforts being made to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse on Oahu: to interrupt the generational cycle of violence and provide legal information for those victimized by domestic abuse. Goals and Objectives This program has two primary goals: (1) to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse on Oahu, and (2) to interrupt the generational cycle of violence. There are several objectives designed to meet these goals, including the following: making legal information and referrals accessible to those suffering from the effects of domestic abuse; providing legal representation in divorce, restraining order, and post decree actions; developing and distributing materials for enhanced professional and community awareness; consulting on technical and policy issues for improved system response; and staying current on relevant issues and literature for the benefit of system and community education related to domestic abuse. Program Components The Domestic Violence Legal Hotline was incorporated in 1991, as a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide direct legal information, assistance, and referrals to those involved with domestic violence and improve the community response to the problem of domestic abuse. This is accomplished through education and outreach to community leaders, community service providers, and the general public. The Legal Hotline is dedicated to a vision in which people are free from violence, provided with the opportunity to make choices about their lifestyles and physical well-being, and ensured the right to become economically self-sufficient. The Board of Directors consists of 15 members of the community, including six attorneys, seven business people, one county government bureau chief, and a university dean. The staff of the Legal Hotline has grown from three part-time employees, providing legal hotline information and referral assistance, to 12 employees providing legal representation in complex divorce and custody actions; post decree and temporary restraining order matters; production of print and video materials for training and education purposes; composition and circulation of a quarterly newsletter to more than 1,700 people (Advocacy In Action); disbursement of emergency cash grants to battered women; technical assistance; events for community consciousness raising and professional development; and expert witness consultation. Direct legal services are provided to individual victims and their family members in two ways: legal services are offered over the telephone to callers needing specific information about their legal rights and options, how the system works, and the best ways to proceed toward safety; and legal services reach beyond telephone assistance to include representation in court proceedings. Education, consultation with private practitioners, technical assistance to system and program providers, and advocacy for system reform are also specialized services for which the Domestic Violence Legal Hotline has become known. Additional activities include the following: producing a quarterly newsletter containing information and analysis of substantive issues, community initiatives, and program developments; producing materials (print and video) for system and community education about domestic violence; writing newspaper articles and Letters to the Editor; providing community education to community groups and program providers each month; facilitating a countywide Domestic Violence Task Force with participation by representative system components; providing collateral consultation to professionals and community program staffs; providing system advocacy and technical assistance; attending personal and professional development workshops and seminars; and collecting and circulating resource materials from national and local programs and agencies. Results and Impact Performance Measures There are several ways in which the success of this program can be measured. Many of the measures are objective and quantifiable, such as the number of callers who are assisted with legal information each quarter or the number of staff training hours conducted. Other measures of success are more subjective, such as: questionnaires distributed to community providers for their input to assist in evaluating the accessibility of the program; client feedback surveys sent to each client whose case has closed with the agency; feedback forms sent quarterly to members of the Hawaii statewide coalition on domestic violence; and cases tracked monthly according to the stage of processing within the agency system: accepted, initial, active, ending, or closed. Implementation Problems and Successes The agency expanded from a very small operation with three part-time staff members and a limited mission to a much larger organization with many new staff members. The roles of the staff members were different, which created some difficulty in terms of implementing new activities. Training and development of systems to accommodate the dramatic growth followed, but questions of board leadership, accounting procedures, and program characteristics presented some challenges in the beginning. The dimensions of each job description expanded with time, as more services were provided and outreach and referrals began. The Domestic Violence Legal Hotline incorporated into a separate organization from Hawaii Women Lawyers. This necessitated the negotiation of a new contract with the State Department, the funding agency. A new Board of Directors was selected to guide the work of the new agency. Neither of these proved to be problems, but did require attention. The first newsletter was produced in a timely fashion. The Domestic Violence Task Force, which the Domestic Violence