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; Andra 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 trainee handbook has been developed and printed for utilization in the training program.

BEP Program Description  Twenty-six agencies throughout the State have responded to the
need for provision of BEPs and have contracted the District Department of Correctional Services
in their area to provide programming for court-ordered offenders.  Service providers include
community colleges, mental health centers, domestic violence shelters, District Department of
Correctional Services, and a variety of social service agencies.  Services are provided through
offender fees, agency contributions, and Federal grants.  All batterers are charged for participation
in the program.  Institutional programs have also been developed and are operational at seven
of Iowa's eight institutions.

Batterer's Education Program Curriculum Design  A BEP is an educational program designed
to teach batterers how to stop using controlling and abusive behavior in relationships with their
partners.  Controlling and abusive behaviors include physical, emotional, and psychological
abuse.  The BEP Standards require the utilization of the Duluth Men's Education Program
Curriculum in order to provide statewide consistency with the program's philosophy to:  protect
and keep victims safe; hold batterers accountable so they can effect personal change; reduce
physical, emotional, and psychological abuse; and support a community response to end domestic
violence.  A separate curriculum has been developed for females which is tailored to the needs
of women.

BEPs' Databases  The DOC has developed a data collection system to monitor the participation
of each offender in the program.  This system collects such information as demographics, type
of offense, referral source, successful program completion, and reasons offender was terminated
from program.  This information is collected on a monthly basis and placed in a database by the
Bureau of Planning and Research.  The information allows the Department to review the program
implementation on a statewide basis and to troubleshoot when data reflects unusual trends in
various programs.

Community Response Model/Development of Local Coalitions  The most important aspect in
changing the judicial system's response to battering is the coordination of its many actors to
secure a consistent and uniform response.  Policies which promote arrest, increase convictions,
place legal sanctions on assailants, increase the incarceration of assailants, require education or
rehabilitation for violent behavior, and protect victims from further contact with the assailant are
effective only when they are uniformly and consistently applied.  To this end, the IDOC
standards require the development of a Community Response Model.  Each judicial district is
required to promote and participate in a coalition of agencies for the purpose of program
planning, policy development, and oversight.  A number of coalitions are now active in each
judicial district.  The coalitions include law enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, domestic
violence projects personnel, corrections, survivors, substance abuse and social service agencies,
and medical personnel.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

The following information is collected on a monthly basis and placed in a database by the Bureau
of Planning and Research:  number of BEPs already established by social service agencies, new
BEPs each DOC Judicial District develops as a result of contracting with social service agencies,
groups within each BEP to meet the demand of referrals, facilitators who are certified to facilitate
the BEP curriculum, facilitators attending the statewide conference, BEPs receiving accreditation
visits or BEPs passing accreditation, victim contacts, BEP groups monitored, BEP and domestic
violence projects meetings, local coalitions in each judicial district, and local coalition meetings;
range of accreditation scores for all BEPs; quarterly reports generated by State BEP database;
level of cooperation between BEPs and domestic violence projects through accreditation visits;
type of representation in each coalition; and individual performance evaluations of facilitators.

Implementation Problems and Successes

Because the program is a statewide effort, problems in implementing the design were different
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  The most commonly identified problems are:

         lack of education about the dynamics of domestic violence which effects how law
          enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and clerks choose to carry out their responsibilities
          under the legislation;

         all members of the criminal justice system do not actively participate in coalitions and
          take responsibility for building a coordinated community response;

         laws are ignored or circumvented by recalcitrant law enforcement officers;

         prosecutors find it hard to convict without victim testimony;

         cases are dismissed, allowing batterers to gain more power in their relationship with
          the victim;

         gaining access to necessary court information such as police reports is difficult for
          some BEPs;

         accurate statistics are not being kept statewide to assess impact/outcome;

         lack of response, slow response, or noncompletion with BEP;

         courts excusing offenders from BEP participation or allowing them to participate in
          alternative programs such as couples counseling;

         criminal justice system budgets/resources not keeping pace with the increasing
          workload necessary to comprehensively address domestic violence;

         lack of written protocol for responding to domestic violence;

         lack of prosecutorial communication with victims including unreturned phone calls
          often resulting in the prosecutor having no idea how serious the injuries were and plea
          bargaining or dismissing the case without conferring with or informing the victim;

         lack of interaction with victim advocates;

         domestic abuse charges being plea bargained to simple assaults, sometimes to preclude
          the offender's attendance in the BEPs;

         BEP ordered for the offender but charges are reduced to preclude further penalty
          enhancements; and

         cyclical problem which taxes the criminal justice system's resources when offenders
          who refuse to comply with BEP get dismissed and are sent back to court only to be
          sent back to complete BEP.

Successes and Accomplishments

Program successes include:

         the programs were established quickly and are now accessible statewide;
         civil and criminal filings have increased;
         referrals to BEP have increased from 339 in 1991 to 3,950 in 1994;
         programs are primarily dependent on client fees;
         increased public awareness;

         a unique opportunity for men to address this problem with a prolonged period of
          monitoring, encouraging success;
         access to a whole pool of victims who previously were not receiving services; and
         swift and sure response to BEP dismissal for accountability and to increase compliance.

Communities throughout the State have taken responsibility for actively working together to end
violence in intimate relationships.  Those coalitions diplomatically use the collective resources
of the group to seek positive system change.  They function as a "watchdog" to ensure that, in
designing a response to the problem of domestic violence, three events occur.  A coordinated
community response is present which provides a safety net for the victim.  A commitment from
local law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to enforce domestic violence laws every time they
are broken is critical to any community effort to stop battering.  Mandatory arrest occurs which
takes the victim "off the hot seat" and sends a clear message to the perpetrator that he/she must
stop the violence.  The two-day mandatory jail sanction furthers the message from the
community that they will not tolerate physical violence and will hold the perpetrator accountable.

The mandatory BEP for perpetrators is predicated on the belief that people can change and that
the individual perpetrator is responsible for the change.  The united community response,
mandatory arrest, and jail sanction tell the offender to stop the behavior.  The education group
tells them how to adopt new behaviors to change the previously developed destructive pattern.

Overall accomplishments are:

         36 BEPs throughout the State (approximately 87 groups/week);

         local domestic violence coalitions developed throughout the State;

         model protocols developed for prosecution and law enforcement;

         training developed at the local level for components of the criminal justice system;

         Statewide Steering Committee developments including:  State standards in place; 20
          BEPs accredited to date; standardized curriculum training manual developed; facilitator
          training available quarterly with over 400 facilitators trained; BEP Coordinator's
          meetings twice each year; and a DOC/BEP Annual Facilitator Conference;

         BEP Process Evaluation to be completed; and

         Supreme Court Task Force on Courts and Communities' Response to Domestic Abuse.

Prospects for Replication

Many factors will facilitate successful replication of the program.  Comprehensive legislation is
recommended to guarantee an accountability model.  Local community leadership and the
incorporation of the criminal justice system is necessary to ensure implementation of the laws. 
BEP curriculum is "user friendly" and can be easily implemented.  Domestic violence experts
should be available through local shelters and projects.

No new agencies need to be developed.  Coalitions are a collaboration of existing agencies. 
Local leadership is critical.  Visionary leaders with tenacity, patience, diplomacy, and an
understanding of how individual agendas play into the development of collaborative relationships
are needed.  Quality training for all players on the dynamics of domestic violence must be
provided.  A BEP Policies and Procedures manual must be developed.  Client fees can be the
primary support of the program.

Community education is critical to heighten the awareness of domestic violence issues.  This
knowledge dispels the myths about domestic violence.  The facts then prevail to change values
and attitudes which have allowed domestic violence to flourish.

There must be strong local leadership and participation from many other individuals including
policy makers, health care providers, clergy, attorneys, employers, schools, and the public at large
so that communities begin to develop proactive preventive strategies to address the issue. 


Contact Information

Jean Kuehl                                         Dale M. Chell
Assistant Director                                 BEP Coordinator
Sixth Judicial District                            Children and Families of Iowa
Department of Correctional Services                1111 University Street
William G. Faches Center                           Des Moines, IA  50314
951 29th Avenue, SW                                (515) 288-1981
Cedar Rapids, IA  52404                            (515) 288-1981 fax
(319) 398-3675
(319) 398-3684 faxMassachusetts


Juvenile Diversion Program


Statement of the Problem

Prior to the creation of the Juvenile Diversion Program in Essex County, juveniles committing
minor offenses were handled by the police or the courts.  The police would provide a disposition
which consisted of speaking with the youth and calling his/her parents.  Although
well-intentioned, police were not equipped to provide continuous services or monitor high-risk
juveniles in the community on a regular basis.  The second option was the initiation of formal
juvenile charges.  Once in court, the youth may or may not have been referred to the Probation
Department.  The cases of first-time, non-violent juvenile offenders were usually dismissed or
continued without a finding.  These youth left the court with a record but without the benefit of
services or supervision from the court system.  Experience has shown that among this population
there was a high incidence of recidivism.

Research indicates an overlap in delinquency, substance abuse, early childbearing, and school
failure.  Official intervention is critical to effect any positive change in the lives of troubled
youth.  It was recognized that this revolving-door style of justice failed to serve the youth, their
families, and society.  Limited resources precluded the courts from becoming involved in every
case.  District Attorney Kevin M. Burke developed the Juvenile Diversion Program to fill this
gap by offering official intervention.  The program is based on the widely accepted belief that
not all cases are best handled through a formal delinquency complaint and court hearing.  The
Juvenile Diversion Program is an innovative model which works with some first-time, nonviolent,
juvenile offenders and their families by offering an alternative to the Juvenile Court System.  If
the youth successfully completes the program, the District Attorney will not prosecute the case,
and the juvenile will not have a court record.

Because the Diversion Program's mission is to serve this population, the program is able to
respond promptly.  This is especially important given the overwhelming caseloads most courts
are faced with today.  In 1994 over 750 juvenile cases were diverted, and the youth referred to
services.  This allowed Assistant District Attorneys to devote their time to more serious cases.


Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of this approach is to educate and empower the youth and his/her family to
succeed in making positive changes.  This goal is accomplished through services including
counseling/education, community service, and payment of restitution.  In addition, the program
aims to:

         hold youth accountable for their behavior;

         offer a first-time offender the opportunity to prevent creating a juvenile delinquency
          record;

         develop a system of individualized services for cases which can be handled more
          efficiently in the Juvenile Diversion Program rather than through the traditional court
          process;

         allow youth to avoid the stigma of delinquency by successfully completing the
          requirements of the program;

         reduce recidivism through early intervention; and

         provide services designed to discourage the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and
          promote positive decision making.

The above goals are accomplished by maximizing the use of community resources in helping
youth address their problems.  The Juvenile Diversion Program seeks to support community
resources.  In addition, the program seeks to maximize the use of family resources in paying for
counseling services and secure free services for youth and families who do not have the ability
to pay.


Program Components

The Juvenile Justice Units, based in the District Courts, are charged with providing a consistent
and appropriate continuum of responses to juvenile (ages 7-17) crime.  Responses range from
Juvenile Diversion to Priority Prosecution.  The Juvenile Diversion Program is the first step in
this comprehensive response.  The purpose of the program is to prevent further problems with
the criminal justice system by dealing early and in-depth with the causes of juvenile delinquent
behavior.  The Diversion Program has a specialized intervention component which works with
local police departments to identify and serve juveniles who are involved in high-risk behavior
including the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

The four to six-month Juvenile Diversion Program assists in reducing the overall risk encountered
in high-risk environments by providing services aimed at empowering youth to become agents
of positive change within their community.  In order to ensure a comprehensive network of
services for each youth, the program makes referrals to a wide variety of programs and services.

Counseling/Education  Based on knowledge of the various agencies and their programs, Juvenile
Diversion Program staff refer youth and their families to the most appropriate community-based
agency, including Department of Public Health-funded agencies and mental health agencies. 
Once a youth has connected with a counseling agency, the agency conducts a formal evaluation
to determine which mode of treatment will be most beneficial.  The agency also determines the
length of time a youth needs to be in counseling.  The Juvenile Diversion Program maintains
contact with all agencies where youth are seen to monitor their progress.  If a youth enters the
program and a counselor determines that he/she does not need individual/group counseling
services, then he/she is placed in an educational group covering high-risk behaviors.  Topics in
these groups include substance abuse, tobacco abuse, and AIDS.  Through involvement in the
program, the juvenile and his/her family learn effective ways to alter delinquent behavior by
using skills such as conflict resolution.

Community Service  The majority of youth who enter the Juvenile Diversion Program are
required to perform from 20 to 40 hours of community service.  Diversion staff continuously
network with area agencies to match the youth's interests and skills to needs found in the
community.  Agencies where community service is performed include hospitals, soup kitchens,
and the recycling center.  In general, agencies where supervision is already in place are used, or
neighborhood clean-ups are supervised by Juvenile Diversion Program staff.  This program
component serves to enhance self-esteem, confirm competence, and reconnect the youth to his/her
community in a positive way.

Restitution  In cases involving property damage, the Juvenile Diversion Program requires that
the youth pay the victim if he/she requests restitution.  The Program Coordinator sets up a
schedule for payment with the youth and/or the youth's family and forwards the money to the
victim.  The restitution component is highly successful.  The Juvenile Diversion Program
negotiates realistic adjustments with the victim and the juvenile based on his/her ability to pay. 
Even individuals from the most economically stressed circumstances can comply with this part
of their contract.

Educational Groups and Workshops  Youth in the Juvenile Diversion Program who are not
in need of treatment but are at risk for drug and alcohol problems participate in educational
groups and workshops.  These groups are provided by Diversion staff and other agencies in the
community.  Their focus is to inform youth and promote positive health behaviors.  Some of the
topics covered in these groups are:  drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, peer relationships, decision
making, and conflict resolution.  The group format provides youth with positive peer interaction
which motivates and encourages the individual in his/her effort to make positive choices.

Outreach and Community Development  The Juvenile Diversion Program meets the needs of
high-risk youth through a strong outreach and community development component.  In order to
achieve this, Diversion Coordinators commit to learning about all services and resources
dedicated to youth development, empowerment, and intervention in their communities.  This
commitment results in Juvenile Diversion becoming an integral part of a network which includes
schools' substance abuse services, religious organizations, counseling services, community job
training, and State agencies.  The strength of this network enables Juvenile Diversion
Coordinators to promote the needs of high-risk youth through appropriate referrals to community
agencies and institutions.  Coordinators also serve on a variety of task forces, community groups,
and school groups.  In this capacity, Juvenile Diversion Coordinators are able to assist in the
formulation of policies which support youth development and intervention programs.

Juvenile arrests/summons are reviewed in each district court on a daily basis.  Juvenile Diversion
Coordinators attend Clerk's Hearings and arrive at a joint decision with the Clerk-Magistrate and
police on which cases are divertable.  These cases are then discussed with an Assistant District
Attorney to decide which cases are appropriate for the Juvenile Diversion Program.  Juveniles
entering the Diversion Program meet with the Program Coordinator, who conducts an assessment
to determine what services are needed.  The assessment includes a history of drug and alcohol
use, a brief family history, and discussion of other high-risk factors.

