The Keeping Families Together: Preserving and Reunifying Families with Substance Use Disorder (KFT) project was established to refine and test a Family Recovery Court (FRC) model for child welfare-involved families with substance use disorders. In collaboration with the Williamson County Family Recovery Court, Dr. Catherine LaBrenz and her team at the University of Texas at Arlington (Dr. Hui Huang, Dr. Philip Baiden, and Dr. Yeonwoo Kim) partnered to manualize the FRC model, assess ongoing barriers and facilitators of implementation, provide continuous quality improvement, and examine the effectiveness of the model in increasing recovery and reunification. Through interviews with key stakeholders, they identified four key pillars that differentiate the FRC from traditional courts: 1) trauma-informed and non-adversarial approach; 2) family-centeredness; 3) accountability; and 4) community connectedness.
Through a shared vision and active collaboration, the FRC providers have increased community infrastructure to support parents and ensure thriving families. This includes provider participation in bimonthly meetings, trainings, and biweekly staffing to enhance a trauma-informed community approach to work with child welfare-involved families. Since the start of this project in 2023, 20 parents have been accepted into the program: of these, six have graduated, four had their cases transferred or were expelled, and the remaining 10 are currently in the program.
“I was offered recovery court after multiple CPS cases. I just wasn’t ready to get clean and I actually ended up going to rehab on my own. They offered me family recovery court afterwards and that was probably the family recovery court saved my life. I don’t think that I would have succeeded without it. Just going to rehab alone, probably would not have done it for me. I will be two years clean in November and that’s thanks to all the support with family recovery court, the accountability that they [have], they hold you accountable. You know, you have to go to court dates and see coaches and therapists and all those things combined. Without it, I wouldn’t’ have been able to be here today, I don’t think.”
-Parent Graduate
“I definitely see us involving more community partners, which is exciting. As we meet new families, we start identifying things we don’t know how to handle, or we are able to better identify the need outside of the recovery piece.”
The Assessment Center Outcome and Reporting Network (ACORN) initiative was established to create a more consistent performance and outcome measures for Assessment Centers (AC) nationwide. The National Assessment Center Association (NAC) in collaboration with the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and Dr. Jeff Kretschmar, worked to support a cohort of six ACs (listed below) to assess data capacities and capabilities to identify opportunities to align AC performance and outcomes to the AC Framework. The development of more consistent performance and outcome measures allows us to assess AC impact on prevention, diversion, and early intervention and is a necessary step prior to broad scale assessment of the AC Framework.
This project first conducted a wide-scale assessment of Assessment Center’s (AC) information systems and data capacity. It then identified six ACs with varying capacities to participate in trainings and technical assistance, identify gaps in data collection, and create an “action plan” that identifies enhancement and improvement goals. The TTA Team worked with the cohort to complete mock ACORN reports. Following the completion of each section, the cohort convened to discuss challenges, successes, and actionable ways to improve data collection. With the cohort ending September 2024, plans are being made to continue the use of ACORN and scale it’s use to other ACs across the country.
ACORN Cohort:
1. The Harbor Juvenile Assessment Center (Clark County, Nevada)
2. Multi-Agency Resource Center (Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana)
3. Family Resource Center (Ashtabula County, Ohio)
4. The Bridge (Ada County, Idaho)
5. Juvenile Assessment Center (4th Judicial District, Colorado)
6. Assessment Center (Delaware County, Ohio)
“The most helpful for me was being able to look at what type of information was important for us to capture. It also was a great opportunity to be able to organize some things that we hadn’t organized before with data collection specifically. Being new to the Assessment Center, it gave me an opportunity to learn more about what other AC’s do which was very helpful.” – Sara Miller; Director, Delaware County Assessment Center, Ohio
“Sustaining support for the emerging peer network the SJI-funded demonstration assembled is a wise investment in juvenile justice system improvement, particularly as research supports the effectiveness of robust diversion and the national network of AC expands.” – Hunter Hurst, Director, National Center for Juvenile Justice
Many people who become involved in the criminal legal system experience behavioral health and social service-related needs that remain unmet throughout their system involvement. These unmet needs can result in people cycling through the system, taking a toll on their well-being and placing a burden on the system. In recognition of this challenge, jurisdictions across the United States have begun to implement court navigator programs to bridge the gap between the behavioral health and criminal legal systems.
Researchers at Policy Research Associates, Inc. conducted a three-year project to better understand court navigator programs. Across three phases of work, researchers completed a national scan of court navigator programs, conducted site visits to five programs, and interviewed nearly 100 people involved with these programs (e.g., court actors, navigators, service providers, and people who had received services).