Legal Hotline convened, was formed shortly after program operations began, and answering the legal hotline callers' questions and making referrals were managed comfortably. Training a new attorney, developing and agreeing on criteria for case acceptance, and clarifying personnel matters were difficult. As a part of Hawaii Women Lawyers, the Hotline had no role in financial decision making or planning. All requests for funds were made through a volunteer treasurer on the Board of Hawaii Women Lawyers, and gaining autonomy was challenging. Once the program became known in the community for the services it provides, the requests for help exploded. It immediately became apparent that additional paralegal assistance was needed, and program staff wrote a grant proposal for funding for a second paralegal position. A tremendous program challenge that has not been resolved is the two-fold job responsibilities of legal staff, both answering a legal hotline and carrying a legal caseload. Interviewing clients and preparing documents for court filing while answering calls of a crisis nature is stressful. As a project of Hawaii Women Lawyers, the Domestic Violence Legal Hotline in its original form was staffed by volunteers. It was difficult to integrate volunteers into the system once a staff was hired who were also providing legal services. Staff members were too busy to devote the attention necessary to volunteers, and scheduling was a responsibility that was only half- heartedly assumed by the person in charge of that task. Additionally, volunteers came during their lunch hour, and the fewest number of calls came in during lunch, so volunteers did not feel they were making a difference. Successes and Accomplishments The program has had many accomplishments. Four years of operation have been filled with incredible successes for the individual clients and contributions to the community. Funding One major triumph was the transition from Federal funding to State support. Initially, the program began with funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program appropriated from the Attorney General's Office. Those funds were available for three years, at which time the grant required that local funds be obtained to continue operations. With extensive effort and communication with policy makers and decision makers in Honolulu, last year the program received full funding from the State Legislature and the City Council. Services Initially, the agency was a project of another entity, and the Hotline provided strictly telephone assistance. With the addition of staff and the identification of needs by domestic violence providers and judiciary in the First Circuit, the program expanded to include direct services, system advocacy, reform efforts, and community education. In the three preceding years (1991-94), 10,940 phone calls were answered from the community, battered women, attorneys, service providers, family members, and system providers. Lawyers represented 296 battered women in Family Court proceedings. The caseload is currently 74 cases, and this year 353 children of battered women have been helped. The program has provided 691 hours of training in the community for professionals, civic groups, school students, and others. The program has provided 353 hours of technical assistance on domestic abuse issues, and 1,466 telephone calls related to technical assistance. This year more than 7,875 materials have been distributed about domestic abuse. Projects Over the last three years, the program has sponsored a small variety of very successful projects. They include local artists volunteering to assist survivors and victims to design a t-shirt for Domestic Violence Awareness Month; an art exhibit-fundraiser; a conference; a lecture on the defense of battered women; the screening of an Academy Award-winning documentary with two of the women featured in the film addressing the audience; a brunch with mayoral candidates; the production of two videotapes, Arresting Violence, featuring a batterer, and To Stay or Not To Stay, featuring the lives of four battered women; the development of two brochures, The Right-To-Know for battered women, and You Need To Know for batterers; and the development of a Cultural Belief Series for the program's newsletter and for separate distribution. Fundraising Fundraising efforts have been quite successful. This is the first domestic violence program to receive funds from the City Council. Last year the corporation was opened to membership. The program has received grants from ten local, private foundations and corporate support from 23 different corporate interests, in addition to individual contributions. Funds have been raised from the sale of the program's products and by events the program has sponsored. Miscellaneous Accomplishments Program staff developed for their clients a Women's Legal Defense Fund because there were no funds in the budget to cover the costs of litigation, only the salaries for professionals to provide services. In order to adequately represent battered women and be effective counsel, funds were needed for discovery costs and other evaluative initiatives on behalf of the clients. Funds from a local private foundation enabled the program to begin a fund for these costs. The Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline was selected by the Hawaii Community Foundation to receive a lump sum from the Robertson Foundation to award Persons In Need (PINS) cash grants to battered women, since the program is equipped to evaluate the needs of battered women and is able to get the cash into their hands quickly. The Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline is actively collaborating on projects with two domestic violence providers