Nancy E. Gist, Director

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Key Elements of Successful

Adjudication Partnerships

by Jane Nady Sigmon and M. Elaine Nugent, American Prosecutors Research Institute

John Goerdt, National Center for State Courts

Scott Wallace, National Legal Aid and Defender Association

Local and state criminal justice systems are under

constant pressure to operate more efficiently and

effectively without diminishing the quality of their

services. Criminal justice professionals face complex problems which impact more than one agency,

and consequently the problems cannot be resolved

easily by a single agency. Additionally, creating a

cooperative partnership with independent agencies

that function in a normally adversarial system such

as the adjudication process can be a difficult task for

many jurisdictions.

Notwithstanding fundamental obstacles, adjudication

partnerships are proliferating in jurisdictions throughout the United States as criminal justice professionals

seek new and more effective solutions to complex

problems such as backlogged dockets, crowded jails,

and recidivism of drug-addicted offenders. Collaborative efforts that involve the key participants of prosecutor, public defender, and court in the adjudication

process are important for mounting an effective response to the problems.

Recognizing the need for practical information on adjudication partnerships that would enable jurisdictions

to learn from the experiences of their counterparts, the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provided funding

to the American Prosecutors Research Institute

(APRI) for a cooperative effort with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the National Legal

Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) to research

and document existing partnerships.

This bulletin provides general information about

adjudication partnerships and describes critical

elements that lead to successful partnerships, as

observed in a variety of partnerships operating in

jurisdictions across the country.

What Is an Adjudication Partnership?

An adjudication partnership is a formal or informal collaborative effort in which representatives from key justice system agencies join together in multiagency task

forces, steering committees, or planning groups to:

❑ Identify problems.

❑ Develop goals and strategies for addressing the

problems.

❑ Oversee implementation plans to manage or solve

the problems.

Ideally the membership of an adjudication partnership will include representatives from the three

primary players in the adjudication process: the

prosecution, the defense, and the court. Also important is the participation of other agencies (such as law
2

enforcement and corrections) that would be involved

and play critical roles in the resolution of the issue

under consideration.

The term adjudication partnership serves as an umbrella concept under which many interagency efforts

can be classified. The concept is not new; examples

can be found in criminal justice coordinating committees, drug courts, expedited case management

programs, and community justice programs.

Adjudication partnerships may be formed for a variety of reasons, including to address a specific problem in the justice system (for example, to develop a

much-needed pretrial diversion program) or to form

permanent interagency councils or oversight committees that meet regularly to discuss issues or problems.

While partnerships may be formed for specific purposes, many evolve into permanent criminal justice

committees or councils when participants discover

the benefits of agencies communicating and solving

problems together.

Most adjudication partnerships have been created

through grassroots efforts by local criminal justice

leaders who are committed to improving the operation

and effectiveness of local criminal justice systems.

Characteristics of Successful

Adjudication Partnerships

Criminal justice leaders in many jurisdictions have

been successful in bringing together key players to

tackle difficult problems. Although formed for a variety of reasons, these partnerships share several characteristics that participants report are critical to a

successful partnership. The seven elements considered

essential to establishing a successful partnership are

leadership, membership, goals, team approach, longterm view, research and evaluation, and broad support.

Leadership

Key individuals in the justice system must provide leadership to give direction to the adjudication partnership. Forming a partnership in the

normally adversarial environment of adjudication

requires leadership, especially during times of

change or crisis. Leaders from one or more key

agencies must step forward to assemble a team of

key leaders and managers from other criminal justice agencies that are concerned about the particular

issues facing the jurisdiction.

Leaders have emerged from all criminal justice components, depending upon the problem being addressed and

the individual characteristics of the jurisdiction.

The Intermediate Sanctions Task Force in Dakota

County, Hastings, Minnesota, was initiated in

1991 after a newly appointed director of community corrections engaged other criminal justice

professionals in the problem-solving process that

ended a history of distrust and dissension among

criminal justice professionals in the county.

A leader must possess certain skills and be willing

to take on specific responsibilities, such as clearly

identifying problems and helping group members to

envision how the local justice system will tackle the

problems, convincing other key people of the value of

working on the problem and of sharing a vision for

its resolution, and working to create partnerships

among members to achieve the envisioned change.

A leader must also be able to motivate and inspire

people into committing their time and efforts to

projects and also investing in participating as equals

around a committee table in spite of real or perceived

differences in power or status among the members.

In this bulletin, the core leadership group is referred

to as the steering committee.

Membership

The membership of the adjudication partnership

should be broad based and should include a critical mass of key leaders who are truly committed

to its goals and strategies. Broad-based representation helps to ensure that every agency that will be

affected by changes initiated by the partnership has

an opportunity to offer valuable insights regarding

any plan for achieving program or project goals.

This strategy also helps to prevent situations in

which agencies that are not included in the planning

process, or that do not agree with the partnership’s

mission, goals, or strategies, might scuttle a program

or delay its implementation.
3

participants, and considered to be achievable within a

certain timeframe. The steering committee, therefore,

must set both short- and long-term goals, establish

priorities, and determine realistic timelines for resolving partnership issues.

Membership in the Intermediate Sanctions Policy

Group in the Sixth Judicial District, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has remained virtually unchanged since

its creation in 1994. The continuity of membership has resulted in streamlined communication

and greater mutual trust.