The national scan of programs found 18 court navigator programs located across 21 different states. Most programs operate in a single jurisdiction though some operate in multiple jurisdictions, statewide, or nationally. Programs are typically funded via local governments or grants and navigators are often employed through non-profit or behavioral health agencies. Navigators direct people around courthouses, answer basic questions about the court process, and connect people to services in the court and in the community. Generally, court navigators emphasize connecting people to services via a ‘warm handoff’ to ensure the connection is made successfully.
During interviews, respondents described key takeaways that spoke to the goal, workflow, and benefits of court navigator programs. We briefly summarize six takeaways here:
1. The main goal of many navigator programs is to reduce recidivism by clarifying court processes and helping people get connected to needed behavioral health and social services.
2. The navigator role is autonomous and flexible allowing navigators to tailor and adjust their schedules as needed.
3. Navigators spend a lot of time developing and maintaining vast referral networks. This community building is the foundation of court navigator success.
4. Navigators reduce the workload of court staff, jail staff, and service providers by taking on the work of connecting people to services within the courthouse and in the community.
5. Court navigator programs have been well received in the counties in which they operate.
6. People helped by navigators describe the experience as incredibly positive.
To demonstrate the final takeaway, one person who had received services from the navigator in Buncombe County shared, “Its nerve-wracking being [in court] sometimes and it’s nice to have someone just pleasant, friendly, respectful. He was just very helpful.” Another person who had received services from a navigator with the Criminal Justice Liaison Program in Tennessee expressed, “I couldn’t tell you how much I appreciate the work that she has [done]. Like I said, she went over and beyond what her job title is. She really did. … every state ought to have [a Court Navigator Program].” Nearly everyone interviewed for this project recommended that all courts consider implementing this type of position.
The Trauma-Informed Practice Strategy Lab (TIPS Lab) was born out of the need to address the trauma of people involved in criminal courts—an urgent need shown by statistics on the prevalence of violence and victimization in the United States. The Center for Justice Innovation is leading the development of the TIPS Lab, which includes a forthcoming blueprint for criminal court practitioners to recognize, address, and respond to trauma. The goal of the TIPS Lab is to bridge the gap between training and implementation of trauma-informed practices to support criminal court practitioners in non-specialty courts.
The TIPS Lab is documenting and supporting emerging and leading trauma-informed practices in criminal courts with special attention to the role court staff, administrators, and judicial officers play. The TIPS Lab launched in 2023 and has three distinct phases: Phase One of the project focused on conducting a national inventory of both the major challenges and opportunities that criminal courts face when implementing trauma-informed practices as well as an in-person symposium of though leaders in the field. Phase One culminated with the development of the publication Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities. Phase Two focused on the development of a forthcoming TIPS Lab Blueprint to provide courts detailed guidance on their implementation of trauma-informed practices. Phase Three will focus on the practical application of the TIPS Lab Blueprint through providing intensive technical assistance to a cohort of four to six diverse criminal court jurisdictions across the United States.
30 attendees convened in Denver, Colorado at the TIPS Lab Symposium held from November 2nd-3rd, 2023.
For more information, please contact Alejandra Garcia, Associate Director of Recovery and Reform, Center for Justice Innovation: garciaa@innovatingjustice.org.
In 2011, Utah became the first state to embed the concept of proportionality into its rules governing discovery in civil cases. Utah Rule 26 created three tiers based on the amount-in-controversy at stake with tight deadlines and significant restrictions on the scope of allowable discovery for cases valued less than $50,000 (Tier 1), slightly longer deadlines and expanded discovery permitted for cases valued between $50,000 and $300,000 (Tier 2), and more traditional deadlines and scope of discovery for cases valued more than $300,000 (Tier 3). The result was more effective judicial case management, leading to fewer discovery disputes in tort and non-debt collection contract cases and significantly faster case resolution time. Utah’s experience with civil justice reforms became a cornerstone for the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee recommendations concerning triage and case management.
Although COVID-19 disrupted civil justice reform efforts, court leadership in many states expressed confidence that the CJI recommendations, especially triage and judicial enforcement of case scheduling orders and deadlines, were the key to addressing civil case backlogs. With grant funding from the State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) returned to Utah to examine the longer-term impact of Utah’s civil discovery reforms. Using data on civil cases filed from 2013 through 2019, focus groups with Utah district court judges and civil practitioners, and surveys of attorneys in civil cases, the 10-Year Retrospective on Utah Civil Discovery Reforms focuses on the sustainability of Utah’s reforms over time as well as practitioner perceptions of civil legal practice.