The juveniles are given the option of participation in counseling, community service, and
restitution in lieu of prosecution of their case.  A contractual agreement is secured at intake,
emphasizing the need for comprehensive assessment of the youth and his/her family.  Families
pay for program services on a sliding scale.  Free services are arranged for families who are
unable to pay.  The Diversion Coordinator develops an individual service plan for the juvenile,
identifies a network of community professionals to provide the necessary services, and monitors
the youth's compliance with this program.  This intensive supervision and support is essential
to prevent further involvement with the criminal justice system.  If the juvenile successfully
fulfills all requirements of the program, the case is not brought to court.  There is either no
juvenile record or a record only of the issuance and dismissal of a complaint.  However, if the
youth fails to comply with the program, he/she is prosecuted.


Results and Impact

Implementation Problems and Successes

Obtaining funding is a major concern.  Also, selling the program to judges, police officers,
probation officers, and all involved parties is difficult because the program is an alternative to
the formal system, and some departments were nervous that money for their programs would be
diverted to the Juvenile Diversion Program.  When this did not occur, these agencies developed
a positive attitude toward the program.

Successes and Accomplishments

Since its inception in 1981, the Juvenile Diversion Program has progressed from one court to
seven of the eight District Courts in Essex County.  Over 6,000 youth have been diverted from
the court system and referred to services by the Juvenile Diversion Program.  In 1994 over 750
cases were diverted.  Over $15,000 in restitution was returned to victims in 1994.

The Juvenile Diversion Program has worked collaboratively with community-based agencies to
develop a number of services which meet the needs of high-risk youth.  These services include
the Smokeless Peer Leaders Program; the Youth and Family Program; the mentor program; the
Memorandum of Understanding; and the Young Adult Offender Program.

The Smokeless Peer Leaders is a program designed to prepare youth to train and educate their
peers about the dangers of tobacco.  Out of 35 similar programs in Massachusetts, Smokeless
Peer Leaders is the only group composed of court-involved, high-risk youth.  Another service is
the Youth and Family Program, an educational group designed for both adolescents and their
parent(s).  This model consists of an educational group for adults and another for youth with
certain activities combining the two groups.  The Youth and Family Program is designed to
identify areas of common interest to youth and adults, teach conflict resolution skills, and
improve communications.  Another component of the Juvenile Diversion Program is a mentor
program with law students at an area law school.  This project involves educating the student
volunteers regarding high-risk youth and monitoring the progress of the project.

The Juvenile Diversion Program has developed a Memorandum of Understanding which
documents and formalizes the relationship between schools, police, and the District Attorney's
Office.  This serves as a guideline for these entities when dealing with juvenile incidents
involving alcohol, drugs, violence, and weapons on school grounds.

A pilot Young Adult Offender Program has been developed in response to widespread concern
about the effects of underage substance abuse.  Under Massachusetts law an individual is
considered an adult at age 17.  Therefore, the original Juvenile Diversion Program is not
available to anyone 17 or older.  The Young Adult Offender Program is designed to provide
young people between the ages of 17 and 21 the opportunity to participate in an educational
group rather than have their cases go through the court system.  This program targets five
offenses:  Minor in Possession of Alcohol; Possession of Class D. Marijuana; Disorderly
Conduct; Public Drinking; and Disturbing the Peace.  First-time young adult offenders who
choose to enter the program are required to attend a 12-week educational group.  The group
meets at a local counseling agency, and its focus is to educate participants about the dynamics
of addiction.  Successful completion of the program results in the youth not having an adult
criminal court record.

Prospects for Replication

The program has been replicated six times in Essex County since its inception in 1981.  Several
factors are critical to successful replication.  Staff must be designated to create and administer
the program.  Resources to address the needs of the juveniles must be brought to bear on the
problem.  The target population must be clearly defined.  Participation and support by law
enforcement personnel are essential to successful replication of the program.

The program is built on the utilization of available community resources, making it very cost
effective.  Many of these programs have tailored their approaches in order to address the needs
of youth referred from the Juvenile Diversion Program.  The target group has been standardized
with policies and procedures for law enforcement personnel in Essex County.

All law enforcement personnel involved with ensuring public safety while responding to the
needs of first-time offenders must accept the program in order for it to work.  These include the
police, the District Attorney and the court.  Each must see in the Juvenile Diversion Program the
potential for a tangible contribution towards the achievement of their mission.

Several measures may be taken to assist in replicating the program.  First, an assessment must
be made of the current decision makers within the local criminal justice system to determine
receptivity to a Juvenile Diversion Program.  Next, a list of tangible benefits for each decision
maker can be developed and agreed upon.  Professionals interested in more information with
regard to replication of the Juvenile Diversion Program may find it beneficial to contact their
counterpart in Essex County (e.g., police to police, district attorneys to district attorneys, and
judges to judges).  Meetings with each party should be held, and agreements defining roles,
responsibilities, and procedures developed in writing.

The Juvenile Diversion Program has proven to be an effective early intervention alternative to
the criminal justice system.  Not only does it serve as a vehicle for treatment for those youth who
have already engaged in high-risk behavior, but as a means of identifying adolescents from
high-risk environments who have not yet been reached by services.  Because of the success of
this program, judges, assistant district attorneys, clerk-magistrates, police officers, and schools
are opting to refer some of the more serious offenders to this program.  Through involvement
with diversion, these juveniles experience a structure of consistent support and accountability and
receive counseling aimed at family issues and the adverse effects of substance abuse.  Thus, the
Juvenile Diversion Program provides an important service to those juveniles at high-risk for
substance abuse and serious delinquency by providing prevention, treatment, and education.


Contact Information

Ruth Budelmann
Director
Juvenile Justice Program
Essex County District Attorney's
  Office
Museum Place
One East India Square
Salem, MA  01970
(508) 745-6610
(508) 741-4971 faxMassachusetts


Quincy Court Domestic Abuse Program


Statement of the Problem

Increasingly, domestic violence victims are turning to the courts for assistance in ending the
violence and terror being perpetrated against them.  All too often the courts respond with
confusing procedures, untrained personnel, and a lack of community coordination.  Restraining
orders are routinely violated and unenforced by the courts.  The result is that too many abuse
victims are intimidated, overwhelmed, and denied the remedies they desperately need.  Close to
2,000 domestic violence victims come to the Quincy Court each year seeking legal remedies to
provide safety for themselves and their children.  Given the 35% increase in domestic violence
petitions over the past two years and a similar increase in the arrest of male violators, the client
population is expected to double every three to four years.

Covering seven surrounding cities and towns, the Quincy Court serves a diverse population of
about 200,000.  The court coordinates the numerous police, corrections, and social service
agencies, all facing budget cuts along with the increasing requests for assistance.  The Quincy
Court Domestic Abuse Program attempts to combine innovative, integrated approaches that not
only provide maximum protection and accountability, but also assist victims in ending the
violence.


Goals and Objectives

The program has two goals:  (1) to control the abuser through focused prosecution, creative
sanctions, intensive supervision, and specialized treatment; and (2) to empower victims by
creating a user-friendly process, an array of comprehensive direct services, and referrals to
provide support and assistance.

To achieve these goals, the program has the following objectives:

         to make the process easier and assist victims in making use of the range of criminal
          justice interventions;
         to ensure that the cases are vigorously prosecuted, whether or not the victim is
          available to testify;
         to coordinate a community response, such that all parties work together to protect the
          victims and hold the offenders responsible for their behavior through tight supervision;
          and
         to ensure that victim safety is the first priority.

In this vein, the program attempts to return to court all offenders who do not adhere to court
orders or who threaten continued harm to their victims.


Program Components

For the victim, the program has made the process user friendly with the following:  (1) a private
office at the court, staffed by women specially trained to assist the victims seeking restraining
orders; (2) a daily briefing session for victims on civil and criminal options, community
resources, support groups, and general guidance through the court; (3) two special court sessions
held daily to expedite hearings; (4) ongoing educational and support groups for the victim,
separate groups for adolescents and children from violent homes, and a parenting group run by
two clinical social workers from the District Attorney's Office and the DOVE shelter; (5) two
specialized domestic violence prosecutors, two specialized advocates, two experienced counselors,
two law students, five student interns, and three volunteers to handle the cases, provide support,
and ensure system accountability; and (6) an experienced domestic violence advocate in the
Probation Department who makes contact with the victims of the probationers to ensure
continued safety and offender compliance.

The program has been successful in uniting the activities of the critical actors in the process
including police, prosecutors, judges, probation, shelters, advocacy groups, batterers' services
agencies, child protection services, and medical and mental health providers, and ensuring formal,
ongoing training for a combined maximum response.  As part of the coordinated community
intervention plan, the day actors also participate in the Quincy Court Family Violence
Roundtable, which meets once per month to identify problems and map out short- and long-range
action plans.  With the Police Tracking System, the victim advocates are able to immediately
obtain police incident reports, whether or not an arrest has been made, so that contact with the
victim can be made as soon as possible.  The police advise victims to go to court 45 minutes
early to avail themselves of the briefing session, explain the 24-hour availability of restraining
orders, and urge them to speak to the advocates about support groups and other resources. 
Additionally, many of the actors assist with in-service training and community education seminars
for the relevant agencies, service providers, social organizations, the military, professional groups,
and the community at large.

To better control the abuser, the program has:  (1) tight pre-trail probation to ensure victim
protection and decrease the likelihood of witness intimidation pending trial; (2) fast-track court
scheduling to ensure speedy trials; (3) routine confiscation of weapons; (4) a trained, five-person
probation enforcement team; (5) strictly enforced sanctions including saturation surveillance in
the community, and mandatory orders of alcohol and drug abstinence monitored through random
testing; and (6) speedy revocation hearings for violators, with immediate sentencing ranging from
short shock to longer term incarceration.

To increase child safety and stop the inter-generational cycle of domestic violence, the District
Attorney's Office and the DOVE Battered Women's Shelter co-sponsor three Children's Support
Groups and a Parenting Group.  Groups are offered for young children, adolescents, and teens
involved in violent dating relationships.  The focus is on safety planning, teaching the children
to call "911" when in danger, how to identify warning signs, what to do if a fight starts at home
or school, and related issues.  Most of the children's groups run concurrently with the adult
victim's support groups, thus providing child care while beginning to address the children's
needs.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

In an effort to increase victim safety, program staff wanted to determine what was helpful and
what was not helpful about the program.  A comprehensive court survey of victims was
conducted, beginning in 1986 and repeated periodically, asking victims how the court could best
ensure their protection and improve services overall.

Implementation Problems and Successes

Obstacles existed on two levels.  First, more than any other violent criminal, male abusers are
the most dangerous and tenacious in their pursuit of their victims, as well as the most resistant
to court control and treatment.  Although police enforcement models existed, their were no
models for effective sanctions and supervision of these offenders.  Court personnel had to
develop policies and programs, including an array of mandated treatments and surveillance. 
Second, most women, 60% in the initial 1986 study, had histories of significant victimization
from childhood, seriously compromising their coping skills to protect themselves and their
children in abusive relationships.  An array of services such as support groups, assigned
advocates, special court clerks, and a private office and referral services such as Al-Anon for
Women, Rape Crisis Centers, and Spanish-speaking support groups had to be identified and/or
created.

On a systemic level, given the extent of gender bias and resistance to change in the criminal
justice system, sensitivity and reform training for all actors had to be developed and provided on
a regular basis.  Final challenges remain:

         to develop an abuser topology to better and more accurately predict lethality and utilize
          it within the constraints of a due process legal system;
         to create a new paradigm under which prosecutors and defense attorneys work more
          closely on family violence cases to ensure victim safety;
         to constantly ask "How can we be doing this better?" especially with regard to
          increasing victim safety;
         to expand safety planning for children;
         to increase community education and public awareness campaigns to re-enforce that
          domestic violence constitutes violent crime which must be treated seriously;
         to establish a visitation center within the county to facilitate the safe exchange of
          children; and
         to increase the availability of emergency and transitional housing for abuse victims
          fleeing danger.

One obstacle the program faced was some judges' reluctance to order batterers to attend
counseling and specifically to attend a certified batterer's intervention program.  This was due,
in part, to the batterer's assertions that (1) they could not afford the time off work or money to
travel (10 miles) to Boston for the programs; and (2) the batterer's program facilitators were too
harsh in their expectations of participation, timeliness and attendance.  In response, the court
personnel arranged for a top Batterer's Program, Emerge, to hold several sessions per week at
the Quincy District Court.  This took away the need for travel and seemed to make the judges
feel that it was part of the Court's intervention process, thus greatly increasing the participation
rates.  The on-site location also allowed staff to better monitor the program.

Too many victims were reporting repeat violence, harassment, and/or stalking by batterers even
after a criminal conviction, and sometimes by perpetrators in jail.  Due to embarrassment, no
phone access, transportation obstacles, and fear of retaliation, some victims did not inform the
court of the new offenses.  With over 300 batterers on probation, generally for at least one year,
staff wanted to throw out a wide net to the victims of these perpetrators.  First, as part of the
briefing and the informational brochures, staff began including a message that they wanted to
know when any problems arose, post-conviction or at any other time.  Second, a Probation
Revocation Session was established to expedite the process of bringing back before the Court
those perpetrators violating the terms and conditions of their probation.  Third, an experienced
advocate was hired to work from the Probation Department as a Victim Contact Coordinator. 
That advocate's job is to immediately contact the victim of a batterer on probation and
familiarize the victim with post-conviction services and the availability of help, including
renewed safety planning.

Successes and Accomplishments

Victims overwhelmingly asked in the survey that the court increase the number of support groups
being offered, both for themselves and their children.  By not tying victim participation in
support groups to any court involvement, even those who remain with the perpetrator are
welcome and active members.  Many victims begin the support group still living with the batterer
and unsure as to the wisdom of obtaining a restraining order.  By the end of the eight-week
education section, most victims have obtained a restraining order, moved away from the batterer,
and are beginning to understand that the abuse is not their fault.  A twelve-week support group
follows, with education networking, exposure to other victims and role models, and information
on day care, job training, and other needs.

To increase the number of victims obtaining permanent restraining orders, in 1987 the court
began holding daily briefings to offer intensive support and relevant information.  In the first six
months of briefings, there was a 14% increase in the number of victims returning to court for
their permanent restraining order.  Perhaps the greatest testament to the success of the
coordinated community response has been the findings of a study comparing the Quincy District
Court with two surrounding counties' courts.  The study found that, of the domestic violence
victims coming to Quincy Court for help, 87% of them followed through with permanent
restraining orders and/or criminal prosecution.  A similar size court in a neighboring county
showed just 34% of their victims returning for continued assistance.  Even as one of the highest
issuing courts (almost 2,000 restraining orders in 1994), the Quincy District Court has the lowest
restraining order drop rate in the State.

Decreasing the domestic violence homicide rate has been an area of interest in the Quincy
District Court service area, since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has faced a steadily
increasing number of battered women murdered by their partners.  In 1986, the State found that
a battered woman was killed by her husband or boyfriend every 22 days.  By 1993, that number
rose to one battered woman killed every 12 days, and during the first three months of 1995,
every four days a battered woman was being murdered.  Given the size and demographics of the
court's service area, it should have produced similar statistics.  However, over the last 16 years,
the Quincy Court has had one domestic violence homicide in the town of Cohasset in 1979. 
After that homicide a death review was conducted by assembling all the relevant actors to
determine what should have been done differently in that case and how victims could be better
protected, in general.

