U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance Program Brief Bureau of Justice Assistance

Richard R. Nedelkoff, Director

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Strategies for Court

Collaboration With

Service Communities

Many of today’s court cases—such as divorce, custody, domesticviolence, child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency,

drunken driving, guardianship, drug possession, and a variety of

misdemeanor quality-of-life offenses—involve individuals with medical,

psychological, and social problems. These cases are increasing in

number and pose particular challenges for courts. Traditional court

processes were designed to make specific decisions; they were not

designed to address the underlying social and psychological problems

that lead these cases to court. Consequently, the decisions that

courts craft based on law and precedent are not always effective.

Although individual cases are disposed, they are not truly resolved

because the underlying issues are not addressed. The result is that

the problems often resurface as new cases.

In response, courts are experimenting with a variety of innovative

programs that focus on closer collaboration with the service

communities in their jurisdictions. These programs vary considerably

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by different types of cases within

a jurisdiction, but they all stress a collaborative, multidisciplinary,

November 2002
2

problem-solving approach to address the underlying

issues of individuals appearing in court.

The most formal and comprehensive versions

of these programs are the specialized 

“problem-solving courts” developed to address

domestic violence, drug abuse, family matters,

mental illness, quality-of-life crimes such as

shoplifting and vandalism, and so forth.1 Although

subject matter jurisdiction varies across these

problem-solving courts, they all have service

coordination as a core feature of their operation.

Service coordination begins early in the process,

often post-arrest, to determine eligibility for

programs and the need for prompt, specialized

services. Some problem-solving courts are

preadjudicatory and diversion oriented and others

require a plea before a treatment plan is

implemented. In either model, however, considerable

service coordination has usually taken place by the

time a treatment order is entered. Given their

concentration on service coordination, these

problem-solving courts offer a starting point to

explore promising court practices that integrate

treatment services with judicial case processing to

address the service needs of individuals in courts. 

This exploration was a focus of the Models of

Effective Court-Based Service Delivery for Children

and Their Families project. The project included field

research in eight jurisdictions: Sacramento Superior

and Municipal Courts in California; the Mental

Health Court in Broward County, Florida; the

Jefferson Family Court in Louisville, Kentucky; the

Circuit Court (including its drug courts) in

Kalamazoo, Michigan; the Youth Part of Manhattan’s

Criminal Court in New York County, New York; the

Oregon Judicial Department and Integrated Family

Courts in Deschutes and Jackson Counties; the

Richland County Family Court in Columbia, South

Carolina; and the King County Unified Family Court

in Seattle, Washington. The field research was

About BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance was established in 1984 as a

component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. BJA provides leadership and resources to state, local, and

tribal governments and communities to reduce crime, violence, and

drug abuse and to strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system.

BJA provides this assistance through formula and discretionary

grants, training and technical assistance, publications, and the BJA

web site.

For Further Information

For information about service coordination strategies, contact: 

National Center for State Courts (NCSC)

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

1–800–616–6164

Fax: 757–564–2022

Web site: www.ncsconline.org

The full monograph on which this program brief is based, Court Responses to

Individuals in Need of Service: Promising Components of a Service Coordination

Strategy for Courts, is available from NCSC.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–6500

Fax: 202–305–1367

Web site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA 

For publications and information on other BJA-funded programs,

contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

Web site: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are available Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.

to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to be placed on the BJA mailing list.

This document was prepared by the National Center for State Courts, under grant

number 1994–MU–CX–0004, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions

or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
3

supplemented with a literature review and a telephone

survey of 50 courts as a preliminary step to obtain

basic information on court coordination of services.

The information from the project’s data collection

efforts underscores that a single model of service

coordination is inappropriate. Jurisdictions vary

considerably in their local legal and service cultures

and resources. What works for one jurisdiction may

need significant modification to work in another. In

recognition of this variation, the project focused not

on specific models but on broader service

coordination goals and strategies for achieving the

goals. This approach allows each jurisdiction to

assess its current service coordination needs and

develop a strategy to address these needs given local

jurisdiction culture and resources.