NCSC continues data analysis, especially to account for shifts in caseload composition and discovery assignments, such as a decreased proportion of debt collection cases and increased Tier 3 cases driven by both increased tort cases and an increased tendency to assign tort cases to Tier 3. Although discovery disputes have continued to decrease over the past 10 years, the Utah district courts have not sustained the faster disposition times that were achieved in the first two years following implementation of the rules. Tier 1 and Tier 3 cases are still resolving faster than before the new discovery rules were enacted, but Tier 2 cases now resolve slower than in 2011. Compared to the period immediately after the discovery rules went into effect, Certificates of Trial Readiness (COR) were less likely to be filed in a timely manner, and more cases were disposed six months or more after the COR due date. In survey responses, attorneys noted inconsistent judicial case management practices, including enforcement of discovery deadlines and restrictions, which may explain some of the loss of progress on case resolution time. Of particular interest, attorney survey responses showed strong appetite for more consistent judicial enforcement with more than half expressing a preference for strict enforcement of the discovery rules. NCSC expects to complete data analysis and release its final report with recommendations in September 2024.
What works with youth involved in the juvenile justice system? This is a question that has research pointing to some clear answers. Wrap-around services, a focus on youth skill development, and a well-coordinated case plan are all keys to helping youth successfully exit the justice system and become better citizens of their communities.
But even though we have a lot of research pointing to what works, it can sometimes be challenging to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Demonstration sites serve as a test laboratory to understand how research can inform practice. The Enhanced Juvenile Justice Guidelines (EJJG) project of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) currently has six jurisdictions that are serving this critical role. These sites are:
Cobb County, Georgia
Davidson County, Tennessee
Hamilton County, Ohio
Lane County, Oregon
Paw Paw County, Michigan
Washington County, Maryland
These juvenile courts are working to incorporate research into their practice on topics ranging from using screening and assessment instruments to match youth to services; improving stakeholder collaborations; increasing school/justice communication to interrupt school pathways to the justice system; and using data to reduce disproportionality. As these courts undertake these important system reforms, the NCJFCJ provides them with training and technical assistance. In addition, NCJFCJ uses the lessons learned to create new tools, resources, and trainings so that other courts across the country can learn from the important work of the demonstration sites.
For more information about the EJJG project please contact Jessica Pearce at jpearce@ncjfcj.org.
Judges in family courts handle the complex dynamics of familial conflicts, particularly in cases involving high parental conflict. Parenting education is essential, serving as a vital tool to ensure children’s well-being during parental separations and promote smoother family transitions.
“The Families in Transition (FIT) Parenting Course,” a 1.5-hour online program designed to complement existing parenting education programs, was created in 2023. This course forms part of a broader case management strategy to assist families in high conflict.
“Exposure to parental conflict poses a serious health risk to children and addressing those issues drain resources if the courts.”
-Judge Bruce R. Cohen, the former presiding judge of the family court division of the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona
The FIT program, which was conceived by Judge Cohen, recognizes that in many circumstances, parental conflict is a behavioral issue that for many families is resolvable through programs like FIT. When successful, FIT can free up resources for cases where parental conflict and dysfunction is a byproduct of underlying mental health or domestic violence issues, which need additional support.
A March 2024 study by Arizona State University confirmed FIT’s effectiveness in significantly reducing conflict behaviors. Since its introduction in Arizona in January 2024, nearly 300 referrals have been made to FIT, with about 200 certificates being filed with the court.
Future plans include expanding national access to the program so that FIT can be offered at no cost to parties. Plans include offering FIT in Spanish, and other languages.
The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is hosting a national “watch party” in mid-May 2024 to convene courts interested in implementing FIT.
The Good Neighbor Emergency Assistance (GNEA) and the Iowa Judicial Branch have partnered to support The Housing Navigator Program. The Navigator at GNEA assists their clients in finding sustainable forms of housing assistance in Story County, Iowa, with the aim of preventing homelessness. They work with clients holistically to determine which programs offered by the state they may qualify for, and then offer help to apply for those programs. The navigator has helped individuals apply for SNAP, CIRHA, LIHEAP, Social Security, and Medicaid, as well as rent and utility assistance through Story County General Housing Assistance. The navigator also serves as a clearinghouse for information about job opportunities in the area, as well as other programs that they can direct clients to and offer help. They also work with various collaborations in Story County to ensure that GNEA is represented in landlord roundtables, as well as hunger, housing and transportation workgroups.
A large portion of the navigator’s time is spent in administering the Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance Program at GNEA. Much of that job involves liaising with the Story County General Assistance Program who performs a consolidated intake, working with clients on ensuring that their applications are complete, and connecting with landlords and utility companies to ensure that they are aware that assistance will be applied to the client’s account. This helps ensures that a client will not face late fees or be evicted, while during the application for assistance process.