Keeping in mind that conviction rate is not the best indicator of success, court personnel were
determined to increase the prosecution rate as an additional means of holding offenders
responsible for their actions.  Since many victims were intimidated out of testifying against their
abusers, staff focused on learning how prosecutors could go forward with the trial, even absent
the victim's testimony.  This meant police had to be trained regarding comprehensive report
writing, evidence collection, and investigation of domestic violence incidents.  Utilizing the one-
page Domestic Violence Incident Report Form, training was held for all police chiefs and most
officers to share information and inform the police that they should document the victim's
statements, injuries, and demeanor at the scene, as well as take photographs of the victim's
injuries.  By enlisting the assistance of the Polaroid Corporation, cameras, film, and a law
enforcement photography seminar was donated.  As a result, there is much more information in
the police incident reports, more photographs for use at trial, and increased morale of both police
and prosecutors.  Law enforcement now knows that the prosecutors will make every effort to
bring the case forward, utilizing the"spontaneous/excited utterances" of the victim at the scene. 
This enables the court to hold the offender accountable, while taking the victim out of danger.

During the first quarter of 1995, 85% of the victims contacted were very receptive to the support,
10% were unreachable, and 5% declined services because they were still with the batterer. 
However, even the knowledge of the advocate's availability can serve as a deterrent to the
batterer.  This advocate has also forged a close relationship with the jail staff, resulting in much
closer cooperation, sharing of information, and referrals.


Without providing specific guidance, it was unrealistic to expect police officers to produce
comprehensive incident reports, complete with photographs and the necessary documentation for
going forward even without the victim's testimony.  Utilizing the Family Violence Investigation
Checklist, copied from the San Diego Police Department, court staff conducted training all over
the county, with mixed results.  As the Quincy Police Department has received 40 hours of
domestic violence training per year from the District Attorney's Office, their progress has been
the most pronounced.  However, police officers in general have welcomed the simple, one-page
format of the Family Violence Investigation Checklist, which tells them exactly what information
to collect at the scene.  This has increased police morale and improved the police reports the
court is receiving.

In an effort to bring more actors to the table, the Quincy Court Family Violence Roundtable was
started.  At monthly meetings problems are raised and long and short-term Action Plans are
designed.  For example, there was much concern about court safety for victims and bystanders
because even offenders coming from jail were found to be in possession of weapons.  There is
now a metal detector at the front door and in the court's lock-up, as well as a protocol for court
officers or police officers to accompany victims to their cars, the subway, bus stations, or to the
District Attorney's Office.

Based on the fact that welfare is the primary safety net for abuse victims and that 35 states pay
less than $4,000 per year for a family of four on welfare, the Court knew that simply getting a
victim on welfare was not any kind of solution.  The primary reason that abuse victims return
to the perpetrator is a lack of money, thus creating an obvious need to provide victims with
information about job and educational opportunities.  In working with a group of pregnant and
parenting teens by helping each one devise an Individualized Action Plan, most have gone on to
obtain their G.E.D. or high school diploma, several are enrolled in community college, and
several have graduated from technical school programs.  These students have named this the
"What Is Your Dream?" Project.

This is being expanded to the elementary and high schools.  The Florida Department of Youth
Services documented in their 1994 study that children who become delinquent begin disengaging
at around third or fourth grade, in part because they have no sense of future, few role models,
and little confidence.  Program staff are training tenth and eleventh graders to go into the third
grade and conduct "What Is Your Dream?" sessions, on a bi-weekly basis.  The third graders
listen much more attentively to the high schoolers than they would adults, the high school
students get course credit for participation, and it gives Court personnel the opportunity to train
the high school students about job and educational opportunities.

A 1991 study by the American Nursing Association documented that pregnant and parenting
teens were at the greatest risk for abuse in their relationships, and that teens in general experience
tremendous abuse from their partners.  Working with the DOVE battered women's shelter, court
staff put together a teen dating violence brochure, hotline number, and support group for battered
teens.  An intervention program is being developed for teen batterers.  Working with two top
teachers at Quincy High School, the Quincy High Students Against Domestic Violence was
started.  This work has taken on new meaning as in 1994 close to 80% of the civil restraining
orders issued by the Quincy District Court were issued against men ages 18 to 24.

Prospects for Replication

Part of the ease of replication is that there is no separate budget for the Quincy Court Domestic
Abuse Program.  To develop it, existing personnel and resources were utilized.  Most of the
efforts have focused on transferring and training existing personnel.  Personnel includes members
of the District Attorney's Office, judges, probation officers, and court clerks who are all funded
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  In addition, the program utilizes many volunteers,
including Domestic Violence Victim Advocates, as well as individuals from colleges, shelters,
and other community services.  Abusers are required to pay for batterer and/or alcohol/drug abuse
treatment and testing.

In 1992, the Quincy Court Domestic Abuse Program won a Ford Foundation-Innovations Award,
and has been cited as a model program by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges in Family Violence:  State of the Art Court Programs.  In 1992, the program was featured
on a "60 Minutes" episode.  After being featured on the "60 Minutes" episode, the program was
flooded with requests for information and technical assistance.  The Court regularly hosts visiting
public policy, law enforcement, and court perform from around the United States and the World. 
Within Norfolk County, the District Attorney's Office has expanded this model to all of the other
courts.

In 1990, the Massachusetts Legislature appropriated $150,000 to each District Attorney's Office
to establish a Domestic Violence Unit and coordinate with their local courts, modeled on the
Quincy Court Domestic Abuse Program.  For many years program staff have willingly, as time
permits, traveled all over the State and to several others including Florida, Montana, Wisconsin,
California, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, and Washington, to provide training
and technical assistance to those wishing to replicate the program.  Many courts have been able
to develop at least key components of the program.  For example, there are currently about
twenty Domestic Violence Court Roundtable operating in Massachusetts; each District Attorney's
Office has specialized advocates and prosecutors; many courts have adopted specific protocols;
and the probation departments are focusing on the monitoring of batterers.

The Quincy Court Domestic Abuse Program is an extremely successful model of an integrated
approach to addressing domestic violence.  It shows that when all parties work together, an
effective family violence intervention protocol can be implemented.  Further, it reinforces the
message that partner abuse is a crime to be taken seriously, not a private matter to be ignored
by the system.  This model has won widespread praise and support in the community.  It has
served to toughen State domestic violence laws, calling for mandatory arrest and treatment, a
state registry of restraining orders, forfeiture of weapons, state wide training, bail reform and
other measures to improve the response to domestic violence.


Contact Information

Gwen DeVasto                                Andrew Klein
Community Education and                     Chief Probation Officer
  Training Coordinator                      Quincy District Court
Norfolk County District                     Dennis Ryan Parkway
  Attorney's Office                         Quincy, MA  02169
360 Washington Street                       (617) 471-1650
P.O. Box 309                                (617) 471-6876 fax
Dedham, MA  02026
(617) 329-5440 x 223
(617) 326-7937 faxMississippi


South Mississippi Family Child Center's Child Victim/Witness
  Program


Statement of the Problem

In 1994 there were 17,332 reports of child abuse and neglect in the State of Mississippi, and this
figure is only part of the total number of children who were victims of crime.  These children
must undergo the same procedures as adults who report crimes to law enforcement agencies.  As
a result, these victims of child abuse are frequently revictimized by the criminal justice system,
which is insensitive to the needs of children and to the fragility of child abuse victims.

In addition to the problems that these children may initially encounter at intake, the services that
are available to children and their families at that time are frequently overlooked.  A law
enforcement officer answering a call in which the victim is a child is often not aware of services
which can meet the immediate needs of the victim and his/her family.  Many crimes against
children are not defined as "child abuse," and these victims are not afforded therapeutic and
compensatory services because they have not been informed of the availability of these services.

To aid in the handling of these cases, it is imperative that coordination exist between Criminal
Justice and Human Services investigators at an early stage.  This collaborative community effort
helps to ensure that the child victim receives all available and needed services within the
community.  Child abuse investigators and caseworkers are stretched to the limit in handling the
overwhelming numbers of cases of crimes against children reported annually.  Coordination
among all involved agencies will help increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the
investigation, as well as reducing additional pain and trauma inflicted on the children.


Goals and Objectives

The South Mississippi Family Child Center's Child Victim/Witness Program has three primary
goals: (1) to reduce crime; (2) to improve the prosecution of child abuse cases; and (3) to ensure
that the needs of the victim and his/her family are met.

The first goal, the reduction of crime, may seem lofty for a small, non-profit agency.  However,
it has been well-documented and studied over the past several years that the present prison and
youth correctional facility population reports profound abuse and neglect in their childhood.  A
child who is protected by a responsive judicial system is less likely to become tomorrow's threat
to society.

The second goal of this program is to improve prosecution of cases of child abuse.  It is
imperative that the court be presented with a child witness that is able to testify and understand
the roles of the various players in the criminal courtroom.  A credible witness continues to be
required for successful prosecution of crimes.

The third goal is to ensure that the needs of the victim and his/her family are met.  The center
continues to enhance, refine, and provide services to child victims and their families.  Every
victimized child who does not receive needed medical treatment, mental health care, protection,
and closure (by the criminal justice system) is at-risk of becoming a threat to society.

The objectives of the South Mississippi Family Child Center's Child Victim/Witness Program
are listed according to the three components of the program.  The objectives of the
Multidisciplinary Team Program are to:

         coordinate at least 600 investigations between law enforcement and the Department of
          Human Services during scheduled team meetings;
         provide community and professional referrals to 500 child victims of crime;
         provide documentation of team recommendations on at least 500 cases involving child
          victims and restaff cases periodically until all recommendations have been followed
          through;
         maintain case data on 800 child victims;
         attend and document 142 team meetings each year; and
         schedule an agenda and mail it to team members in order to inform members of felony
          child abuse cases to be staffed prior to the scheduled meeting.

The objectives of the Court Orientation Program are to:

         provide court education services to 200 child victims of crime and their families;
         decrease anxiety and fear associated with the criminal justice process for 300 child
          victims;
         provide pamphlets, coloring books, and literature on testimony and the courtroom
          experience to 450 individuals;
         recruit and provide training for six volunteers to work with the court orientation
          program;
         assign volunteers to accompany child victims to court in 200 pending felony child
          abuse cases; and
         provide pertinent information involving their cases to 300 victims and their families.

The objectives of the Child Advocacy/Law Enforcement Training are to:

         provide an assessment of the victim's and family's needs and to make appropriate
          referrals to community resources for the provision of treatment and personal necessities
          to 300 child victims within the first two weeks following a crime;

         develop a community resource book and distribute to all police officers in the service
          area;
         develop a standardized protocol in cooperation with all local criminal justice agencies
          for law enforcement officers to use in the field when answering a call in which the
          primary victim and/or witness is a child;
         make available and assist in using the electronically equipped child victim interview
          in crime investigations in 200 instances;
         provide direct training to law enforcement officers at the area academy and continue
          in-service training concerning juvenile justice issues at police stations within the
          service area;
         assist the guardians of child victims in the completion and filing of victim
          compensation applications;
         provide an initial assessment to ascertain the needs of the victim and supportive
          services in the form of weekly visits to the homes of 200 child victims of crime during
          their involvement with the criminal justice system; and
         provide an annual one-day conference for 500 area professionals who work within the
          Criminal Justice and Human Services fields.


Program Components

Multidisciplinary Team Program  The team meetings are held between one and four times a
month.  The actual duties performed by the Program Director and Center Director for the
Multidisciplinary Team Programs are as follows:

         coordinate bi-monthly meeting in each county;
         plan with staff of each District Attorney's Office;
         prepare and disseminate weekly case dockets to be reviewed in each county;
         prepare written summaries of team meetings and disseminate summaries to each
          organization involved;
         maintain case summaries;
         maintain contact with the organizations involved;
         serve as a liaison between the team, law enforcement agencies, and the community;
         maintain a treatment resource list and invite therapists and law enforcement to present
          and discuss individual cases;
         perform victim advocacy tasks, such as the observation of criminal and family court
          hearings;
         participate in public awareness efforts; and 
         provide an annual conference.

Court Orientation  Each child is worked with an on individual basis as well as in group activity. 
The Court Education Program Director is responsible for the following duties:

         coordinating sessions with the District Attorney's Office;
         facilitating interactions among involved area professionals;
         training and supervising program volunteers;
         maintaining pertinent program data and statistical information which measures or
          otherwise indicates program effectiveness and will serve as a statistical data base for
          similar programs as initiated;
         serving in a consultative capacity jurisdictions interested in initiating similar court
          education programs across the State;
         developing a tracking system for all participants completing the Court Education
          Program for the purpose of comparison to the general population in determining long-
          range effectiveness of the program; and
         planning and scheduling for a child advocate to be involved throughout the continuum
          of services.

Child Advocacy/Law Enforcement Training  The present procedure reflects that child victims
do not come into contact with the Victim/Witness Coordinator until the case reaches the District
Attorney's Office.  This is sometimes months after the original trauma, long after intervention
and therapy should have begun.  By increasing and enhancing the child advocacy portion of this
program, these problems can be avoided in the future.  Additionally, this program provides
training and support for the officer in the field who is often the first contact the child victim has
with the criminal justice system.  Program staff are responsible for the following child advocacy
tasks:

         technical assistance to personnel regarding the use of the child victim interview room
          including how to conduct the interview;
         direct training to law enforcement candidates at the area police academies;
         development and implementation of continuing in-service programs to train law
          enforcement officers at their local stations;
         development, printing, and dissemination of a child victims protocol to assist law
          enforcement in conducting their investigation;
         intensive, in-home intervention to child victims and their families during the course of
          their involvement with the criminal justice system;
         preparation of victim compensation applications;
         initial visit, assessment and referral to mental health, medical, and human service
          agencies within the first month of the complaint;
         consultation services with law enforcement investigators actively involved in the on-
          going investigation of current child abuse cases awaiting presentation to the appropriate
          court;
         mediation between the victims and the criminal justice system, as needed;
         development of an evaluation of the program; and
         development of a community referral source book specific to the county for distribution
          to local law enforcement officers including all area human services, service
          organizations, private and public therapists, and financial resources including church
          organizations and other non-profit agencies that are available to provide assistance to
          people in need.
Results and Impact

Performance Measures

Statistics will be continually compiled during the course of 1995.  This will enable measurement
of program effectiveness.  This will also serve to produce a data base for the innovative Court
Education Program that has been developed for the South Mississippi area.  Documentation will
also be kept on all cases staffed through the Multidisciplinary Team to enable case tracking and
measurement of re-victimization of child victims.  A case file will be maintained to document
each instance of early intervention.  Statistics will be documented monthly.

The Court Administrator's Office has offered technical assistance in measuring the successful
prosecution of cases involving child victims that have been staffed by the Multidisciplinary Team. 
These statistics will give data as to the response time and treatment time involved in all staffed
cases.  It is the goal and plan of a team approach to shorten response time and the length of time
between the crime occurrence and trial disposition.

The Court Education Program is designed to make the process of going to court easier for child
victims by educating them about the court process.  Each child participant will be given a pre-test
before beginning the program and a post-test at the conclusion of the program which will
measure their increase of knowledge concerning the local court systems as well as the reduction
of their anxiety about the pending trial.  Court data will provide information on the number of
children successfully testifying in court cases after completing the court education program.

The child advocacy project will be evaluated using standard measures of increases in objective
understanding of their role in the criminal justice system.  This measurement tool will be
developed and enhanced during 1995.  Subjective evaluations of decreased anxiety in both child
victims and non-offending caretakers will also be used.