by serving their clients. The Family Peace Center and DVCLH joined together to provide Right-To-Know legal information sessions to participants in group sessions. Staff members also are working with the DART team and the Family Visitation Center to provide Battered Women's Advocacy Project services directly to clients referred by the Parents and Children Together (PACT) agency. As part of the work with the Domestic Violence Task Force, the DVCLH is facilitating Professional Peer Discussion Groups for staff of all community providers to come together and discuss issues that they face in working with battered women or perpetrators. One of the sessions focused on Working with an Ambivalent Client. A second session focused on Safety Planning. Prospects for Replication This is a program which may be easily replicated in communities across the country. All battered women need legal assistance. With the assistance of the local bar and funds raised either privately or through public support, a program that addresses legal needs and system advocacy needs is a positive contribution to the community resource network. Private legal practitioners generally are not trained well enough or interested enough in the issue of domestic abuse to represent battered women adequately. Carrying a caseload with attorneys who are well trained and dedicated to protecting the life and property of women and children is desirable in every community. The combination of a legal hotline, a caseload, and system advocacy is a precious one. The DVCLH obtains material for reform directly from the clients and callers it serves. When a woman has a particular experience with the police and calls to ask about it on the hotline, staff are informed that there is a problem existing in the system. Communication with the police to improve their response or their procedures is about the experience of people who have come to the DVCLH for help. Staff experiences providing these services have been gratifying and challenging. With a few ideas several years ago, the program has come to influence the policy makers in the community, to save the lives of women and children, and to keep the community alert to the problem of domestic abuse. Contact Information Nanci Kriedman Executive Director Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline P.O. Box 3198 Honolulu, HI 96801 (808) 531-3771 (808) 531-7228 fax Illinois Cook County Night Narcotics Court Statement of the Problem During the early 1980s, Cook County experienced a great increase in the number of felony prosecutions brought in the criminal courts. In 1975, 6,000 felony cases were filed in the Cook County criminal court system. By 1989, filings had increased to 28,000, half of which were narcotics filings. In 1994, 31,324 criminal cases were filed in Cook County. More than 17,000 were narcotics cases. Because of these increases, it was estimated that each criminal court judge in Cook County had an inventory of at least 500 cases on their docket at any given time. The increase in the number of indictments for drug-related crimes caused dangerous over-crowding in the county jail facilities. No additional funding was forthcoming. Therefore, the Cook County criminal court system was required to develop an alternative program to deal with the staggering number of drug-related cases. Goals and Objectives The Cook County Night Narcotics Court program, which began in October 1989, defined the following goals: to decrease the caseload-to-judge ratio in order to facilitate an effective and efficient adjudication of cases; to decrease the time spent by offenders incarcerated while awaiting trial (i.e. to decrease pretrial time); and to allocate appropriate attention to both narcotics cases and more serious crimes. Program Components On October 16, 1989, five narcotics courts were opened. Three additional courts opened one and a half years later. The Night Narcotics Court is conducted in an existing facility during idle courtroom hours, and is operated by current personnel. The court consists of eight judges who preside from 4:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Each courtroom is staffed with three Assistant State Attorneys, two public defenders, four probation officers, a clerk, and security personnel. Activities conducted in the Night Narcotics Courts include assigning court dates, hearing motions, issuing warrants, monitoring probationers, hearing probation violations, presiding over bench trials, holding plea conferences, and sentencing offenders. In the event a jury trial is requested, the jury trials presided over by the night narcotics judges are held during the day division at the courthouse. The night narcotics judge is additionally responsible for conducting his/her docket for that night. The court is designed to hear drug-related cases dealing with sales, delivery, and possession. Attention is focused on probation possibilities and drug rehabilitative treatment programs. Results and Impact Performance Measures The success of the Night Narcotics Court can be measured both subjectively and objectively. The subjective measurements are based on reactions from individuals affiliated with the criminal court system, and objective measurements are based on statistical analysis. In addition, measures of court efficiency such as the amount of time between case assignment and sentencing, number of cases handled, and number of court dates per case may also be examined. Implementation Problems and Successes The Night Narcotics Court generated much controversy within the Chicago community. Judges, clerks, public defenders, Assistant State Attorneys, sheriffs, probation officers, and other court staff were concerned with the evening hours, the safety issues, and the likelihood of