Goals of Service Coordination:

A Court’s Perspective

Interviews with both court and service agency

professionals revealed that service coordination

issues are integrally linked to other court goals. Thus,

examining them apart from other court performance

issues (such as court timeliness, fairness, and

independence) is artificial. Service coordination

performance goals are particularly challenging for

courts because they often involve issues that cannot

be addressed by courts alone. To accomplish their

service coordination goals, courts often must reach

out to other community entities.

Trial Court Performance Standards With Commentary

articulates court responsibilities in five categories:

(1) access to justice; (2) expedition and timeliness;

(3) equality, fairness, and integrity; (4) independence

and accountability; and (5) public trust and

confidence.2 These categories provide a framework for

identifying service coordination issues that need to be

addressed by the court, often in consultation with

service agency representatives. For example:

◆ Access to justice. Are there court policies,

procedures, or practices that affect accessibility to

services? What accommodations can the court

make on its own or in concert with appropriate

service agencies to facilitate access to services?

What types of services are not available to

individuals in court? What can be done to ensure

access to needed services?

◆ Expedition and timeliness. Are case management

procedures in place that ensure the timely

identification, acquisition, and provision of

services? Does the court order services without

knowing whether the services are actually

available?

◆ Equality, fairness, and integrity. Are existing

services available equally to individuals in court

who need them? Do recommended service plans

address the specific needs of individual clients?

Are court orders requiring services clear?

◆ Independence and accountability. To what extent

are available resources used efficiently and fairly

and with what outcomes? Do the court, client,

service agencies, and others understand their

respective responsibilities? What information about

the client do service agencies and the court share?

How is the information made available? 

◆ Public trust and confidence. What do judges, court

staff, service providers, attorneys, and, most

importantly, clients see as working well or needing

improvement with regard to service coordination?

These kinds of issues point out that service

coordination is a comprehensive court activity; it 

does not occur only during certain stages of the 

court process. This more comprehensive approach 

to service coordination is characteristic of the

emerging problem-solving approach. 
4

Promising Components

of an Effective Service

Coordination Strategy

The nine promising components that follow are based

on themes that emerged from interviews with court

and service agency professionals at the field research

sites—primarily courts with a problem-solving

approach. The components address both policy-level

and case-level issues. Jurisdictions can choose to

adapt one component to improve coordination in a

particular area or use the entire list of components to

systematically build a comprehensive approach to

service coordination. Because each jurisdiction’s legal

and service cultures and resources vary, it is expected

that jurisdictions will modify the generic components

to best fit their needs.

Promising Component 1: Acknowledged court role in

service coordination. A clear policy that

acknowledges expectations regarding the court’s role

in service coordination creates a strong foundation on

which to build the operating framework for court and

service agency interactions. Some jurisdictions

acknowledge the court’s service coordination role in

statutes (e.g., Oregon’s Family Law Act 1997), court

rules (e.g., Administrative Order establishing the

Broward County Mental Health Court in Florida),

mission statements (e.g., Jefferson Family Court in

Kentucky), or other task force and special issue

documents (e.g., policy statement drafted by the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Standing

Committee on Substance Abuse). Acknowledgment

provides guidance and justification for courts as they

become involved in service issues.

Promising Component 2: Judicial leadership. Court

leadership is essential for maintaining the

coordination and financial support necessary for

court-related service initiatives and daily activities. It

is key to fruitful interactions between the judicial and

service systems and thus a necessary component of

a quality service delivery system for court

populations. Individuals from the field research sites

reinforced the importance of judicial leadership across

the board. Even in jurisdictions in which service

coordination reform efforts began outside the

courthouse doors, those involved in the efforts noted

that the reforms “did not have legs” until a judge was

willing to champion them.

Promising Component 3: An active policy committee

of stakeholders. Most of the study sites had some

type of formal or informal policy committee (e.g.,

Criminal Justice Cabinet in Sacramento, California;

Family Court Advisory Committee in Jefferson County,

Kentucky; Local Family Law Advisory Committees in

Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon; Mental

Health Task Force in Broward County, Florida) to

discuss issues of relevance to all entities involved in

providing services to court populations. The

committees varied in terms of structure, members,

and specific tasks, but they all had the common goal

of establishing better communications between and

among various system components involved in service

coordination.