The focus of the Navigator position expanded from dispute mediation to a more general homelessness prevention program. This has allowed agencies in the area to continue to work with landlords to resolve larger issues and to ensure that individuals themselves are not made homeless and can stay in their homes while assistance is being applied to their account. The program is valued by both the tenants and the landlords. Clients often do not get charged late fees (making it harder to pay back rent) and landlords do not have to go through the expense of evicting tenants that may eventually be able to pay rent on their own, and then re-renting the property.
The Navigator Program has accessed $219,395 in rent and utility assistance, and has spent more than 275 hours with clients helping them fill out forms, apply for more sustainable housing, food assistance and social security and Medicare. The navigator’s work has affected 575 households, which includes 590 children, 796 working age adults and 47 senior citizens. Their work has ensured that people remain in their homes, keep their utilities turned on, and get into programs that help them begin to take the steps toward more security in their lives. The Housing Navigator has been essential in upholding GNEA’s mission of homelessness prevention.
The Judicial Innovation Fellowship (JIF) is an initiative incubated at the Justice Lab at Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Technology Law and Policy. The JIF is a year-long fellowship for technologists, designers, and user testers to transform justice across state, local, territorial, and tribal courts. It is an exciting new opportunity for technologists, product people, and designers to use their talents for justice. Partnering with state, local, territorial, and tribal courts, fellows will have the opportunity to work inside courts to improve how people access justice. Courts gain a unique opportunity to improve operations and equity by receiving a Judicial Innovation Fellow.
The Hamilton County General Sessions Court Judicial Innovation Fellowship and Kansas Judicial Branch Judicial Innovation Fellowship SRL e-filing Initiative projects are the featured SJI Grantee Spotlight for March 2024.
In February, the Judicial Innovation Fellowship presented at the Legal Services Corporation’s Innovations in Technology Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was an opportunity for forward thinking justice advocates to learn about the program and how JIF Fellows improve court technology and culture.
For example, Kat Albrecht, who works with the Hamilton County General Sessions Court in Tennessee, spoke about how shadowing different court staff helped her uncover persistent issues in the court’s data system. In an early discovery, she learned that criminal dockets printed in a hard-to-read font size, which caused headaches for clerks, judges, and litigants. Kat’s discovery has been relayed to other departments in county government, who are looking at potential long-term solutions to improve data operations within the criminal justice system.
On panel, they also were joined by Verenice Ramirez and her court partner, Jonathan Mark of the Utah State Courts’ Self-Help Center. Jonathan explained that Verenice, who is a designer, provides an otherwise missing point of view at the court. Having her on staff helped his team adopt project management software and new processes, like using Kanban boards to track project progress. This is something the department had wanted to do for some time, and having Verenice in the office lowered the learning curve, making adoption attainable. Similarly, they heard from Emily Lippolis that her work with the Kansas Courts has helped teach court partners about website design, which assists them in making more informed decisions when developing online portals for court patrons.
“Our fellows are not only bringing much needed design and data expertise to courts, they are winning over the hearts and minds of our court partners, which is a key element for the sustainability of their particular projects and for the success of JIF in the long term.”
Tanina Rostain, Georgetown Law Professor and JIF Co-Founder and Faculty Director
In all three instances, the fellows demonstrated that their impact extends beyond their individual projects to how their partner courts operate.
With information flowing in both directions during the conference, the fellows were also able to connect with fellow travelers from other states and learn more about the access to justice gap and justice technology. Collectively, the panel and the trip were a great success.
Now back in their respective courts, the fellows are starting the second half of their fellowship. In the coming months, they will synthesize recommendations for feedback and refinement.
Through this initiative, NCSC has provided technical assistance to courts in the form of trainings, customized guides and checklists, summaries of the literature on specific topics, connections to pretrial experts, and other forms of assistance. These engagements have focused on topics like pretrial assessment for release planning, electronic monitoring, pretrial staff safety and wellness, court date notifications, establishing pretrial services programs, and performance monitoring.
NCSC also developed the Pretrial Justice Center for Courts (PJCC), an online resource for judicial leaders and practitioners to explore a variety of pretrial justice topics. The PJCC is dedicated to helping courts plan for and develop their pretrial systems with practical resources. In addition to being a repository of information on the latest research, the website contains examples of pretrial reform efforts initiated across the country, short briefs outlining key pretrial justice topics, and tools for jurisdictions looking to implement new, evidence-based pretrial policies. For example, users can download a pretrial justice planning guide and tool to estimate the costs of implementing pretrial services to prepare for policy and practice changes in their jurisdiction.
The PJCC was recently updated with new resources and to improve the user interface. A pretrial justice reform activities data visualization was added to allow users to quickly identify – by topic area, year, and state – examples of legislative changes initiated or enacted between 2018 and 2022. By March of this year, the website will be updated with additional resources, including the results of a 2022 – 2023 survey on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on pretrial policy implementation. Tell us what additional resources would be helpful to advance pretrial justice in your court.