A questionnaire will be developed to be completed by law enforcement officers receiving training
or assistance from this program.  An additional questionnaire will be developed for completion
by the victim and his/her family to measure satisfaction with the responsiveness and services
provided by this program.  Statistics will be gathered on prosecution results and time frame
between report and imposition of the case by the criminal justice system.  Statistics will also be
kept on successful prosecutions, guilty pleas to a lower charge, and exoneration.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The South Mississippi Family Child Center's Child Victim/Witness Program evolved slowly over
a period of six years.  Prosecutors were reluctant to try offenders because children were
considered unreliable witnesses.  Child victims were so traumatized by the repeated interviews
by the various agencies involved with child protection that they often were unable to testify at
trial.  Law enforcement officers and Department of Human Services workers felt that the courts
were not interested in these crimes, and so justice was withheld.  Finally there was
acknowledgement that the needs of the child victims had to be discussed.

In the past five years, these two components of the Child Victim/Witness Program have been in
place, but it was still noted that the victims often did not get assistance from the Victim
Compensation Program.  In addition, there was not sufficient follow-up to determine whether or
not the child victim actually received the supportive services required to overcome his/her trauma. 
In 1995 implementation of the Child Advocacy/Law Enforcement Training Program was begun
to ensure that children's fundamental needs are met.  This year the child advocacy tasks are
performed primarily in Harrison County as a pilot project.

Successes and Accomplishments 

Since its inception, the Child Victim/Witness program has expanded to encompass five circuit
court districts in the southern region of the State.  Over 600 children have attended the Court
Orientation Program, and over 5,000 felony cases of child abuse have been staffed.  This program
has been presented at the National Organization of Victims Assistance, the National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Exchange Foundation's annual conference.  The program has
also been presented at three in-State conferences, one of which was the Mississippi Prosecution
Association's annual conference.  The program has additionally offered a regional Child Abuse
Conference for the last two years and is in the midst of planning the third.

Prospects for Replication

The Court Orientation Program is adaptable to any court system.  It is a program that could be
easily established by an interested District Attorney and his Victim/Witness Coordinator.  This
center has acted in a consultative capacity to other jurisdictions, both within and outside
Mississippi, that have desired to implement such a program.  Development of this program
requires the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies as well as Youth Court, Department
of Human Services, and area prosecutors.  It is important to build a strong network of inter-
agency cooperation, and a strong Multidisciplinary Team project is an excellent place to begin.


Contact Information

Susan Richards
Program Director
South Mississippi Family Child Center's
  Child Victim/Witness Program
4803 Harrison Circle
Gulfport, MS  39507
(601) 868-8686
(601) 868-8670 faxMontana


Victim/Witness Assistance Program


Statement of the Problem

In 1993 the Gallatin County Attorney recognized that his deputy county attorneys were unable
to meet all the needs of crime victims, especially victims of violent crimes such as rape, assault,
homicide, and domestic abuse.  Because of their increasing caseloads, the deputy county attorneys
were able to spend less time with victims, resulting in victims who did not fully understand their
role in the court process, who were less prepared for court proceedings, and who were in some
cases re-victimized by the system that was supposed to help them.

A grant proposal was submitted to the Montana Board of Crime Control for funding from the
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Assistance Formula Grant Program for a half-time
Victim/Witness Assistant to remedy this situation.  A half-time coordinator was hired in August
1993 to assist 80 victims of misdemeanor or felony cases involving injury or threat of injury at
the justice court and district court levels during the first year.  Demand for the services was
greater than anticipated:  105 primary victims, 65 secondary victims, and 24 witnesses received
services the first year.  The Bozeman City Attorney's Office requested the program, and the
second year (1994-95) a grant was submitted and approved for a full-time coordinator who assists
victims of violent crime in the City of Bozeman as well as in the county.


Goals and Objectives

Four goals are identified for the joint city/county project.  The first goal is to improve the
involvement of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system by providing a full-time
assistant to serve as a liaison between the victims and witnesses and the criminal justice process. 
The second goal is to increase community awareness of the criminal justice system and the needs
of victims and witnesses and their families, by providing education to law enforcement, judges,
and other participants in the criminal justice process.  The third goal is to expand the number of
victims and witnesses being served by Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman through the
recruitment and training of screened volunteers to work directly with victims and witnesses.  The
fourth goal is to encourage increased cooperation between Gallatin County and the City of
Bozeman in the areas of law enforcement and the judiciary through joint sponsorship of the
Victim/Witness Assistant.




To achieve these goals the Victim/Witness Assistance Program has established the following
objectives:

         maintain the current Victim/Witness Assistant position full-time; 

         assist the County Attorney's Office and the City Prosecutor's Office by keeping
          victims and witnesses informed of the judicial process;

         identify and prioritize the cases to be served by the Victim/Witness Assistant and
          notify all interested parties in the county of the benefits and opportunities of the
          program;

         assist 150 victims and witnesses in cases involving physical injury or the threat of
          physical injury such as homicide, assault, domestic abuse, stalking, and victims and
          witnesses of property crimes in cases when the services would be appropriate;

         recruit, screen, train, and coordinate volunteers as needed;

         secure an intern from Montana State University to work with the Victim/Witness
          Assistant to assist the Montana Board of Crime Control with developing a restitution
          program for victims in Gallatin County;

         train a minimum of 30 law enforcement officers on victims' issues and increase
          awareness of victims' needs; and

         train local city, justice, and district judges and Battered Women's Network volunteers
          on victims' issues and victim/witness services available.


Program Components

A project team was formulated to review and monitor the program.  The team has 12 members
and includes the county attorney, the city prosecutor, the sheriff, a Bozeman Police detective, a
county commissioner, a representative from Alcohol and Drug Services, a staff person from the
Battered Women's Network, a former victim of stalking, and a homicide survivor.  During the
first year of the grant, the team met monthly and is now meeting every other month.  This
interdisciplinary approach to problem solving has led to greater cooperation between members
of the criminal justice system.

A full-time Victim/Witness Assistance Coordinator is available to victims and witnesses from an
office in the County Attorney's Office in the Law and Justice Center in Bozeman.  Services
include:  crisis counseling, information and referral, criminal justice advocacy, assistance with
crime victim compensation, court escort and support, transportation to court, assistance filing
temporary restraining orders, property recovery, assistance with victim impact statements,
providing witnesses with a secure waiting area during court proceedings, parole notification, and
advocacy for victims on all levels.  Services are provided at no cost and are voluntary in nature. 
Referrals are received primarily from prosecutors and law enforcement officers but are accepted
from any source.  An ongoing prosecution is not necessary for services to be offered.

Five volunteers were trained in February and March 1994.  A six-month commitment was
requested, and all volunteers have continued with the program.  An intern from Montana State
University is working with the coordinator full-time for summer semester 1995 to help develop
a restitution program for Gallatin County.  The new State Restitution Officer from the Board of
Crime Control is working with them to come up with a workable, creative system that will better
meet the needs of victims.

A Notice of Rights and Services form was created with input from the project team and is now
given to each domestic violence victim at the scene by law enforcement officers.  The
Victim/Witness Assistance Program receives a copy of the form.  The coordinator assigns a
volunteer to call the victim within 24 hours to offer services.  With this phone outreach, there
has been a noticeable increase in victims obtaining restraining orders and supportive services that
enable them to make positive changes in their situations.

Mandatory Bozeman Police Department (BPD) training on victims' issues and the Victim/Witness
Assistance Program was provided in January and March 1995.  There has not been a mandatory
Sheriff's Department training due to budgetary constraints for overtime for that department. 
Officers were invited to the BPD training sessions and a few attended.  Twenty-four Bozeman
police officers completed the initial two-hour training.  More law enforcement training is planned
for the next fiscal year.

There has been no formal judge training initiated at this time.  Informal one-on-one conversations
with some of the judges has been somewhat productive.  More work needs to be done in this
area.

The coordinator meets with the Battered Women's Network staff on a monthly basis to
coordinate services.  Training to Battered Women's Network volunteers is provided at training
sessions twice each year.

The coordinator has spoken to a number of different groups about the Victim/Witness Assistance
Program and victims' issues.  There were ten public speaking engagements during the first year,
and there have been 12 so far in the 1994-95 year.  A number of newspaper articles have raised
public awareness of this issue.  A member of the Project Team testified at the legislature about
her experience in the criminal justice system prior to the availability of the Victim/Witness
Assistance Program, and a new comprehensive victims' rights package was signed into law in
Spring 1995. 



Results and Impact

Performance Measures

Data is collected by the Victim/Witness Coordinator on an ongoing basis and is reported to the
Montana Board of Crime Control in quarterly reports and an annual report.  Data collected
includes:  1) number of primary and secondary victims receiving services; 2) types of crimes; 3)
contact hours spent with victims; 4) nature of contact; 5) types of services provided; 6)
percentage of cases in which alcohol or drugs were involved; 7) demographic data on victims
served; 8) types of training activities; 9) number of witnesses served; and 10) number of
volunteer hours.

An Evaluation Form for Victims and Witnesses is mailed to each person served when cases are
concluded.  This includes eight questions regarding service delivery that the victim rates on a five
point scale, as well as two open-ended questions and space for additional comments.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The primary implementation problem has been effective use of the volunteers.  There is limited
space available so that much of what they do is phone outreach to domestic violence victims
from their homes.  It was difficult to have sufficient time for training and supervision when the
coordinator was working half-time.  It would have been more productive to work the volunteers
into the program once it had been operating for two years rather than bringing them in during
the disorganized, beginning stage.

Another implementation problem occurred the first year when the Victim/Witness Assistant was
only a part-time employee.  The demand for services quickly overwhelmed the time available to
provide the services, and the Victim/Witness Assistant had to be hired full-time.

Being located in the County Attorney's Office has been a mixed blessing.  While the attorneys
and their files are accessible, the proximity to the attorneys is intimidating to the victims and
witnesses.

Successes and Accomplishments

The most successful component of the program is the Project Team, which has increased
communication and cooperation between law enforcement, prosecution, and private human service
agencies serving victims.  It has turned into a creative forum for addressing victims' issues and
ensuring that victims are allowed to take an active role in the criminal justice system.  Law
enforcement officers now ask the Victim/Witness Assistant for her help at the beginning of cases.

Approximately 500 victims and witnesses of crime have received assistance since the beginning
of the program.  This includes 295 primary victims, 110 secondary victims, and 92 witnesses. 
Over 90% of these individuals were involved in a violent crime.  Twenty-seven law enforcement
officers have been trained on the use of the victim/witness services available and on victims'
issues.  Five volunteers have been recruited, screened, and trained and now provide direct
assistance to victims and witnesses.  At an awards luncheon during National Crime Victims'
Rights Week, the volunteers with the Victim/Witness Assistance Program were recognized, and
there was very positive press coverage which increased the public's awareness of this program
and victims' issues.

Prospects for Replication

There have been several requests from other county attorney offices throughout the State of
Montana for this program.  The service has already been made available to the City of Bozeman. 
All of the data forms, training materials, and informational materials have been given to the
Montana Board of Crime Control and disseminated when requested.  Research is underway to
sponsor legislation to add a victim fee to criminal charges which could conceivably pay for
victim services in every court system in the State of Montana.


Contact Information

Gloria Edwards
Coordinator
Gallatin County Victim/Witness Assistance Program
Law and Justice Center
615 South 16th Street
Bozeman, MT  59715
(406) 582-2145
(406) 582-2158 faxNew York


Midtown Community Court Project


Statement of the Problem

Criminal courts in large urban settings are crowded, chaotic, and overwhelmed.  In New York
City judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court administrators confront hundreds of
misdemeanants daily, many of whom have appeared before the court multiple times for similar
offenses.  Lacking available jail space or suitable alternative punishments, the court has difficulty
demonstrating that crime has consequences.  This is especially true for crimes like prostitution,
shoplifting, low-level drug possession and sales, illegal peddling, and theft of services.  In many
urban courts, sentences of time served, bench warrants for non-appearance, and bail forfeitures
constitute the normative response to minor offenses.  Such dispositions rarely impress either the
community, the victim, or the defendant that crimes are taken seriously and that the defendant
is accountable for his behavior.


Goals and Objectives

In October 1993, the Midtown Community Court (MCC) opened to process low-level offenses
arising in the Times Square area of Manhattan.  A three-year demonstration project, coordinated
and developed by planning staff at the Fund for the City of New York, in collaboration with the
State Office of Court Administration and the City of New York, the court arraigns misdemeanor
cases that arise in Times Square and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.  The Court was
designed with the following goals:

         establish constructive and restorative responses to quality of life crimes including
          intermediate sanctions like community service sentences and drug treatment; 

         engage defendants in treatment, education, and health services at the moment of arrest;

         enlist community members and local service providers to help solve problems; and

         make justice quicker and more visible in the same neighborhood where offenses occur.

The MCC attempts to provide judges with a broad array of intermediate options, providing
constructive responses to a high volume of quality-of-life offenses.  Intermediate sanctions
provide alternatives to a "walk" for some defendants and alternatives to incarceration for others. 
Since opening, the MCC has implemented key objectives including:

         designing sentences that stress immediacy and certainty, to enforce the message that
          crime has consequences and to engage defendants immediately in education, treatment,
          and prevention;

         working with local residents, businesses, social service organizations, and law
          enforcement to forge creative, cooperative solutions to quality-of-life problems and
          provide services directly at the court;

         augmenting the city's community policing program by providing an array of problem-
          solving tools such as community work projects and services for addicts, prostitutes, and
          the homeless;

         making justice accessible and visible to the community by assigning offenders to
          visible work projects carried out in the Midtown area; and

         bringing together social service agencies and criminal justice personnel under one roof
          to provide health, education, welfare services, and to craft solutions.


Program Components

The operations of Midtown Community Court are unique among New York City courts in several
respects.  Defendants are assessed before arraignment to determine whether they have a substance
abuse problem, a place to sleep, or a history of mental illness.  A Resource Coordinator, working
in the courtroom, helps the court match defendants with drug treatment, community service, and
other sanctions.  Court hearings, social services, and community service punishments take place
under one roof.  Punishment begins immediately, increasing the likelihood that defendants will
comply with alternative sanctions.  Computer technology increases accountability and improves
communication among the police, court, social service providers, and the community. 
Community members and community-based organizations are actively engaged with the court,
providing community service supervision, on-site social service, and general feedback and
guidance through the Court's Community Advisory Board.

Arrest warrants are issued for offenders who fail to comply with their sentences.  Because the
police officers are so closely linked to the court, offenders are re-arrested quickly.  Offenders are
seen by the same judge who sentenced them the first time.  The judge will either increase the
length of the sentence, order more urinalysis screenings, more treatment sessions, or other
appropriate sanctions.






Results and Impact

Performance Measures

Since June 1993, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has been serving as the
independent evaluator of the Midtown Community Court.  NCSC researchers are comparing the
use of intermediate sanctions, compliance rates, and defendant arrest rates at the Community
Court with those at Manhattan's centralized court.  Focus groups and interviews with community
leaders and residents will help researchers determine whether the Midtown Community Court is
changing community attitudes toward the criminal justice system.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The Manhattan District Attorney and the Legal Aid Society both objected to the creation of the
court.  Due to New York City's scarce resources, the objections to the court are over funding. 
Opponents of the court feel that the money could be better used in courts that deal with more
serious offenses.  The Legal Aid Society is disturbed over the inconvenience of sending lawyers
and investigators who are based in lower Manhattan to the Midtown Court.  While these agencies
denounce the program publicly, they do cooperate with the court.