Promising Component 4: Case-level service

coordinators. Service coordination for court

populations involves exchanges of information and

individuals across boundaries. The boundaries can be

within the courts themselves (e.g., juvenile courts,

family courts, criminal courts) or within large executive

branch agencies (e.g., divisions of health, mental

health, income assistance, or children’s services). The

boundaries can also be those that separate courts,

executive agencies, and not-for-profit service

providers. The study sites all had some version of a

case-level coordinator to overcome the problems

resulting from many individuals involved in multiple

exchanges concerning the same and related cases.

Probation intake and supervision officers serve

as case coordinators in many courts; some 

problem-solving courts have identified specific 

case-level coordinators such as the resource
5

coordinator in New York’s Midtown Community Court;

the family court support worker in Louisville’s

Jefferson Family Court, and the family court advocate

in Oregon’s Integrated Family Courts. The case-level

service coordinator can be a court employee or a

service agency employee. Some jurisdictions have

both: a court employee to liaise with service agencies

and service agency representatives to liaise with the

court.

Promising Component 5: Centralized access to

service network. The effectiveness of individuals and

teams that provide case-level service coordination is

directly related to what they know about the range and

quality of available services. The maze of local service

providers and available programs can be daunting

even to those familiar with the service community. A

central resource is needed to provide current

information about services available in a jurisdiction

to help ensure timely access to and delivery of

appropriate services.

The central resource can take different forms: printed,

electronic, human, or some combination. For example,

Kentucky’s Cabinet for Families and Children, Cabinet

for Health Services, and Cabinet for Workforce

Development maintain an online directory of services

at the state level. Service providers can update

information about their programs, and new providers

can add information online. The directory lists more

than 18,000 providers and 45,000 services.

At the local level, some jurisdictions (e.g., Louisville,

Kentucky) house multiple service organizations, or at

least their intake services, in one neighborhood

location. Service representatives work together to

serve families. Information on services and their

availability is shared, improving access to appropriate

services and avoiding duplication and fragmentation

of services. Such centers provide a convenient place

for court officials to maintain contact with service

agency professionals through case interactions (see

Promising Component 4).

A variation on the neighborhood resource center is the

colocation of a resource center and the court

facility—essentially moving the neighborhood center

inside the courthouse doors. The obvious advantage

of this arrangement is that referrals or mandates for

services can be carried out immediately. The sixth

floor of New York’s Midtown Community Court houses

representatives of a variety of services to respond to

defendants’ needs with regard to substance abuse,

housing, health, education, employment, and so forth.

The representatives, in turn, are connected to a wider

network of service providers in the community.

Information about services is shared easily among the

various service representatives and with the court’s

resource coordinator, who makes service

recommendations to the judge for each case. This

may all be accomplished before releasing an

individual from the court’s custody.

Promising Component 6: Active court monitoring of

compliance with orders. When court orders clearly

state specific services and timelines, compliance by

parties and service agencies is easier to achieve and

is easier for the court to monitor. One of the best

ways to determine whether the order was clear and

the services rendered were beneficial to the client is

to ask the client. Direct questioning of the client, in

addition to reliance on service provider updates, will

give the court a good barometer of the effectiveness

of service plans. Some courts also schedule a

separate “compliance” calendar. Exchanging

information in court regarding compliance creates

accountability for all involved. This is a regular feature

of problem-solving courts and was observed in several

project sites (e.g., the Mental Health Court in Broward

County, Florida; the drug courts in Kalamazoo,

Michigan; the Youth Part of Manhattan’s Criminal

Court in New York).
6

Promising Component 7: Routine collection and use

of data. Data are essential for self-assessment.

Typically, courts collect data that relate to

organizational efficiency (e.g., timeliness of case

processing) and effectiveness (e.g., low trial rates).

Courts traditionally do not compile information on

individuals who use or are in need of its services,

much less the services provided by system partners.

Data collection designed to understand court and

service agency interactions expands this traditional

approach to consider questions such as what

populations have access to services, are orders with

service provisions complied with, and are the services

effective. A court that has embraced this new

paradigm is the Midtown Community Court in New

York. Its information system is accessible to everyone

connected with a case, and information is entered

into the system as it is obtained, providing the judge

with considerable information about a defendant as

early as the defendant’s first appearance. Once the

defendant is seen, the information system tracks his

or her progress and compliance with court orders.

