CALIFORNIA’S COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS

1 california S COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTSB uilding a Problem-Solving JudiciaryThis publication was supported by a grant from the Judicial Council sCollaborative JUSTICE COURTS Advisory Committee. The author wishes to thank the following for providing information, insight, feedback and support: Thomas Alexander, Greg Berman, Steve Binder, Dianne Bolotte, June Clark, Patrick Danna, Becky L. Dugan, Leonard Edwards, Karen H. Green, Eugene Michael Hyman, Kathryn P. Jett, Julius Lang, Jean Pfeiffer Leonard, Stephen Manley,Stephen A. Marcus, Karen Moen, Patrick J.

2 Morris, Tim Newman, NancyRamseyer, Del Sayles-Owen, Alan Slater, Darrell Stevens, Nancy Taylor, Julia Weber and Kathryn V. Wolf is director of communications at the Center for Weinstein is graphic designer at the Fund for the City of New York. p. 2: Jason Doiy, A Day in the Life of the COURTS , CaliforniaAdministrative Office of the COURTS ; p. 20: Courtesy of the Long Beach 2005 by the Judicial Council of california , AdministrativeOffice of the rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication maybe reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online or mechani-cal, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, withoutpermission in writing from the copyright holder.

3 Permission is hereby grant-ed to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication foreducational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder. Pleaseaddress inquiries to Nancy Taylor at 415-865-7607 report is also available on the california COURTS Web , and at the Center for CourtInnovation Web site: on recycled and recyclable DesignPhoto CreditsCALIFORNIA S COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS : Building a Problem-Solving JudiciaryFOREWORDWe are pleased to present this report on the development of collaborativejustice in the california court system.

4 This project is the product of a uniquecollaboration between the california Administrative Office of the COURTS andthe Center for court Innovation in New York. While highlighting the effortsof local COURTS and judicial leaders, this report also chronicles the efforts ofour court system to respond, in part, to the joint resolutions of 2000 and2004 by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State CourtAdministrators regarding problem-solving COURTS . The study reflects the com-mitment by COURTS in california and across the country to institutionalizeproblem-solving, or COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE , M.

5 GEORGEWILLIAM C. VICKREYC hief JUSTICE of california andAdministrative Director Chair of the Judicial Councilof the CourtsHISTORY OF COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS IN california | 1 INTRODUCTION: INNOVATION IN CALIFORNIAJ udiciaries around the country are embracing a new way of business, onethat emphasizes partnerships with stakeholders in and outside the COURTS ,improved community access to the JUSTICE system, greater accountability foroffenders and better community outcomes, such as increased safety andimproved public confidence. This new way of doing business goes by variousnames.

6 In many jurisdictions, it s called problem solving. In california itgoes by the name COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE . Problem-solving COURTS (or COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS ) include specialized drug COURTS , domestic violence COURTS , community COURTS , family treatment COURTS , DUI COURTS , mental health COURTS , peer/youthcourts and homeless COURTS . Their aim is to address challenging prob-lems like drug addiction, domestic violence and juvenile delinquency that society brings to courthouses across the country every day. Whileeach of these COURTS targets a different problem, they all seek to use theauthority of COURTS to improve outcomes for victims, communities anddefendants.

7 These court programs strive to achieve tangible results likesafer streets and stronger families; at the same time, they seek to maintainthe fairness and legitimacy of the court S COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS | 2 Judge Wendy Lindley, Superior court of Orange County, congratulatesparticipants in dual-diagnosis court serving non-violent drug offenderswith mental health In california , COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE is increasingly being viewed as a set of principles and practices that can be used in many types of cases both inand outside specialized, intensive court calendars.

8 COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE alsoseeks to incorporate other innovative JUSTICE approaches, such as balancedand restorative JUSTICE , procedural fairness efforts, therapeutic jurisprudenceand alternative dispute resolution. This report attempts to capture the history of the california judiciary sinvolvement in COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS , from their beginnings as isolatedexperiments to current efforts at statewide coordination. In recounting thisstory, the goal is to offer lessons to other states that are grappling with simi-lar is a national leader in the field of problem solving or COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE .

9 The New York Timesrecently described california ,along with New York, as at the forefront of this over 265collaborative JUSTICE COURTS by mid-2005, california has developed new mod-els (for example, the nation s first homeless court and first dating violencecourt) and explored new ways to export the best practices of collaborativejustice COURTS to traditional , california has 158 drugtreatment COURTS , 15 mental health COURTS , 17 peer COURTS , six homelesscourts and four community COURTS , as well as other types of COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE it s not just the size of the effort that is impressive.

10 It s also theimpact. One study, begun in 1998 and still ongoing, found that the ninedrug COURTS that participated in this study so far have saved the stateapproximately $9 million in avoided criminal JUSTICE costs for every year a new set of participants enters these 90 adult drug courtsoperating statewide, and drug court caseloads conservatively estimated at100 participants per year, the annual statewide cost savings for adult drugcourts suggested by the study was $90 million a more important is the impact on the lives of participants and society at large.