Successes and Accomplishments

In its first year of operations, the Community Court established itself as a vital player in the
Midtown community.  Nearly 70% of sentenced offenders at the Midtown Community Court are
ordered to work in the neighborhoods where they committed their offenses, more than twice the
rate found in the centralized Manhattan Court.  In the first year, defendants from the court
provided almost $170,000 in labor to the community.  The defendants have had a palpable effect
on the streetscape and the community:  over 530 tree pits were cleared and maintained, graffiti
was removed from nearly 140 walls, and over 740,000 pieces of mail were sorted, stuffed, and
labeled free of charge for local non-profit organizations.  While the Midtown Community Court
is not the nation's first court to require that defendants perform community service, its insistence
upon their performing that work in the community where the crimes occurred is unique.

The Midtown Community Court is the first criminal court in the country to co-locate and co-
deliver case processing, social services, health care, education, and drug treatment within the
court building itself.  Substance abuse, unemployment, and homelessness, which are widespread
among the defendant population, can contribute to continuing criminal involvement.  The
Community Court has forged new coalitions, bringing a wide variety of service providers together
under one roof.  The City's Department of Health, Board of Education, welfare agency, substance
abuse treatment providers, homeless outreach workers, and youth service providers help respond
to the defendants' underlying problems.



The Court has established a set of graduated social service sanctions ranging from single-session
engagement groups such as health education groups for both prostitutes and "johns," job readiness
training sessions, and a counseling group for youth to long-term mandatory substance abuse
treatment as an alternative to jail.  One unexpected result of the Court's under-one-roof service
delivery approach is that many defendants, sentenced only to brief interventions, return to the
Court after completing their sentence.  In the court's first year, roughly 16% of defendants
sentenced to intermediate sanctions take advantage of court-based services.

The preliminary evidence of the Court's effects on case outcomes is encouraging.  In nearly 80%
of the cases disposed at the Court, defendants are sentenced to perform community service,
participate in social service programs, or both.  Community service sentences for convicted
misdemeanants are handed out far more frequently at the Midtown Court (62%) than at the
centralized Manhattan court (26%).  Judges not only have constructive options, but when they
impose sanctions they do so with confidence that they will be carried out.  Preliminary evidence
suggests that community service compliance rates are substantially higher in Midtown (75%) than
at the downtown court (50%).

While it is too soon to assess whether the Court has had an overall impact on street conditions,
there is growing evidence of a reduction in street-level prostitution and the concentration of
illegal vending on Midtown streets.  During the Court's first nine months, prostitution arrests in
Midtown fell by 31%, while increasing by 5% in the rest of Manhattan.  After 15 months of
operations, arrests for illegal vending dropped 26%.  The drop in prostitution and illegal vending
arrests in midtown came at a time of increased quality-of-life enforcement citywide.  Research
interviews with community leaders, residents, police officers, prostitutes, and street-vendors
bolster the finding that the incidence of visible quality-of-life offenses in Midtown has decreased
dramatically.

Preliminary analysis also points to a transformation in community attitudes.  Based on interviews
with community leaders, residents, local police, and representatives of business groups, the
National Center for State Courts reports that community attitudes have shifted from uncertainty
about whether the MCC would work, to a recognition that the MCC experiment had important
"implications for the NYC Criminal Court system as a whole."

Over the past year, the Court's physical presence in the community, adjacent to the Midtown
North precinct house, has fostered closer communication between the police and court
administrators.  For the first time, individual patrol officers are receiving information about case
outcomes of their arrests, and officers' attitudes toward the Community Court have shifted from
skepticism to growing support.

Prospects for Replication

Planning for New York City's second Community Court, to be located in Brooklyn's Red Hook
neighborhood, where 70% of residents live in public housing, is currently underway.  Replication
of the Community Court model, or aspects of that model, are likely in other jurisdictions as well. 
In the past year, representatives from Philadelphia, Baltimore, and California have visited the
Community Court to observe operations and identify procedures for possible replication. 

Developing a Community Court requires assembling a broad coalition of support from
community leaders, residents, social service providers, criminal justice officials, foundation and
corporate supporters, and local politicians.  Although community groups often band together to
oppose community-based criminal justice initiatives, strong neighborhood support helped the
Midtown Court find its home, overcome early opposition to court decentralization, and complete
the complicated project in less than two years.  Although specific issues may vary in other
jurisdictions, the obstacles inherent in the process of assembling a coalition of divergent
constituencies, each with a unique agenda or special area of interest, are likely to be encountered
in other urban settings.


Contact Information

John Feinblatt
Coordinator
Midtown Community Court
314 West 54th Street
New York, NY  10019
(212) 484-2727
(212) 586-1144 faxNorth Carolina


The North Carolina Intensive Services Program


Statement of the Problem

The passing of House Bill 1069 in the 1985 session of North Carolina's General Assembly meant
the initiation of an intensive probation pilot project in three counties "to provide in-depth
probation assistance and counseling for juveniles adjudicated delinquent prior to their being sent
to training school."  The bill required that the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) select counties that had a "high number of juveniles adjudicated delinquent over the past
three years" as sites for the project.

Providing more effective services to youth is a perennial goal in the field of juvenile justice, with
the hope of reducing either the extent to which juveniles become involved in the system or
recidivism.  The initial task related to intensive services that was assigned to the Juvenile
Services Division was to keep youth at highest risk for commitment to training school out of
training school; and, later, to prevent additional unlawful acts by status offenders.  Both tasks
were to be addressed by undefined, undeveloped intensive services programs.  These tasks
presented a formidable challenge to serving notoriously difficult populations.


Goals and Objectives

The goals of this program are (1) to prevent further unlawful behavior; (2) to identify the
juvenile's needs; (3) to mobilize community resources to address the needs; and (4) to interact
frequently and purposefully with the juvenile and family.


Program Components

The Intensive Services Program has evolved from two earlier efforts.  There have been three
major stages in the development of the current Intensive Services Program:  Stage One -
Intensive Probation (IP), Intensive Supervision, and Intensive Services.

The first stage, Intensive Probation, provided assistance and counseling to youth adjudicated
delinquent who were most likely to be committed to a training school (juvenile correctional
institution).  However, the initial premise of this program turned out to be false.  Program
developers felt that by focusing on the most extreme at-risk juveniles, they could keep them from
ending up at the training schools.  In fact, the opposite occurred.  As they focused on more of
these high-risk juveniles, more of them actually entered training schools.

In the second stage, Intensive Supervision, the problems that were found with the initial program
were addressed, and the program was altered and adapted successfully.  For this reason, the
current Intensive Services Program (Stage Three) emphasizes the approach developed in Stage
Two.  The Intensive Supervision is the stage which demonstrated positive results through an
experimental design with random assignment to experimental and control groups.  The current
Intensive Services Program is available at all points in the juvenile justice system following
adjudication, from probation through aftercare.

The concept of "Step-down" means a gradual transition to less intensive services, and "Step-up"
incorporates the higher level of services inherent in the move from regular probation to Intensive
Services.  Treatment plans are determined by client behavior and needs rather than pre-set
programs built around specific services.  Interdisciplinary teams staff all cases.  Family
involvement is required, and counselors advise parents on how to set limits on their children's
behavior.

Counselor caseloads are limited in size to ten cases per counselor, less than one-third the average
caseload of a regular court counselor.  There is an increased frequency of contacts with the
juvenile and his/her family by the counselors compared with regular probation, including
evenings and weekends.  Program staff interact frequently with schools and other service
providers to provide close supervision and work with families, school officials, and employers
of juveniles in the course of treatment.  The intensive work with the juvenile decreases the
counselor's period of involvement.  More frequent supervisory case reviews are provided in the
Intensive Services Program than in regular probation.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

The Intensive Services Program, in its first two phases, underwent extensive evaluations.  The
original evaluation was conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill Institute of Government, who sought to determine two things as measures of the success of
the program:  (1) would intensive probationers have been committed to training school if IP had
not existed; and (2) how great was the recidivism of juveniles on IP?  The unanticipated early
results of the second question were that high-risk juveniles tended not to be helped by the
program but to enter training schools anyway.  The evaluators for Intensive Probation concluded
that the practice of selecting the most intractable cases for that intervention probably explained
the early results.  They recommended that the client selection process be changed to address
juveniles likely to be committed to training school, but not those who would almost certainly be
committed.  This adjustment was made following the evaluation report.




Implementation Problems and Successes

A number of implementation problems were discovered.  Veteran workers resisted moving into
Intensive Supervision positions when they became available, resulting in inexperienced counselors
assigned to the program and requiring additional training, supervision, and support efforts. 
Interdisciplinary teams were slow in developing in some districts and reluctant to use contract
funds, even after the process was streamlined to make them easily accessible.  Objections were
raised to the random assignment procedures, as some juveniles who needed the program were not
assigned to it.  The procedures for monitoring control groups placed an extra burden on regular
counselors who were assigned juveniles from the control population.  Special attention was
required from managers in differentiating this program from already-existing Intensive Probation
programs.  The development of selection criteria was time consuming after the Experimental
Phase ended, and random assignment was no longer the selection method used.  Procedures for
accessing contractual services funds were initially too complex, which discouraged their use, so
few contractual funds were sought.

The program also had many implementation successes.  The integrity of the random assignment
process was retained despite counselor and manager frustrations with it.  Positive influences were
provided for regular probation and supervision services in the eight district sites.  A protocol was
developed which represents the best effort in providing supervision, thereby serving as a model
for other counselors in the districts.  Other community agencies were involved on the
interdisciplinary team, which often resulted in services being provided which otherwise would
probably not have been funded.  In other words, other organizations accepted the process which
translated into additional services provided without extra cost to the program.  Teamwork was
increased in the districts.  A planner-implementer partnership developed in assessing and
adjusting the program between senior division and district staff, counselors, and supervisors who
all participated in retreats to evaluate and improve the program.

Successes and Accomplishments

The ongoing systematic evaluation of Stage Two of the program indicated that for undisciplined
youths with no prior history of court referrals for delinquent acts, the Intensive Supervision
Program provided a reduction of 15 to 20% in the rate of progression to delinquent offenses
during the supervision period and a cumulative (supervision period plus up to one year after
supervision) reduction of 25 to 30%, relative to corresponding rates observed for youths in
regular protective supervision.  Experimental results also indicate that:  early intervention
facilitates the reduction of subsequent delinquent behavior; the reduction occurs primarily in
referrals for non-felony delinquent offenses; there also are intensive supervision effects on
reducing the runaway and truancy offense recidivism rates; and intensive supervision has a longer
lasting effect than regular supervision.

Other accomplishments include:  morale boosters for counselors who saw positive outcomes for
a population exceptionally difficult to serve; broader thinking as to service options; reinforcement
of the philosophy of intervening for as short a time possible with the least invasive procedure;
a growing commitment to the program by participating counselors and managers who believe that
this is the best program currently available to provide services to juveniles and their families; and
learning how to prepare managers and staff for implementing the program as well as how to
provide ongoing supportive supervision for those employing it.

The program has had a positive impact on other counselors.  It is a mini-demonstration project
within the district, embodying the client-centered approach rather than program-determined or
counselor-determined plans.  The perception of regular probation counselors concerning the
referral of clients to Intensive Services has changed over time from a sense of professional failure
at having to turn the juvenile over to another counselor to a sense of making a legitimate referral
to another valuable resource.

Prospects for Replication

When the intensive probation project began nine years ago, expectations were high.  The
program's development led to modifications of the goals, and experience taught several lessons
as to what Intensive Services is and is not.

Intensive Services is not:

         a substitute for any institution traditionally associated with the socialization of children,
          especially the family;

         a replacement for skilled therapeutic intervention;

         offense-specific; the juvenile's needs and behavior carry more weight in the selection
          process than does the offense;

         properly used as a suspended commitment to training school;

         a substitute for needed out-of-home placements, group homes and residential treatment
          centers;

         a stand-alone option, but rather one option among an array of possibilities;

         for juveniles who are geographically distant from the court counselor; and

         a substitute for regular probation services, because some juveniles do not need the
          intensive approach and can thrive under standard probation services.

Other lessons learned or affirmed are:

         independent evaluations, when done properly, are extremely valuable for effective
          program modification;

         the interdisciplinary team is a key component as it recognizes all participants as having
          legitimate input and encourages teamwork by appreciating the contributions of all;

         lower caseloads provide opportunity for frequent and timely intervention;

         early evaluation by a qualified professional is essential to meet the treatment goals of
          the juvenile;

         the importance of sensitizing court counselors as to how to recognize juveniles who
          probably need intensive services; and

         the significance of early intervention in general.


Contact Information

Thomas A. Danek, Ph.D.
Administrator of Juvenile Services
North Carolina Administrative Office
  of the Courts
P.O. Box 2448
Raleigh, NC  27602
(919) 662-4300
(919) 662-4310 faxNorth Dakota

                                                
Stutsman County Victim/Witness Assistance Program


Statement of the Problem

"Everybody has been so nice to me and everybody is really trying to help me, but I am really
nobody's job."  This comment was made by a crime victim in North Dakota.  Unfortunately,
victims of crime often feel as though they slip through the cracks of the criminal justice system. 
It was evident that more needed to be done in North Dakota to assist victims/witnesses of crime. 
In 1986, the North Dakota Commission on Victims and Witnesses of Crime was established
through the combined efforts of the offices of the Governor, Attorney General, and Supreme
Court.  Recognizing that victims and witnesses are an intrinsic part of the criminal justice system,
the Commission's work concluded when the 1987 session of the North Dakota Legislature passed
twenty-one bills that pertain to the rights of victims and witnesses of crime.  The principal
statute, "Fair Treatment Standards for Victims and Witnesses of Crime," and the accompanying
law "Child Victim and Witness Fair Treatment Standards," focused on the rights of these
individuals and placed certain responsibilities on each agency of the criminal justice system.  

In 1988, Stutsman County received a substantial private donation from a local woman whose
daughter and granddaughter were brutally murdered in Washington State.  After receiving help
from a victim assistance unit there, her wish was to make sure local crime victims were also
cared for.  With approval from the County Commission, a Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) grant
proposal was submitted for the remaining funding, and a specialized program within the State's
Attorney's Office was implemented in December, 1988 with the hiring of an advocate.  In 1989
the  Stutsman County Victim/Witness Assistance Program received a BJA grant which has since
completed its funding cycle.  However, BJA has lifted the four-year limitation on Victim/Witness
programs and it is expected that the program will reapply for BJA funding next fiscal year.  


Goals and Objectives

The goal of the Stutsman County Victim/Witness Assistance Program is to improve the treatment
of victims and witnesses of crime.  This is accomplished by:  (1) providing victims/witnesses
with the assistance and services necessary to speed their recovery from the criminal act; (2) and
supporting and aiding them as they move through the criminal justice process.

Specific program objectives include:

         insure victims'/witnesses' continued involvement throughout the criminal justice
          process;

         help law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts in identifying and responding to the
          needs and concerns of the victims and witnesses of crime;

         increase the commitment of State and local governments to do all that is possible to
          help victims and witnesses of crime;

         increase the range and availability of services for victims and witnesses of crime;

         expand the victims' and witnesses' opportunity to participate at all critical stages of the
          criminal justice process, and to ensure consideration of the impact of the crime upon
          the victim in all major criminal justice decisions;

         increase coordination and networking of all appropriate agencies, organizations and
          groups providing services to victims/witnesses of crime in order to develop an
          integrated community support system.  


