Specialty courts, also referred to as problem- solving courts, have specially designed dockets that address one type of criminal offender. In a 2016 document titled Specialized and Problem Solving Courts, published by the National Institute of Justice, it was noted that these courts focus their attention on offenders whose criminal activity stems directly or indirectly from one or several problems related to drug abuse, mental health, family adjustment, or other criminogenic issues. Typically, the defendants who appear before specialty courts will receive a sanction that addresses the source of the problem (e.g., drug abuse, mental health, family abuse) that resulted in their criminal behavior. The sentencing judge and other criminal justice personnel as well as social service workers play a critical role in the supervision and treatment of those offenders under the court’s jurisdiction. This article first discusses the concept of diversion in the justice system and then reviews several types of specialty courts, including mental health courts, drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, and veterans’ courts.
Diversion
Research on convicted criminals completed during the late 20th and early 21st centuries revealed that a large proportion of those sentenced to jails and prisons throughout the United States could have been diverted to some form of community supervision without posing any threat to the security of the community. The majority of those eligible for diversion are in need of some form of treatment as a result of having mental health, substance abuse, or family adjustment problems.
The term diversion, when applied to the justice system, refers to any method used to move a person, either juvenile or adult, who has allegedly committed a criminal offense away from formal court processing. Diversion occurs when some action is taken by a justice agent, usually a police officer, in which the person is referred to a nonjudicial agency or to a specialized court rather than being referred to the tradition courts for processing. The decision to divert a certain offender is either based on the arresting officer’s discretion, the prosecutor’s office, policies of the agency, or the statutes of the state or local government. Offenders most likely to be diverted from the criminal justice system are those who have committed minor offenses, those with mental illness, elderly offenders who have committed minor offenses, those who are homeless, and alcohol and substance abuse offenders.
Mental Health Courts
In 2015, there were over 11 million admissions to U.S. jails and lockups. The jails in the United States, particularly those located in large metropolitan areas, tend to be overcrowded and dangerous for both inmates and correctional staff.
Concern over incarcerating those who are mentally ill has increased nationwide. It is not known what proportion of those held in jails have mental health problems. A National Initiative to Reduce the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jails was launched in 2015 by the Council for State Governments Justice Center and the American Psychological Association Foundation. This initiative was designed to rally support for achieving a reduction in the number of people with mental illness in jails. Programs that address this initiative can be found throughout the United States.
The police working in many counties throughout the United States, particularly those that have a relatively small population, face a dilemma when they encounter a law violator whose behavior shows signs of mental illness. Although, the police realize that arresting the person and transporting the person to jail is not the ideal course of action, it is often the only option available since the community may not have other means for dealing with such cases. In making a decision to arrest or divert mentally ill persons they encounter, police officers also have to consider the potential for the mentally ill person to become violent and thus pose a danger to the community. Although a lack of resources in the community may be the primary reason for not diverting mentally ill criminal offenders away from jail, poor coordination and distribution of available resources are also reasons why many mentally ill offenders (particularly those who have committed nonviolent misdemeanors offenses) may end up in jail rather than in a facility with staff and resources to deal with offenders who exhibit some form of mental illness.
Federal and state grants to local criminal justice agencies have helped to fund police and court diversion programs. This has led to the development of mental health courts throughout the United States. The Council for State Government Justice Center describes the characteristics of mental health courts as those courts that employ a problem-solving approach to court processing of offenders in place of the more traditional court procedures that often result in defendants with mental health problems being incarcerated in jails or prisons.
Mental health courts were developed in the latter part of the 20th century to meet the needs of the millions of criminal offenders processed through the justice system each year who have some form of mental illness that directly or indirectly relates to their criminal behavior. The American Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project was created by the U.S. Congress in 2000. This legislation provided funding for the development and implementation of mental health courts. As a result, the number of mental health courts increased significantly in the ensuing years.
A survey of mental health courts found that the political jurisdictions included in the research received funding from a number of sources, including dedicated county funding, federal grants, local mental health funding, and in-kind contributions from local health-care agencies. Authors of the survey concluded that, typically, mental health courts are judicially administered in a specific community. They utilize court staff and professionals who treat patients with mental health problems in the development and implementation of a treatment plan that addresses the needs of the offender as well as those of the community. Referrals to mental health courts can originate from several sources, including the judge, county or state prosecutor, public and private attorneys, social service agency personnel, and even family members.
The treatment programs included in this survey provided incentives for program completion. The most common was to drop or suspend the criminal charges. Participants were required to attend court sessions before the mental health court’s judge. Generally, their participation in some form of counseling and contribution of a specified number of hours of community service were required. Those who successfully completed the program participated in a graduation ceremony held in the courtroom. Those who did not complete the program for reasons related to recidivism, failure to complete the requirements, or other reasons were terminated from the program and sanctioned.