the program's success. Private attorneys voiced their concern over the requirement of having to work from 9:00 a.m. into the early evening in the event that they had a client in the Night Narcotics Court. Another problem that the narcotics court encountered was coordinating the various departments involved in the criminal court system. These departments include the County Board, the Chief Judge's Office, the Sheriff's Office, the State Attorney's Office, and the Public Defender's Office. This coordination involved alleviating the fears, through inter-departmental meetings, surrounding the implementation of a new program within the criminal court system. The coordination required selecting judges from within the legal system as well as gathering volunteers from the various departments to work the night court division. Since night court starts at 4:00 p.m. each evening and goes until the court docket is finished, it was thought that using volunteers for the job was an unrealistic expectation. However, volunteers have come forward from each of the departments. When the departments do run short on volunteers for night court assignments, the departments have used primarily the seniority system for deciding who will work that shift. That system satisfies both the unions and the "fairness" issues that employees might raise. Another initial obstacle of the program was the workload. Each night court staff member is expected to do roughly twice the number of cases of the day court personnel. However, a close look at each department and the responsibilities of those staff members illustrates that the sum may be greater than the whole. The attorneys are expected to carry roughly 100 cases at any given time in night court, but these are primarily drug offenses and, to a lesser degree, gun cases. The day court attorneys have every range of felony cases, from murders and criminal sexual assaults to thefts. The night court Probation Officers are carrying at least double the amount of probationers than the Probation Officers in the day court. However, the probation department is presently taking steps toward alleviating this overload by transferring probation cases from night court to the day court probation officers and adding additional staff to the night courts. The work load of the night court sheriff has become more difficult than when the program began in October 1989, due to the steady increase in cases disposed of in night court. However, by all accounts the security for night and day court are comparable. Initially, critics of this program characterized the program as punitive in nature and having very little rehabilitative potential for the defendants. These critics have failed to recognize that the same opportunities for rehabilitation are available to defendants in night court as are available to defendants in day court. Night court judges are encouraged and do add many rehabilitative conditions to the probation sentences. These conditions often include the successful completion of the following: T.A.S.C. (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime), in-patient or out-patient care, enrollment in GED courses, successful completion of GED (which may cause probation to terminate early), intensive probation, intensive drug program (within probation department), acquisition of employment, skills training, and many other conditions which are individually tailored to the defendant. Successes and Accomplishments Since its inception in 1989, the Night Narcotics Court has succeeded in dramatically reducing the processing time of narcotics cases. In 1990, the Night Narcotics Court disposed of 9,700 cases. In 1994, 15,142 cases were handled. Additionally, a large reduction in time from case assignment to sentencing resulted. Prior to the opening of the night courts, only 18% of narcotics cases were adjudicated and sentenced within 90 days of assignment. After the Night Narcotics Court opened, 52% were disposed of within 90 days in 1990, and 48% were disposed of within 90 days of assignment. Moreover, sharp declines were seen in the number of court dates per case. The mean number of court dates per case dropped from 11 in 1989 to only 6 in 1991. Changes in sentencing practices also occurred. In 1989, 55% of offenders were sentenced to prison and 45% to probation. After the Night Narcotics Court opened, the reverse was found to be true. In 1991, 33% of convicted offenders were sentenced to prison and 67% to probation. There has been evidence that the opening of the Night Narcotics Court has also seen an increase in offenders being sentenced to drug rehabilitation treatment programs. Finally, the Night Narcotics Court has made it possible to give violent felony cases more attention in the day division. Prospects for Replication The Cook County Night Narcotics Court will adapt easily to a variety of settings across the country such as large, urban areas that have experienced a rapid increase in drug-related crimes. Any court system with a commitment to control the influx of narcotics cases can accomplish what Cook County has done. Cooperation by all court agencies, along with leadership from the presiding judge's office, are the keys to success. Contact Information The Honorable David Erickson Circuit Court of Cook County 6730 North Hiawatha Chicago, IL 60646 (312) 775-5672 (312) 890-3093 fax Iowa Batterer's Education Program Statement of the Problem According to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, the number of incidents of domestic abuse reported to law enforcement increased from 3,501 in 1986 to 6,199 in 1990. The Iowa Judicial Department reports that the number of domestic abuse civil filings rose from 188 in 1990 to 2,677 in 1993. Based on national statistics, this figure