Program Components

The Stutsman County Victim/Witness Assistance Program is staffed with one advocate and is a
prosecutor-based program.  The program is housed in the State's Attorney Office, located in the
County Courthouse in the City of Jamestown.  Two prosecutors are on staff, and two district
judges are chambered there.  Attached to the courthouse is the new combined Law Enforcement
Center.  Located within the Law Enforcement Center is the eight-member Sheriffs' Department,
twenty-eight member Police Department, a district office of the State Highway Patrol, and two
agents of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations.  The advocate is considered a part of the
criminal justice system, and the physical location of the program allows accessibility and
collaboration with all personnel who may become involved the case.  The current advocate is a
licensed peace officer and former city patrol officer who receives excellent cooperation from
these agencies.  This greatly enhances the program, allowing it to help these agencies in their
response to victims/witnesses of crime.  

Referrals are received from law enforcement, the courts and/or State's attorney, hospitals,
schools, and various community agencies.  Approximately 40% of these referrals are victims of
domestic violence.  The advocate engages in a variety of activities pursuant to the North Dakota
Fair Treatment Standards statute, expanding the victim's opportunity to participate at all critical
stages of the criminal justice process and ensuring consideration of the impact of the crime upon
the victim in all major criminal justice decisions.  This may include:  helping to secure interviews
of those required to testify at trial; maintaining contact with the victims/witnesses; offering
emotional support and referrals to other agencies/organizations; notification of case status;
familiarizing witnesses with the courtroom and courtroom procedures; and generating information
and understanding of the criminal justice system and procedures as a whole.  In effect, the
advocate acts as the eyes, ears, and voice of the victim at each critical stage of the criminal
justice process.  This includes securing victim impact statements to present at sentencing and
speaking to the judge in court proceedings to express the wishes of the victims.  Court related
services include:  acting as the support person and sitting on the witness stand with child
witnesses; arranging child care and transportation; and affording secure waiting areas for the
victims/witnesses and their families.  Assistance is also provided to those seeking disorderly
conduct restraining orders and child protection orders from the District Court, in debriefing jurors
after a particularly stressful case, and in preparing child witnesses for court. 


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

The expected results are to see greater cooperation by victims and witnesses and insure their
continued involvement throughout the process.  The program attempts to generate a greater
understanding and feeling of satisfaction about the criminal justice process in order to assist the
victims/witnesses recovery from the criminal act.  This is accomplished by helping the system
respond more favorably to the victims rather than inadvertently re-victimize them.

The stated outcomes/performance indicators are:  number of victims served; number of hours of
direct services provided; types of outreach services provided; cooperation received from other
agencies; and requests for presentations/training on victim services;

Implementation Problems and Successes

The biggest hurdle in implementing the program was having the agencies of the criminal justice
system understand what services the program could offer to them and to the victims/witnesses
with whom they come into contact.  There was some initial confusion about the advocate being
an investigator of the State's attorney and therefore able to interview the potential witnesses. 
Conducting in-service training sessions about the role of the advocate cleared up this confusion. 
Judges needed to be educated that the position was not meant to supervise them and could help
them in their responsibilities to victims/witnesses of crime.  Having an advocate who was a
veteran police officer and known to all parties involved did much to establish the cooperation
necessary to make the Victim/Witness Program a success.  Having the program as an extension
of the State's Attorney's Office also increased the credibility of the program.  As the program
developed, the agencies became more dependent on the program to assist them in their response
to victims/witnesses.  Referrals are received from all agencies, including some defense attorneys. 
Requests for presentations continue, and training is provided to law enforcement locally and at
the North Dakota Law Enforcement Training Center.  
          
Funding continues to remain an unstable issue.  The budget reflects only salary and travel
expenses for the advocate.  The State's Attorney's Office handles other office-related expenses. 
Grants are continually sought, and the offender fee assessments are an important funding
mechanism.  However, without the cooperation and financial support of local governments, the
program would probably not succeed.

Successes and Accomplishments 

Judges have been excellent at assessing fees on convictions to help fund the program.  Judges
began to see the program as directly related to the court system.  The disorderly conduct
restraining papers, which are prepared by the Advocate, have been a successful component
because they have allowed the advocate to represent the victim's wishes concerning their
preferred method of conflict resolution.  Jury debriefings have had a slow start, but a grant will
be written this year by the North Dakota Victim Assistance Association to begin a statewide plan
and develop procedures on helping jurors in high profile and stressful cases.  Judges have been
requesting more Victim Impact Statements before accepting plea agreements and prior to
sentencing.  The Advocate is also taking a more important role at bond hearings, speaking to the
judge on behalf of the victims.

Law enforcement and the prosecutors believe the program assists them with their workload.  A
better understanding of the criminal justice process and more satisfaction with that system is seen
by the victims/witnesses.  Greater cooperation is achieved and, therefore, better cases are being
tried in the courts.

Approximately 150 victims/witnesses are served per year by the Victim/Witness Assistance
Program.  Many more inquires are received from persons currently not involved in a criminal
matter but looking for referrals and/or advice.

Prospects for Replication

No area is too large or too small for this program.  However, smaller communities make
interagency cooperation easier to achieve.  This program would be easy to implement in any
agency of the criminal justice system.  Office space, a telephone, and some office furniture are
all that is necessary to begin.  As long as the agencies are ready to cooperate and the advocate
has a good working knowledge of these agencies' policies and procedures, the program should
be a success.  


Contact Information

Joan Halvorson
Victim/Witness Advocate
Stutsman County Victim/Witness
  Assistance Program
Stutsman County Courthouse
511 Second Avenue, SE
Jamestown, ND  58401
(701) 252-6688
(701) 252-7087 faxOklahoma


Alternative Training, Treatment, and Correction
  (A.T.T.A.C.) and Drug Court Program


Statement of the Problem

In 1994, Payne County ranked first in Oklahoma for case filings per judge.  A substantial
increase in substance abuse-related offenses has pointed to a lack of treatment programs and
offender accountability.  There were 110 felony DUIs disposed of through Payne County courts
in 1994.  The total filing rates for Payne County increased from 501 in 1992 to 672 in 1993. 
In 1994, 399 offenders qualified for alternative sanctions and accountability programs.

Payne and Logan County jails are overcrowded, and many violators wait 30 to 90 days before
going to court.  Logan County currently has severely limited resources to address its crime
problem.  Fortunately, Payne County has programs to address issues related to domestic violence,
substance abuse, and misdemeanor crimes during such waiting periods.  However, there is a
program gap for felony offenders.

Currently, Oklahoma is first in the nation per capita for the incarceration of men and women. 
As of February 1995, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections penal system had a total of
45,558 offenders under its supervision.  The offender population has exceeded 97.5% of
maximum capacity at least three times in the past two years.  This has required the premature
release of several hundred inmates.  Without alternatives to incarceration programs, the State
prison system will continue to grow uncontrollably.  This will require it to take drastic measures
and release inmates at an accelerated rate, jeopardizing the safety of Oklahoma's citizens and
communities.


Goals and Objectives

The program's goal is to reduce population overcrowding in jails, provide treatment to offenders,
and decrease crime.  An objective of the program is to reduce population overcrowding in jails
as well as reduce rearrest and recidivism rates in Payne and Logan Counties through incentive-
based treatment opportunities.  Another objective of the program is to address offenders'
psychological, social, vocational, and educational needs through screening evaluations,
recommendations, and referrals, giving special attention to histories of chronic substance abuse
and social dysfunction.



Facilitating increases in social skills, moral reasoning, identity growth, and life purpose and
decreasing sensation-seeking behaviors though the use of Moral Reconation Therapy is also an
objective of the program.  Other objectives are to decrease participants' involvement with drugs
and reduce criminal activity.  Increasing child support collections in Payne and Logan Counties
is also an objective of the Alternative Training, Treatment, and Correction Program.  The final
objective of the program is to decrease the crime rate and repeat offenses on the campus of
Oklahoma State University (OSU).


Program Components

The Alternative Training, Treatment, and Correction (A.T.T.A.C.) Program and its components,
P.R.I.D.E., the Intermediate Sanctions Program, and the Drug Court Program all focus on
cognitive-behavioral substance abuse counseling, training, and job-readiness for felony offenders
deemed appropriate for probation by the District Attorney and the District Judges.  Offenders pay
for these services on a sliding scale.  Federal grant funds make up any cost disparities.

The A.T.T.A.C. Program is an intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment and alternative
sentencing program in Payne and Logan Counties.  It provides an innovative alternative for repeat
nonviolent felony offenders with alcohol and/or drug abuse histories and is designed to fill the
sentencing gap between probation and incarceration.  A.T.T.A.C. was designed in September
1993 to meet the rehabilitative and accountability needs of approximately 150 of the district's
500 felony cases per year which involve substance abuse.  A.T.T.A.C. provides assessed
offenders with group drug and alcohol counseling using Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT).

MRT is a systematic, step-by-step treatment system for resistant clients.  The system is designed
to alter how inmates think and make judgments and decisions about right and wrong responses
to situations.  MRT is designed to enhance ego, social, moral, and positive behavioral growth in
a progressive, step-by-step fashion.  MRT is provided by the Freedom House located in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

Since its onset, A.T.T.A.C. has developed three components to address the community's needs. 
The Parental Responsibility Involving Debt Enforcement (P.R.I.D.E.) Program was developed to
sanction absent parents who are in contempt of court due to their failure to pay child support. 
This nine-week counseling program uses cognitive-behavioral introspection and group discussions
addressing the issue of child support.

The second component developed by A.T.T.A.C. to address community needs is the Intermediate
Sanctions Program.  This is a prevention and education program designed to intervene at the
misdemeanor level in response to DUI offenses and fatalities.

The third component is the Drug Court Counseling Program.  The A.T.T.A.C. Drug Court
Program meets the following offender treatment needs:  1) it immediately engages participants,
after being ordered by Drug Court Judges, in intensive treatment; 2) it provides high
accountability for participants through frequent supervision contacts, drug testing, and reports to
the judge; 3) it provides intensive, long-term treatment and aftercare, which includes drug
treatment, specialized issues counseling, job readiness, and home-based case management; and
4) it provides A.T.T.A.C. staff who ensure consistency in decision-making and program
implementation.  An Associate District Judge is assigned special cases deemed appropriate for
the Drug Court.  The Drug Court is heard one night per week, giving the judge a more hands-on
approach to accountability and rehabilitation of the offender.  The Drug Court has three phases
and is a 15-month program.  Successful completion of the phases results in a dismissal of
charges.  When offenders begin losing ground in treatment, prosecutors pull them from the
program and charge them on a case-by-case basis.

Phase I:  Stabilization and Adjustment  The purpose of the Stabilization and Adjustment Phase
is to educate the client about the problems associated with drug use and how drug use affects
interpersonal behaviors and family relationships.  During this phase clients become acquainted
with the types of dysfunctional behaviors, especially denial, associated with drug use.  In the
beginning of the program, clients undergo one-on-one therapy.  As they progress, the treatment
focus shifts to a group setting.

Phase II:  Recovery and Issues Resolution  Phase II focuses on ways the client can begin to
deal with restructuring his or her life.  The Recovery and Issues Resolution Phase offers the
client a method of systematically outlining a pathway towards reaching the goals of stability and
improved lifestyle.

Phase III:  Transitional Services  This phase of treatment links the client to more community
resources to maintain sobriety; focus on relapse prevention issues; begin Home-Based Case
Management; and move toward termination of services from A.T.T.A.C. staff.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

The impact of the program on jail overcrowding will be reviewed and documented based on
reincarceration rates of participants versus nonparticipants.  The impact of these activities is a
projected savings of $15,000 per offender per year to the State of Oklahoma by finding
appropriate alternatives to State incarceration.  These activities will also save police time, District
Attorney and District Court staff resources, and reduce personal and property damage within the
targeted counties.

Client evaluations will be done to assure that appropriate services are provided and that
appropriate referrals are made.  A.T.T.A.C. is establishing a baseline of progress by looking
backwards at the inmate's social history and criminogenic factors.  In addition, each client will
complete a battery of pre-tests upon intake.  Post-test data on all discharged clients will be
collected and analyzed for behavioral level increases.

A.T.T.A.C. will utilize monthly random urine screens on all participants.  This data will be
documented and sent to the Probation Officer on a monthly basis.  Child support collections will
be tracked prior to and after the implementation of the P.R.I.D.E. Program.  The student
offenders referred to the Intermediate Sanctions Program will be tracked for rearrest rates after
successful completion.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The alternative sentencing movement has been a tough idea to sell in Oklahoma.  A.T.T.A.C. has
shown how alternative sentencing is more effective, faster, has a better recidivism rate, and opens
up more secure beds than traditional incarceration.  A.T.T.A.C. has produced a sense of higher
offender accountability in the community.  Since its onset in Stillwater, the A.T.T.A.C. program
has opened two other offices in the State, and judges and District Attorneys statewide have
shown interest.

The A.T.T.A.C. Program was also difficult to sell to offenders.  In some ways, A.T.T.A.C. is
more severe than probation because it involves dealing with personal problems.  Offenders must
be compelled to participate in the program.  Prosecutors can help with this problem by being
more aggressive in charging offenders and not offering deals so that the program is more
attractive.

Successes and Accomplishments

The A.T.T.A.C. Program's treatment modality, MRT, has shown a 33 to 50% reduction in
recidivism and rearrest rates.  In eighteen months of operation, 150 drug-related offenders
participated in intervention, accountability, and counseling through the A.T.T.A.C. programs.  Of
the 150, 122 have shown significant improvement in the reduction of addictive behaviors and
improved social behavior.  The preliminary evaluation of the first sixteen program graduates
show that three women and thirteen men completed twelve steps of the MRT Program.  Based
on data compiled from pre- and post-testing, there was a 21% increase in life purpose, a 24%
decrease in thrill seeking, and a 28% increase in self-esteem.  None of the sixteen graduates have
been rearrested for any offense.

As previously mentioned, Payne County increased from 501 total case filings in 1992 to 672 in
1993.  Since the onset of the A.T.T.A.C. Program in 1993, the total court filings of criminal
offenses decreased in 1994 to 629.  This statistical decrease is evidence of offender rehabilitation
and accountability.

A.T.T.A.C. provides a missing service to a multitude of agencies.  Within the Payne County Jail,
trained counselors conduct group therapy.  The Department of Corrections Probation and Parole
Office receives services which include clinical assessments and drug screens.  Defense attorneys
receive assessments and recommendations concerning their clients.  The Oklahoma Department
of Corrections Academy for Development and Training received assistance in writing a script for
a video on alternative sentencing.  The OSU Discipline Committee has received assessments and
reports concerning the outcome of student offenders on campus.  The A.T.T.A.C. staff has
provided public service to the Association of University Chiefs of Police, Greek and Residential
Life Groups at OSU, and multiple civic groups through public speaking and substance abuse
education training.  A.T.T.A.C. Program staff is involved nationally in developing new and
innovative sentencing policy and procedure for Oklahoma.  Through building awareness in Payne
and Logan Counties, A.T.T.A.C. targets not only its clients, but also the general public.
 
In April 1994, the A.T.T.A.C. Program, along with the Intermediate Sanctions Program, received
the Best Prevention Program of the Year award by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Prospects for Replication

A.T.T.A.C. has tripled in size and increased its ability to serve the community in its first two
years.  Currently, A.T.T.A.C. is opening its fourth office in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  A.T.T.A.C. can
be easily replicated in any community and can be modified to meet the individual needs of any
criminal justice system.  The success of this service depends on the support of the judicial branch
and the District Attorney's Office.  It also relies on public acceptance of the alternative
sentencing approach.