Each mental health court functions independently within its own district, but the mental health courts have similar characteristics and goals that make them different from the typical criminal courts. These characteristics are as follows:
- Each court requires voluntary participation, so the defendant must consent to be a part of the program and consent to treatment.
- Each court has eligibility criteria, all include mental illness as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, and some include developmental disabilities and traumatic brain injury as possible qualifiers for participation in mental health court.
- Mental health courts employ legal and mental health professionals to address a specialized docket that focuses solely on preventing incarceration of mentally ill individuals, offering court-mandated treatment as an alternative.
- Mental health courts place public safety in the highest regard when considering treatment or housing options for mentally ill offenders.
- In general, most mental health courts offer a higher level of supervision, requiring clients to attend regular status hearings to assess the progress of treatment and to update treatment plans.
- Finally, most programs have defined criteria for completion of the program, marked with a graduation or certificate of completion.
Drug Courts
The implementation of drug courts was spread throughout the United States during the late 20th century and early 21st century. These specialty courts required those who were brought before the drug court judge as a result of being charged with a drug-related offense (alcohol included) to agree to participate in a program that provided sanctions as well as treatment.
The drug court movement was stimulated by the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1984. This act provided funding to local jurisdictions to set up community-based programs for drug-using offenders. The drug courts that were developed varied in structure and operation but tended to have several common characteristics. To be eligible for the drug court, the offense was required to be drug related. Participation was voluntary, that is, the defendant had the option of being tried in the drug court or in the regular criminal court, and the determination of the guilt or innocence of the charge would be deferred. If the person successfully completed the program, then the charges could be dropped. The presiding judge of the drug court had wide discretion in deciding who is eligible for the court (generally violent offenders are excluded) and what type of sanctions and treatment program the defendant would be required to complete. The supervision and treatment programs that the drug court participants are involved in are staffed by both court officials (probation officers) and mental health professionals such as psychologists, counselors, and social workers.
The evaluation of the success of drug courts is very difficult since criteria for referral eligibility to the courts are often quite different. For example, some courts accept only defendants who engaged in a drug-related felony crime. Others generally exclude defendants charged with a felony-level crime, particularly if the crime involved violence. The resources for the treatment portion of a drug court program can make a difference on the likely success or failure of the participants. Also, the characteristics of the participants and the support systems they have (i.e., family support, steady employment, community support) will have an effect on the outcome.
The manner in which success or failure is defined is important and should always be considered when deciding if the program should be continued. One of the requirements of drug court participants is that they periodically appear before the presiding judge in open court and discuss their progress in the program. The judge will question them on the degree to which they have made progress toward fulfilling the conditions set by the court, such as finding employment, the use of drugs, the completion of the community service required, and other factors pertaining to the fulfillment of the conditions set by the court.
Domestic Violence Courts
Specialized domestic violence courts were first established in the 1990s. The specific goals of these courts were to process domestic violence cases quickly and efficiently, to ensure more consistent rulings and case follow-ups, to ensure that the offenders are held accountable for their acts, and to incorporate a stronger focus on the treatment of the offender deterring future offending.
As with other problem-solving (specialty) courts, domestic violence courts tend to be based on theories and practices grounded in therapeutic jurisprudence. That is, domestic violence courts focus on the needs of those involved, including those of the perpetrator of the violence, those of the victims of the violence, and the needs of the community in which the violence occurred. Rather than following the traditional adversarial process in the judicial proceedings, a problem-solving orientation is employed. Several domestic court models have been delineated to include the following:
- The dedicated civil protection order docket model handles only civil protection orders. Under this model, a court and judge are dedicated to hearing and making determinations on civil domestic violence matters.
- The criminal model segregates the domestic violence cases into one specialized court, with the judge being specialized in domestic law. In some jurisdictions, a single court can hear both misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases, but in other jurisdictions, there are separate courts for the misdemeanor and felony cases. The integrated model handles both criminal domestic violence cases and related civil matters.
- In the Unified Family Court, one judge handles all matters related to the family. In addition to domestic violence, this court handles protection orders, dissolution custody, juvenile delinquency, paternity, and child dependency resulting from abuse and neglect.
Research revealed that the existence of a specialized domestic violence court led to an increase in the law enforcement responsiveness to domestic violence and a reduction of recidivism of domestic violence offenders. In addition, by having all domestic violence cases processed through one specialized court, there was better coordination of resources, supervision of defendants, and consistency in case processing
Community Courts
Another example of the trend toward diverting some categories of criminal offenders rather than processing them through the criminal justice system is the implementation of community courts. As the name implies, community courts are problem-solving courts that attempt to address some of the community’s crime-related problems such as theft, property destruction, vandalism, and public safety needs through court intervention at the local community level. This is accomplished by way of an integrated community response to the safety of the community and the quality of life problems that are caused by those residents of the community committing crime.