System data also can be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of sanctions and treatment services for

various populations.

Promising Component 8: Creative use of resources.

Creative strategies are often necessary to obtain

funds for improving service coordination for court

populations. When the Jefferson Family Court was

started in Louisville, Kentucky, sufficient resources to

fund all the new positions were not available. To

overcome the problem, the Cabinet for Families and

Children (the state social services agency) and the

Seven Counties Services (a local mental health

organization) “loaned” four social workers to the

court. These positions were gradually absorbed by the

state’s Administrative Office of the Courts over

subsequent years.

Another approach that stretches resources is the

effective use of volunteers. The well-known court

appointed special advocate (CASA) and other guardian

ad litem programs are primary examples. Such

programs can originate from various quarters. In

Richland County, South Carolina, the volunteer

program began as an advisory board of the Junior

League with the support of the local bar association

and the administrative judge of the family court. The

program started with 15 volunteers and now includes

a full-time staff of 8, a part-time staff of 4, and

approximately 300 volunteers who represent more

than 1,300 children.

Another example of an innovative funding strategy is

Oregon’s Family Law Account, included in legislation

that establishes the state’s family court programs

(Family Law Act, 1997, § 3.440). The Family Law

Account provides that the fund administrator (the

state court administrator) may accept and deposit

contributions of funds and assistance from any

source, public or private. Once authorized, a program

like the Family Law Account may be used as a source

of incentive funding by state policy bodies to

encourage innovation or replication of proven

programs through demonstration grants.

Other strategies used by jurisdictions include piecing

together funding from a variety of sources such as

federal and private grants, state and local taxes,

fines, user fees, and pooled resources from several

budgets; reassigning work among staff to make

coordination possible; and bringing media attention to

a specific community problem to build public support

for initiatives.

Promising Component 9: Training and education

related to service coordination. There are

fundamental differences that contribute to poor

communication and conflict between the justice and

social services systems with respect to system goals,

service priorities, and language. Judges typically do

not understand the working environments of

diagnostic and rehabilitative professionals.

Conversely, managers of social services agencies and

individuals who provide social services at the case

level are rarely conversant with the factors that

determine either the policy behavior of judges or how
7

a judge handles case management and decisionmaking

in the courtroom. Training and education are needed

to overcome these likely barriers to cross-system

coordination. A training model discussed during a

meeting of judges and service providers in one of the

project sites called for a “case study” approach.

During the training session, participants could identify

the issues posed by a specific case, discuss why the

issues might be different for different participants,

and explain how each would respond to the issues.

The theory behind this approach is that focusing

training seminars on real-life problems of judges and

service providers ensures relevance and interest. The

discussion format provides an opportunity to pinpoint

miscommunications, explain misunderstandings, and

reconcile differences in organizational values and

priorities that cause conflict and system malfunctions.

Impact of Service Coordination

for Courts

The consequences of ineffective service delivery today

will place even greater and more complex demands

on the courts and service delivery systems in the

future. Creating bridges to services directly from the

court now will result in long-term benefits for all

individuals who work in or are affected by the court

system.

Although the theoretical and philosophical debate

about the proper role of the court in service

coordination should and does continue to be debated

in scholarly articles, it should not overshadow efforts

to look for areas of agreement on service coordination

issues at the local jurisdictional level. This is

essentially the approach taken by the initiators of

problem-solving courts. By bringing together a variety

of stakeholders to discuss common problems,

alternative approaches for addressing the problems

are conceived. Jurisdictions can determine what

aspects of the problem-solving approach they agree

on and what principles and methods they can adapt

to make their current service coordination efforts

more effective.

Notes

1. The term “problem-solving courts” refers to court

dockets and calendars dedicated to specific cases,

such as domestic violence and drug abuse, as well

as stand-alone courts.

2. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997, Trial Court

Performance Standards With Commentary, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 161570.

Available online at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/161570.pdf.

Photo © PhotoDisc 2002.

NCJ 196945

November 2002