Contact Information

Paul Anderson
District Attorney
Payne County Courthouse
606 South Husband
Stillwater, OK  74074 
(405) 372-4883
(405) 372-4590 faxOregon


Malheur County Multi-Disciplinary Team


Statement of the Problem

Traditional law enforcement and prosecution approaches to child abuse allegations often result
in further trauma to victims and their families and ultimately result in unsuccessful prosecutions.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the program are resolution and healing for victims and protection of victims and the
community.  The objectives to meets these goals are:

         legally sound investigations;
         victim and family cooperation with prosecution;
         preservation of the family unit by maintaining the child victim in the home;
         offender accountability and acceptance of responsibility for criminal conduct;
         victim-sensitive investigation and law enforcement protocols;
         guilty pleas without trial;
         evaluation prior to sentencing for offenders;
         offender responsibility for restitution to the victim(s) and the community;
         community-based treatment which is reparative to the victim and ensures community
          safety; and
         reduction of recidivism.

Program Components

Malheur County has a Multidisciplinary Team which includes representatives from law
enforcement, the juvenile department, prosecution, parole and probation, the Children's Services
Division, Adult and Family Services, Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, the
local ministerial association, public health, mental health, an offender treatment provider, and
public schools.  The protocol includes investigation, prosecution, sentencing and probation
policies and procedures, child fatality review, and sensitive case review.  The Team meets weekly
for two hours.

In the investigation protocol, investigators are required to attend special training in legally sound
interview techniques and adopt the "Sixteen Steps" interview protocol.  Investigators are directed
to use particular procedures to ensure the comfort of the child.  Investigators work as a team and
balance forensic needs with child safety and protection factors.  Investigators are familiar with
the treatment program and introduce the program to the victim's family and the offender in the
initial interviews.  Referrals are made to appropriate resources in the community, and a safety
plan is developed.  Offenders are required to leave the home or are arrested, if possible.

In the prosecution phase, several policies are in place to address the needs of victims. 
Defendants who are released prior to trial are restricted from any contact with their victims or
other children.  Offenders are not allowed to return to the home.  Diversions, no contest pleas,
and Alford pleas, pleas without admission of guilt based on acknowledgment by the defendant
that the State's evidence is sufficient to convict, are not allowed.  Defendants must enter a plea
of guilty or admit to responsibility in a juvenile court to be considered for community
programming.  Offenders are not considered for community treatment after conviction at trial. 
Offenders must give a sound factual basis for their plea at the time of the plea.  Plea bargains
only bind the State to recommend probation if the offender is accepted for treatment in the court-
approved offender program.  Offenders must agree to pay all costs of their own and their victim's
treatment and execute the treatment contract.

Persons who are pedophiles or preferential to children are too dangerous to treat in the
community, and no effective treatment is available for them.  Persons with lengthy criminal
histories, serious drug and alcohol abuse problems, mental deficiency (personality and mental
disorders, low I.Q.), and prior sexual offenses are generally not appropriate for community
treatment.  Evaluation for acceptance in the program must include a full battery of psychological
testing.  Offenders who use force, who lack a relationship with their victim, or who are in denial
are not appropriate for community treatment.

The probation program includes intensive monitoring by a sexual offender probation and parole
specialist.  Polygraphs are required, at offender expense, on a quarterly basis.  Offenders must
agree to a strict "no-contact" provision which requires that offenders have no contact whatsoever
with minors.  Offenders must also complete a sexual history and make full and complete
disclosure of all prior sexual victims.  Victims disclosed in the history are contacted, if possible,
and offered treatment.  Most offenders begin probation with incarceration in jail, secure electronic
confinement, and/or house arrest.  Offenders must regularly attend all treatment groups, follow
the contract and treatment plan, obey all conditions of probation, and complete any other
treatment programs required, such as drug and alcohol abuse treatment.  Arousal control is only
offered upon completion of the clarification process.  The offender prepares a clarification and
delivers it to his victim, taking full and complete responsibility for his or her offenses. 
Preparation of a sexual history generally takes three to six months, and clarification 10 to 36
months.  Strict compliance with all conditions is required, including payment of fees and court
imposed financial obligations.  Offenders must continue to provide for their families and abide
by the no-contact provisions.

Offenders and victims are tracked through probation by the Team.  The District Attorney receives
input from the Team regarding release decisions, plea bargaining, sentencing, and probation
revocation.  Team consensus and coordination of services to victims is generally achieved. 
Victims are notified of and consulted with regarding all phases of the prosecution and given the
opportunity for input.
Results and Impact

Performance Measures

In cases handled according to protocol, the expected results are legally sound prosecutions and
cooperation by victims and their families.  Performance measures include an increased number
of disclosures, a decrease in recantations, decreased foster and out-of-home placements, increased
investigations resulting in prosecution, increased guilty pleas, fewer trials, successful completion
of probation by offenders, and a lack of recidivism among offenders.

Implementation Problems and Successes

This program and prosecution philosophy has evolved over time, with continual adjustments and
changes.  The present protocol was revised in 1993 and is undergoing revision now.  This
concept is being expanded to families in crisis due to a variety of factors.  The Juvenile charging
protocol was implemented in early 1993 and is still in the experimental stage.

Prior to 1989, the Team experienced two periods when the District Attorney's Office did not
participate or cooperate with the Team, resulting in almost no prosecutions.  This was probably
due to the failure of the prosecutor to accept the immunity provisions necessary to effect the
disclosure of all prior victims.  This is generally viewed as a radical and foolhardy policy, but
without it the program will not be fully effective for a variety of reasons.  After 1989, the
number of prosecutions increased dramatically, from less than ten a year to over thirty.  In 1990,
over sixty cases were prosecuted.

The program has been affected by lack of jail space, resulting in offenders absconding prior to
trial or during probation.  Most program failures are contact or treatment contract violations.  No
adult offenders have failed due to re-offense, although some failures due to failure to polygraph
or absconding are most probably due to new offenses.  In cases where the needs and concerns
of the victim and family are addressed, offenders are more likely to enter a plea, be successful
in treatment, and achieve clarification.  Victims have suffered less trauma in the legal process
with this approach, and the program has never failed to bring a victim through trial successfully. 
Victims want accountability above all else in most cases, and in many cases the guilty plea is
a giant step towards healing.

With regard to offenders, their therapists cannot address treatment and community safety issues
without knowing the full extent of the offenders' deviancy, arousal patterns, and deviant thought
processes.  Prior to using polygraph tests, offenders in the program disclosed an average of 1.5
victims.  After polygraph tests were required, the average went up to seven to nine victims.

Other implementation problems include uncooperative judges who would either incarcerate all
sexual offenders or put them all in treatment; a lack of competent offender treatment programs;
a lack of evaluations prior to sentencing; and mandatory sentences of incarceration which
foreclose community treatment.  Program staff have worked actively with other jurisdictions to
overcome implementation problems.

Successes and Accomplishments

Since 1989, approximately 200 cases have been prosecuted.  Of the cases prosecuted, about 75%
have resulted in a plea.  Since 1989, less than fifteen cases have been dismissed outright.  Of the
cases going to trial since 1989, only four have resulted in non-guilty verdicts.  Since 1989, no
offenders placed in community treatment have reoffended.  No persons who successfully
completed the present offender treatment program have been prosecuted.  Most offenders who
fail the program do so in the early stages, and all have been incarcerated as a result.  Confessions
are obtained in about 50% of the cases, and in most cases in which the offender can be
interviewed.  The program's protocol was recognized by the Governor's Task Force on the
Sexual Abuse of Children as a model protocol.  Other jurisdictions have implemented all or part
of the protocol and programs, and several are now using the juvenile charging protocol and
reporting data.

Prospects for Replication

This program can easily be replicated.  The requirement of full and complete disclosure is
necessary for both the victim and the offender to receive the best treatment possible.  Inevitably,
the offender will disclose far more than the victim.  Child victims are often unwilling to disclose
any more than necessary to stop the abuse, they may be non-verbal or disassociative, or may lack
the developmental ability to understand what happened to them.  Without full knowledge of what
has happened to the child, the child's therapist is handicapped and spends a great deal of time
trying to determine the extent and nature of the abuse, as well as the method used by the offender
to gain the child's cooperation.  In the case of offenders, their therapists cannot address treatment
and community safety issues without knowing the full extent of the offenders' deviancy, arousal
patterns, and deviant thought processes.

The primary fear of prosecutors is that an offender who has been convicted of a relatively minor
crime will then disclose a much greater crime which they would be unable to prosecute.  Good
screening and evaluation of offenders is necessary.  It is important to remember that for the most
part, these are unreported crimes.  They would not be prosecuted without this disclosure.  Victims
suffer due to lack of disclosure.  Victims want accountability and appropriate punishment.  They
generally do not want to participate in a public trial.  The reasons for this vary, but the
safeguards the program employs satisfy victims.  Offenders have plead guilty, are facing prison
should they fail to comply, and are in a strict program.  They are required to pay for the victim's
treatment, and if they fail probation, further prosecution will result.  In order to break the cycle
of child sexual abuse, intervention and treatment services must be offered to child victims.

In order to implement the program, all participants must share the philosophy and abide by the
protocol.  Judges must support the concept of community treatment and evaluation of offenders,
and must not allow offenders to enter nolo contendere or Alford pleas.  Judges must also support
the concept that offenders who go to trial are not eligible for community treatment.
Contact Information

Patricia Sullivan
District Attorney
Malheur County District Attorney's
  Office
251 B Street West
P.O. Box 6
Vale, OR  97918
(503) 473-5127
(503) 473-5199 faxOregon


Sanctions Treatment Opportunities Progress (STOP) Drug
  Diversion Program


Statement of the Problem

Probation intake data indicates that approximately 100 offenders per month or 33% of all new
cases are convicted of drug felonies.  The number of drug-involved offenders is almost twice that
number.  Drug Utilization Forecasting (DUF) data indicates that 63% of a sample of arrestees
tested positive for controlled substances.  While waiting four to six months after arrest to be
adjudicated and referred to a drug treatment program, the defendant is likely to continue patterns
of drug use and related behaviors.

In January 1990, the Multnomah County Circuit Court, faced with an increasing backlog of drug
cases, instituted a fast track trial docket.  Although this strategy expedited case processing, it did
not address treatment with the goal of reducing recidivism.  Treatment capacity in the community
is limited, and expedited court processing puts even greater pressure on resources.  Early
intervention is desirable but difficult to accomplish.  Defendants are not being referred to
treatment until adjudication of the charges and assignment of a probation officer, four to six
months after arrest.  Even when a defendant is referred to treatment, the average waiting period
to enter outpatient drug treatment is several weeks in Multnomah County.

State budget reductions in the wake of a property tax limitation measure have impacted local
parole and probation operations.  The Department of Corrections strategic plan calls for reducing
the number of offenders supervised in the community by eliminating supervision for low risk
clients.  Multnomah County has been forced to reduce the number of probation and parole officer
positions and prioritize services for the highest risk felons.  Many substance abusers will not be
eligible for supervision and treatment.

Before the Sanctions, Treatment, Opportunities, Progress (STOP) Drug Diversion Program was
implemented, most defendants were not being ordered to drug treatment until four to six months
after the arrest.  Now, defendants who choose STOP enter treatment three days after the arrest.


Goals and Objectives

The purpose of the STOP Program is to reduce the number of drug-related crimes committed in
Multnomah County and their cost to the justice system, by curtailing the demand for drugs.  This
will be accomplished by reducing the demand for drugs through cost effective outpatient
treatment and direct involvement by the court in managing the diversion process.  The program
addresses the standards in the State of Oregon and Portland/Multnomah County regarding drug-
free babies, index crimes rates, and drug use by arrestees/probationers/parolees.

The program has several objectives including to: 

         divert to treatment up to 700 clients per year from the court drug docket and treat an
          average of 300 clients from the previous fiscal year;   

         maintain a 65% graduation rate;

         keep 85% of program graduates felony-free for an additional twelve months, and 90%
          of program graduates felony-free during a one-year period;
       
         save $184,500 in indigent defense costs;

         save $150,000 in police overtime for the City of Portland each year;

         divert 450 defendants from probation sentences which will yield a savings of three
          caseloads;

         produce an evaluation of the effectiveness of a 12-month drug treatment program using
          acupuncture as a method for relieving withdrawal symptoms and drug cravings;

         reduce substance abuse by improving treatment outcomes;

         reduce recidivism by improving program impacts; and

         obtain and disseminate program evaluation information.


Program Components

STOP has been recognized as a national model that joins several government and private
agencies together in an effort to reduce illegal drug activity.  Cooperating agencies include the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, the Multnomah County District Attorney, the Metropolitan
Public Defender, InAct, Inc., and Multnomah County Community Corrections.

STOP's program development has been consistent with five key points supported by the
literature:  (1) there is a strong relationship between drugs and crime; (2) the criminal justice
system can improve treatment outcomes and reduce recidivism by mandating drug treatment and
establishing links with the treatment community; (3) drug abuse is a chronic condition often
marked by relapse; (4) the effectiveness of treatment can be enhanced by client-treatment
matching within a continuum of interventions; and (5) acupuncture can be a valuable adjunct to
drug treatment.

Upon entry into jail, the intake officer marks a defendant's file if he/she is eligible for the
program.  At arraignment, the defendant is advised of his rights and given an opportunity to
apply for STOP.  If the defendant is interested, he/she is released to meet with the Metropolitan
Public Defender on the following day, when an orientation will provide the defendant with an
overview of the program, court requirements, treatment components, legal rights, and waiver of
those rights.  On the third day following arrest, the diversion hearing takes place.  If the
defendant petitions the court for program entry and is approved, the defendant is referred to
treatment that day.  The defendant is charged a program fee of $300 dollars.  All participants are
expected to pay the program fee, but some payments are handled on a case by case basis.

For the remainder of the twelve months of program participation, the defendant appears at least
monthly before the judge at a status hearing.  These hearings are a way to hold clients
accountable for their behavior and encourage their progress in treatment.  In some cases
defendants need more exposure to the judge, and status hearings are increased accordingly.  A
report of each client's progress is prepared by the treatment provider and given to the judge prior
to the hearing.  Clients progress through STOP by achieving satisfactory performance according
to the standards agreed upon when entering the program.  These standards of achievement are
linked to tasks that must be accomplished in order for graduation to occur including: 
achievement of treatment objectives; clean urine analysis; and no new felony convictions.  Clients
who are non-compliant can be sanctioned in court to a brief period of custody, the Community
Corrections Forest Project, residential treatment, detoxification, or set for stipulated fact trial as
a consequence of program failure.

Outpatient treatment is a four-phase, 12-month program using a holistic treatment approach
including:  alcohol, drug and health education lectures, process groups, individual counseling,
internal and external support groups, mentoring, culture and gender-specific group therapy,
acupuncture, urinalysis, life skills classes, stress reduction techniques, pre-employment and
placement assistance, physical examinations, basic skills and/or vocational training, and leisure
skills development.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

The performance measurements follow the State of Oregon standards outlined in the Governor's
Strategy for reducing crimes and violence.
 
Reduce substance abuse by improving treatment outcomes.