Community courts do not concentrate on one specific problem area as is the case with drug courts, mental health courts, and family violence courts. However, the goals are similar to the goals of those courts in that there is an attempt to develop communications between the judiciary and the community, and there is an attempt to provide the sanction that will be beneficial to the offender, the victims, and the community. In addition, social and psychological assistance is provided when needed.
The structure, administration, and goals of community courts may differ. However, most community courts have several key features:
- Individualized Justice—Community courts base judicial decision-making on access to a wide range of information about defendants.
- Expanded Sentencing Options—Community courts have available enhanced range of community and social service diversion and sentencing options, some of which involve referrals to community-based providers. Community courts seek a reduction in conventional sentences such as jails, fines, and time served.
- Varying Mandate Length—Community courts develop a multitrack system, in which a (typically small) proportion of defendants receive medium- or long-term judicially supervised treatment for drug addiction, mental illness, or other problems, while the majority of defendants receive short-term social or community service sanctions, typically 5 or fewer days in length.
- Offender Accountability—Community courts emphasize immediacy in the commencement of community or social service mandates and strict enforcement of those mandates through the imposition of further sanctions in response to noncompliance.
- Community Engagement—Community courts establish a dialogue with community institutions and residents, including obtaining community input in identifying target problems and developing programs.
- Community Impacts—Community courts seek community-level outcomes, such as reductions in neighborhood crime or repairing conditions of disorder through community service.
As one example, the Midtown Community Court was established in 1993 through the joint efforts of community leaders, neighborhood residents, and justice officials in New York City. This court deals with community disruption crimes such as prostitution, illegal vending, vandalism, destruction of property, and theft.
This court provides a quick response to those involved in such offenses by having the cases heard as soon as possible and giving appropriate sentences that fit the nature of the crimes and needs of the offenders. For example, offenders are required to provide community service by cleaning subway stations, cleaning streets and parks, or removing graffiti from public buildings. The court could also order drug treatment and health-care education for those who need such assistance.
Research on community courts indicated that outcome goals of establishing community engagement, providing alternative sanctions, reducing costs, and engaging the defendants were largely achieved. The research showed that a majority of defendants received alternative sentencing such as a community service mandate and were given jail time primarily as a secondary sentence if the defendant failed to complete the requirements of the original sentence. The court provided individualized treatment, and those who needed special services, such as drug treatment, were required to participate in a treatment program as a condition of their sentence.
Veterans’ Courts
Veterans’ courts are similar to community courts in that they are not directed toward addressing a specific offense but directed toward a specific category of offenders, that is, military veterans.
The criteria for eligibility to a veterans’ court vary in accordance with the laws established in the state and local jurisdiction in which the court is established. Typically, standard features of veterans’ treatment courts are required court appearances at times specified by the court, mandatory attendance at the treatment sessions ordered by the court, drug and alcohol testing for those with a substance abuse problems, and submitting to outcome assessments. As with other specialty courts, those selected for veterans courts have an option of having their case docketed in a veterans’ court or having their case processed in the traditional criminal court.
A benefit of such courts for veterans is that they appear before a judge who understands the sources of their problems, that is, how their experiences in the military influence their actions that led to their criminal justice involvement. In addition, the judges and staff of the veterans’ treatment court have established cooperative relations with the Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration, and with state departments of veterans’ services. The veterans brought before the court who are in need of physical or mental health services are referred to appropriate agencies.
Final Thoughts
There were several influences leading to changes in criminal justice philosophy and laws that led to the development of specialty courts. The cost of holding impaired offenders in jail and in long-term correctional institutions is prohibitive; there is considerable evidence that the punishment received did more harm than good to the inmates, their families, and the community; the type of treatment that such offenders needed to eliminate or reduce the effects of their problems was generally not available in the correctional facilities; and the prediction that those offenders with mental health problems and drug abusers would in some way pose a special threat to the security of the community just did not materialize.
With the help of federal, state, and local funding, justice agencies were able to establish specialty courts such as mental health courts, drug courts, veterans’ courts, and community courts. All of these specialty courts rely on community resources and cooperation from various service agencies to provide the type of treatment offenders with special problems need.
References:
- Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2005). Improving responses to people with mental illness: The essential elements of a mental health court. Washington, DC: Author.
- Feinblatt, J., Berman, G., & Sviridoff, M. (1998). Neighborhood justice at the midtown community court. In Crime and place: Plenary papers of the 1997 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation (pp. 81–92). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
- Mc Aleer, K. (2016). Mental health court: What is it? Retrieved May 11, 2016, from http://blogs. psychoentral.com/forensic-focus/20120/04/mental- health-court-what-is-it/
- National Institute of Justice. (2016). Specialized and problem solving courts. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/TopicDetails. aspx?ID=49
- S. Department of Justice. (1999). Office of justice programs drug court clearinghouse technical assistance project: Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. (2011). Domestic violence courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://nij.gov/ topics/courts/domestic-violence-courts/Pages/welcome.aspx