is under-reported. In the last decade, advocates for victims of domestic abuse have increasingly viewed legal remedies as an appropriate vehicle to address domestic violence. Starting in 1979 with the enactment of the first protective order legislation, Iowa has been among the country's leaders in passing legislation mandating an increased role for the court and peace officers in criminal and civil domestic abuse cases. Comprehensive domestic violence legislation was passed in 1991 which mandated offender participation in a Batterer's Education Program (BEP). A multidisciplinary State steering committee was established to provide oversight. The main accomplishments of the legal reform have been to define domestic violence as a crime, not a private family matter; to increase public awareness about domestic abuse; to maximize victim safety; and to allow the opportunity for many victims of domestic violence to use the law to break free of abusive relationships. The most important aspect of changing the criminal justice system's response to battering is coordination to secure a consistent and uniform response. Equally important is that the community at large be engaged in addressing domestic abuse. Criminal sanctions for domestic assault send the important message to defendants, victims, and society that domestic violence is a crime and not a private, family matter. In addition to sanctions, a mandatory BEP referral provides defendants an alternative to violence and abuse. Since violent behavior is learned, BEP makes batterers accountable for their behavior. In order to ensure a coordinated community response to domestic violence, it is critical to include all criminal justice system components. When law enforcement, the judiciary, prosecution, and correctional services work together, victim safety and perpetrator accountability are maximized. Goals and Objectives The State of Iowa has established a comprehensive approach to domestic violence. The statewide effort includes the cooperation of domestic violence victim advocates, law enforcement, courts, prosecution, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) to address the escalating problem of domestic violence. The main goals are (1) to maximize the safety of victims of domestic violence, and (2) to ensure accountability for the perpetrators of domestic violence. The objectives designed to meet these goals include the following: to fulfill the DOC legislative mandate by providing BEP to all court-ordered domestic abuse defendants; to ensure continuity of statewide programming by establishing State standards for Batterer's Education Programs; to ensure that BEP Facilitators have a thorough understanding of domestic violence issues, know how to maximize victim safety, and are able to facilitate BEP groups; to ensure that all State BEPs are in compliance with the "State Standards for Domestic Abuse Batterer's Program;" to maximize victim safety by integrating and responding to feedback provided by local domestic violence projects; and to create a community response to domestic violence. Program Components Legislation The 1991 Iowa Legislature enacted the most comprehensive changes to the law of domestic abuse since mandatory arrest was implemented in 1986. The new law included enhanced penalties for repeat offenders including prior deferred judgments in Iowa or elsewhere; limitation of deferred judgment or deferred sentence for domestic abuse assault; mandatory minimum sentences for domestic abuse offenses and for violations of protective orders in criminal and civil cases; and mandatory BEP provisions in sentencing orders. As part of the changes in 1991, the Legislature specifically required the Department of Correctional Services to provide or contract for the provisions of BEPs for domestic abuse offenders. Statewide Steering Committee To provide expertise and State/local coordination, a steering committee comprising DOC judicial districts, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, local domestic violence projects, county attorney, and mental and social service agency staff was established in June 1991. The committee has developed Program Standards and continues to meet on a quarterly basis to provide program oversight and insure program integrity. Program Standards Statewide standards have undergone revision. Several main elements are: requiring the use of the Duluth Men's Education Model for men and separate programming for women; requiring the establishment of local coalitions including, but not limited to, law enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, corrections, and local domestic abuse projects; establishing staff selection and training requirements; and requiring the establishment of local policies and procedures. Program Accreditation A program of this magnitude which has been established in a relatively short time frame requires ongoing technical assistance and oversight to insure quality service. The Domestic Abuse Program Standards insure that programs do not work in isolation but that law enforcement, the courts, the Department of Correctional Services, local domestic violence projects, and the service providers work together to address the issue of domestic violence. The purpose of the accreditation process is to review the input of each of these agencies in program development. DOC and service providers make site visits to review programs. It is critical that each of these perspectives be involved in the accreditation process so that an accurate evaluation of system response can be obtained. Facilitator Training To establish consistency and quality control, the program standards require all BEP facilitators to complete a 3-day pre-service training program. A State training curriculum and tra