The court and InAct, the treatment provider for STOP, will provide the Multnomah County
Department of Corrections with monthly totals of defendants diverted.  The information will be
compiled and provided to the Criminal Justice Services in quarterly reports.  Quarterly reports
will include:  number of active clients in each of the program's four phases; number of clients
on bench warrant status; number of clients in STOP but engaged in treatment in outside agencies;
number of clients employed, in school, training, or other positive activities; number of drug-free
babies born to participants; and number of successful completions and unsuccessful terminations. 

Reduce recidivism by improving program impacts.

The Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections will run a program impacts study
during the year to assess the recidivism rates of program participants.

Obtain and disseminate program evaluation information.
       
As part of the regular Criminal Justice Services reporting process, the Department will provide
information regarding:  number of cases diverted from the regular drug trial docket in Multnomah
County; number of cases completing diversion; cost savings to indigent defense, police overtime,
and probation officer positions; and number of drug-free babies born.  The Department will
produce an impact report in June 1995 documenting:  rearrest and conviction rates for program
graduates and participants who were unsuccessfully terminated from the program; number of days
from program graduation or termination to arrest; cost per client completing STOP; and program
impacts by race and gender.  Program staff will work with Criminal Justice Services and the
State Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs to provide technical assistance and workshops
for other Oregon jurisdictions considering a drug diversion program.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The STOP Program experienced implementation problems which included:  balancing the critical
docketing and case processing versus providing quality treatment; maintaining ongoing
communication between agencies; and maintaining accurate and timely feedback to the courts. 
Some problems were addressed through the development of criminal justice sanctions: accessing
residential beds, the Forest Project, and community service.  Treatment interventions were also
developed to address these problems including:  residential beds, in-house detoxification, and
increasing program attendance.  From program inception in August 1991 through March 1995,
2,000 cases have been diverted, for an average of 45 clients per month over the 44 month period. 
The average daily population is about 350 clients.

Successes and Accomplishments

A total of $108,000 in client fees have been collected.  Since 1991, the justice system has
benefitted from the following avoided costs:  indigent defense:  2,000 cases multiplied by $246
savings/case equals $492,000; Police overtime: 2,000 multiplied by $200 savings/case equals
$400,000; and probation load: 2,000 multiplied 50% success equals 1,000 probation cases
avoided, the equivalent of 3 casebanks ($150,000) or 10 mixed caseloads ($560,000).  Twenty
drug-free babies have been born to program participants.  Through March 1995, 504 or 51% of
enrolled clients graduated successfully.

The Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections recently completed an impact
study of 54 program graduates and 50 unsuccessful terminations, comparing their rates of
recidivism over a 12-month period (calendar year 1993).  The findings indicate a significant
program impact:

         15% of the graduates had at least one arrest, compared to 54% of those who terminated
          unsuccessfully;

         there were a total of 11 graduates arrested, compared to 54 arrests of those who
          terminated unsuccessfully; the average number of arrests per graduate was .20,
          compared to .92 for unsuccessful clients;

         9% of the graduates had at least one conviction, compared to 50% of those who
          terminated unsuccessfully;

         there were a total of eight convictions of graduates, compared to 33 convictions of
          those who terminated unsuccessfully; the average number of convictions per graduate
          was .15, compared to .66 per unsuccessful client;

         64% of the arrests of graduates were from felony charges, compared to 93% of the
          arrests of unsuccessful clients;

         63% of the convictions of graduates were for felony offenses, compared to 100% of
          the convictions of unsuccessful clients; and

         the average length of time to the first arrest for graduates was 162 days, compared to
          132 days for the clients who terminated unsuccessfully.

Prospects for Replication

STOP has been recognized as a national model that joins several government and private
agencies together in an effort to reduce illegal drug activity.  The program is currently being
evaluated by The American University through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.
Department of Justice.  To replicate this program several important steps must be taken.  First, 
collaboration between agencies is imperative.  Communication is important, and monthly
meetings are highly recommended.  Second, it is vital that program services are made available
to the defendant immediately after being charged.  Third, once the defendant has entered the
program, a program fee should be established.  This is an important component because the fee
makes the defendant more accountable for his/her actions. Contact Information

Valerie Moore                        Cary W. Harkaway
Executive Director                   Deputy Director
InAct, Inc.                          Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections
310 Southwest 4th Avenue             421 Southwest 5th Avenue
Suite 700                            Suite 600
Portland, OR  97204                  Portland, OR  97204
(503) 228-9229                       (503) 248-3039
(503) 228-9558 fax                   (503) 248-3990 faxPennsylvania


Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV)


Statement of the Problem

Battered women and children are often uninformed about community and legal resources
available to escape batterers and to safeguard themselves against recurring violence and enable
them to achieve protected, independent lives.  When battered women have evaluated their options
and elected the legal remedy best suited to their needs, they often confront complex legal issues
and proceedings without the benefit of counsel.  Access to the courts may be constrained and
outcomes deficient without the benefit of advocacy.  Prosecution, court, and legal services staff
have not been able to meet the demands of battered women for legal intervention.  Demand has
increased exponentially over the last decade, and it has far outstripped resources.


Goals and Objectives

The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) is a non-profit agency that has
engaged in advocacy on behalf of battered women and their children in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for almost 20 years.  The Coalition is committed to advocacy as a principal strategy
to improve the justice system and community institutions to assure that battered women and
children achieve safety, autonomy, health, well-being, restoration, and justice.  Legal advocacy,
as undertaken by the 60 local domestic violence programs and the statewide organization, is
broadly defined.  It encompasses individual advocacy and systemic advocacy.

The objectives of legal advocacy are many:

         to assure that battered women are informed about the full array of legal options
          available to them;

         to assist battered women in developing safety plans;

         to enable timely, effective access to the justice system;

         to provide support and accompaniment for battered women as they proceed through the
          justice system;

         to enhance the quality of representation of victims; and

         to improve the outcomes for battered women participating in all aspects of the civil and
          criminal justice systems.


Program Components

Individual and systemic advocacy occur in tandem.  Advocates work with individual battered
women and simultaneously work to reform and upgrade the legal system.  Services are provided
on a case-by-case basis and determined by PCADV advocates.

Advocates ask police for expedited intervention in specific high-risk households and for a system
for quick response to all high-risk households.  Advocates seek expanded investigation by a
prosecutor into a particular crime of domestic violence, including identifying additional sources
of evidence, and seek substantial reformation of the system of investigation and preparation of
cases of domestic violence for plea-negotiations or trial.  Advocates assist battered women in
securing protective conditions on release at bail hearings and ask arraignment judges to establish
protocols for the routine imposition of conditions of release in domestic violence cases. 
Advocates transport battered women to hearings and insist that courts provide safe, secure waiting
rooms for battered women and children.  Advocates familiarize individual women with the
courtroom or courtroom procedures and persuade the courts or the district attorney to convene
a court school for all victims of violent crime or applicants for protection orders.

Advocacy often includes assistance in preparation of petitions for civil relief, enrollment in victim
notification programs, development of victims' impact and risk assessment statements, and fine-
tuning practice guides for court, jail, and prosecution personnel who are responsible for
processing the documents filed by victims.  It also entails verifying that a protection order has
been filed correctly in the statewide protection order registry so that enforcement can be effected
should an individual batterer violate an order.  It involves legislative initiatives to establish a
statewide registry that is available 24 hours a day.  Advocacy includes helping abused women
determine a proposed visitation schedule and protective provisions for a custody conciliation
conference and educating custody conciliators on the need for risk assessment and attention to
protected custodial access in the context of domestic violence.

Advocates monitor the practice of individual judges who have been reported to be unresponsive
to the applications of domestic violence victims for protective relief, offer those judges
information about the impact of domestic violence, and devise domestic violence bench guides
for dissemination to all judges.  Advocates assist individual battered women in sensitizing the
justice and human services systems to the dangers confronting them and the requisite
interventions to safeguard women and their children.  Advocates convene multidisciplinary county
task forces of justice system personnel and social and medical providers to establish protocols
and interface procedures.  Advocates assist battered women in constructing and rehearsing safety
plans both to assure protected participation in the legal arena and to buttress the legal protection
provided by the courts.


At the State level, the PCADV engages in many activities for systemic reform.  PCADV is
working with the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts to develop data systems and
uniform rules to fully accommodate reforms in the civil protection order statute.  The program
recently orchestrated a Continuing Legal Education seminar on the amendments to the statute
with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the bar, and the bench.  PCADV has taken the initiative to
implement the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Violence Against Women Act.  This
project involves advocates in consultation with courts, court administrators, the bar, and advocates
across the country.  PCADV undertook the first statewide project to eliminate stalking in the
context of domestic violence.  Activities included a pamphlet for victims, a police and prosecutor
protocol, a law enforcement training curriculum, and training of advocates and police officers
across the Commonwealth.  PCADV provides technical assistance to attorneys, judges, court
administrators, prosecutors, law enforcement, and others in the justice system related to practice
and policy issues.  PCADV participates in impact legislation to improve justice for victims of
domestic violence.  It regularly advises government agencies and legislators at the State and
Federal levels on matters of public policy.

PCADV attempts to evaluate and intervene in any systemic practice that impinges on the safety,
privacy, and well-being of battered women and children.  A portion of the advocacy that emerges
may not appear to be directly related to domestic violence services, but it is public policy that
significantly impinges on battered women and children.  Examples of these advocacy activities
follow.

Several years ago, PCADV concluded that the telephone technology being offered by the industry
(caller ID) posed great risks to the privacy and safety of battered women.  Thus, staff participated
in administrative hearings and two appeals in Commonwealth courts, in which PCADV prevailed,
and have been active in deliberations at the FCC on these issues.  PCADV has prevailed in this
matter, enabling telephone safety and privacy for all users of interstate telephone services.

PCADV identified insurance underwriting standards and practices that discriminated against
battered women, brought them to the attention of Congress and the Pennsylvania Legislature, and
are currently working with lawmakers, insurance commissioners, and health advocates across the
country to put an end to these unfair insurance practices.

PCADV became concerned that policymakers in the country were advancing one strategy only
for the coordinated justice and community intervention against domestic violence.  Staff
responded by authoring two papers that reflect the variety of effective strategies now employed. 
The papers were distributed broadly, encouraging communities to carefully evaluate and adopt
the strategy most appropriate for their respective communities.

PCADV recently noted that many courts were interested in undertaking domestic violence death
reviews in order to identify inadequacies in justice system response to victims and perpetrators
of domestic violence.  PCADV prepared a paper enumerating goals, activities, and processes for
conducting domestic violence death reviews.

PCADV concluded that the research community across the country was not in dialogue with the
domestic violence community about research questions, ethics, agendas, analysis, and
dissemination of results.  Thus, PCADV initiated a network among researchers and practitioners
to enhance collaboration in scholarly inquiries about a broad range of issues related to domestic
violence.  Particular attention has been paid to evaluation research related to justice system
interventions.  While the network is informal, it models the collaboration envisioned and enriches
the dialogue about research and its application to practice and policymaking in the field.

To ensure that advocacy is informed and strategic, PCADV provides advocates at the local level
with extensive training and technical assistance.  A core 40-hour curriculum is in the
developmental stages.  A comprehensive manual on legal advocacy has been provided to every
domestic violence agency in the State.  Every six weeks advocates throughout the State are
furnished with a day of in-service training and networking.  Beyond this, each year PCADV
offers a statewide two-day conference for advocates, with members of the bar and bench
collaborating in this undertaking.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures

Evaluation of advocacy on the local and statewide level is informal.  PCADV hopes to be able
to interest researchers in investigation of the efficacy of the numerous advocacy efforts in
progress.  Meanwhile, the apparent merit of the work of advocates can be measured by the
responsiveness of courts and other justice system personnel, as well as governmental and
legislative bodies.  In many communities and at the State level, domestic violence advocates are
sought out as partners in efforts to end domestic violence and offer remedies in its aftermath.

Implementation Problems and Successes

The lack of resources to employ the necessary advocates has created the most significant barrier
to implementation.  Domestic violence programs operate on very small budgets.  They provide
many more services for less money than other human services agencies.  Yet, the needs for direct
services including housing, food, transportation, childcare, clothing, and counseling are
monumental and increase daily.  Advocacy cannot be undertaken unless these vital supportive
services are in place.  Many battered women cannot safely seek justice unless these fundamental
services are available to create a bridge to independent living and to provide shelter and
protection until legal remedies can be implemented.  Funding remains insufficient.

Most advocates have no formal education in the law, in community organizing, in negotiation,
or in policymaking.  Thus, upon employment, domestic violence programs have the substantial
responsibility of training advocates on the fundamentals of these areas and building essential
advocacy skills.  This takes time and resources that are in scarce supply.

Successes and Accomplishments

Domestic violence programs have been able to maximize resources by retaining and developing
advocates.  Increased State and local funding over the course of the last 20 years has enabled an
expansion in the numbers of advocates engaged in legal advocacy endeavors.  PCADV has
assisted by availing advocates of training, both formal and informal; providing technical
assistance on practice problems and policy development; and brokering resources and
relationships with justice system personnel.  PCADV and local programs have established close
working relationships with legal services offices, batterer intervention services providers, and
justice system personnel.  PCADV has promoted a coordinated, collaborative community response
for more than 15 years.  This serves as a model for jurisdictions or arenas which may resist
embracing advocacy or making the changes requisite to the safety and well-being of battered
women and children.

PCADV has been active in promoting many different strategies to combat domestic violence and
in enumerating goals, activities, and processes for properly conducting domestic violence death
reviews.  PCADV initiated a network among researchers and practitioners to enhance
collaboration in scholarly inquiries about a broad range of issues related to domestic violence. 
Currently, there are 58 domestic violence subcontractors operating 46 shelters and 13 counseling
centers.  Programs provide assistance in all 67 counties in the Commonwealth.

Multicultural training has been given by the PCADV Multicultural Training Team to nearly 200
representatives from PCADV programs in a regional format and over 20 programs on an
individual basis.  PCADV staff participated in a think tank on prevention of drug addiction in
women and girls.  With scholars, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers from across the
country, staff deliberated on effective strategies to educate and advocate for girls and women at
risk, focusing significant attention on the risk that domestic violence and child abuse plays in
addiction.

The PCADV provided consultation to the National Center for State Courts in the development
of the research instruments and process for a study investigating the protection order process in
three urban locations.  PCADV staff served as faculty and experts at the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges' showcasing of the model code on domestic and family
violence developed by judges, attorneys, advocates, legislators, healthcare providers, and other
policymakers.  The Children's Advocacy Task Force (CATF) of the PCADV coordinated the
annual Children's Advocacy Conference which was attended by children's advocates from across
the State.  PCADV staff also coordinate annual statewide and national conferences to address
issues and training related to legal advocacy, victims and witnesses, and health care.

Prospects for Replication

Much of the structure, process, and accomplishments of these advocacy initiatives can be
replicated elsewhere.  Essential to replication is a belief in the critical role of advocacy in the
justice system.  Sufficient resources must be directed to advocacy initiatives.  To fully and
effectively accomplish these program activities, two full-time legal advocates would be required
in a jurisdiction with a population of 250,000.  Staff development and opportunity to network
with other legal advocates throughout the State are necessary.  Finally, there must be a statewide
training and technical assistance center to support the work of local advocates and to engage in
advocacy and policymaking at the State level.


Contact Information

Barbara Hart, Esquire
Legal Director
Pennsylvania Coalition Against
  Domestic Violence
524 McKnight Street
Reading, PA  19601
(610) 373-5697
(610) 373-6403 fax