In response to the court’s caseload crisis, the

Early Felony Disposition Program (also known as

LA Fast) in the Central District of Los Angeles

County, California, was established through the

leadership of a superior court judge and a municipal court judge. The program had the specific objective of significantly reducing the backlog of

superior court trials by expediting the disposition

of less serious, nonviolent, first-time felony offenders in the municipal court. LA Fast worked

with the district attorney, the public defender, and

probation officers to establish procedures that resulted in adjudication of such cases within 3 days

of arraignment.

All decisions are made by consensus at regular

monthly meetings at the Intermediate Sanctions

Policy Group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Meetings should be open, frank, and civil. Exhibiting

civility and respect for others is important for fostering mutual cooperation and helping steering committee members understand the problems and needs of

each participating agency.

Steering committee meetings should seek consensus

from all members on each goal, plan, and strategy.

Members must be flexible, willing to consider compromise, and receptive to new ideas. Finally, steering

committee members should define the roles and

If the three key participants—court, prosecutor,

and defense—are included in the membership, the

diversity of perspectives and experiences will make

the identification of achievable goals more likely

and increase the momentum toward their attainment. In addition to broadly based membership, a

critical mass of key members on the steering committee must be truly committed to the goals and

strategies and possess a willingness to expend time

and energy to achieve them. Finally, steering committees must strive to maintain substantial continuity among their members as changes in designated

participants can be disruptive.

The original members of the partnership to establish the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court in Santa

Clara County, San Jose, California, included a

presiding judge of juvenile court, a deputy district attorney, a deputy public defender, a county

executive, three juvenile probation representatives, an assessment counselor, and two representatives of the Department of Drug and Alcohol

Services. As the group progressed in developing

the program, additional agencies and services

were added as critical to the effort (such as law

enforcement, mental health treatment, and community outreach personnel).

Goals

The adjudication partnership’s goals must be

clear, useful, and achievable. A primary role of

leadership in an adjudication partnership is to establish the objectives of the partnership. Members will

“buy in” or commit to the partnership if the goals

are clearly understood, determined to be useful to

Team Approach

The steering committee must employ a team

approach in the decisionmaking and planning

processes. Regular and organized steering committee

meetings to share information and ideas and discuss

problems and plans are essential to maintaining partnership momentum.
4

responsibilities of each participating agency and

member to ensure overall committee accountability.

Long-Term View

Steering committee members in an adjudication

partnership must maintain a long-term view. Developing, implementing, and maintaining mutually

agreeable strategies to address problems in the adjudication process usually requires considerable time,

patience, and persistence. Therefore, participants

must take a long-term view about the process and

recognize the complexity of partnership goals and

strategies, so they can develop realistic timeframes

for accomplishing them.

Research and Evaluation

The adjudication partnership steering committee

should use research and information on best

practices to guide program development and use

objective data to monitor and evaluate its programs. Successful adjudication partnership teams

learn from the successes of others. Research on effective programs that have been used in other jurisdictions can provide details on particular strategies

that can be adapted to local conditions, thereby saving steering committees much time and effort in

designing programs.

The steering committee is accountable for its expenditure of time and public resources, so it should be

able to provide systematic data on its efforts to legislative or citizen groups when necessary.

Broad Support

The adjudication partnership team should seek

criminal justice system and community support.

Membership of an adjudication partnership steering

committee must have an appropriately broad base at

an early stage to engage the support of local key

criminal justice players. Community support for the

program is absolutely essential for moving forward or

sustaining the strategy. The partnership team should

provide information about the adjudication partnership to the community and seek community input on

identifying and addressing problems.

The Jail Utilization Systems Team (JUST) team

members in Monroe County, New York, meet

monthly to discuss local criminal justice issues

and jail population levels. The program regularly

collects data to monitor and evaluate its performance on numerous measures of jail population

and implementation of both release and sentencing alternatives for nonviolent offenders.

The Willamette Criminal Justice Council in

Benton County, Corvallis, Oregon, was started by

the district attorney in 1992 and became a formal

entity a year later when representatives of the

Benton County government (district attorney, a

judge, a court administrator, and public defender),

representatives from four neighboring cities, and

a local university signed an intergovernmental

agreement outlining the purposes of the council

which were to promote and facilitate fair, efficient, and coordinated criminal justice services.

All original partners continue their active membership and also contribute to the annual budget

of the council.

The core team that worked to establish the Drug

Court in Erie County, Buffalo, New York, studied the experiences of other jurisdictions and

obtained additional support and guidance from a

statewide organization that fostered information

sharing among drug courts in New York.

In addition, systematically gathering data to monitor

and evaluate progress toward the adjudication

partnership’s goals is critical for success. Ongoing

monitoring of the program with relevant data can also

alert the steering committee to the need for midcourse adjustments. Evaluation of program effectiveness will provide partnership members with specific

information needed to justify continuation of a successful program over other alternatives.
5

Successful Adjudication

Partnerships

Through a national mail survey, 103 well-established

adjudication partnerships were identified. Of these,

eight were selected by APRI, NCSC, and NLADA for

more intensive study, including site visits. Each partnership exhibits the critical components of successful

partnerships. Descriptions of these adjudication partnerships and their accomplishments are provided in

this section.

Drug Court, Erie County, Buffalo, New York

With the support of the Erie County Alternatives to

Incarceration Board, a city court judge (who is also a

former prosecutor) worked with the director of the

Court OutReach and Treatment Services (COURTS)

program on a concept to develop a drug court. The

judge and the COURTS director called upon officials

from the mayor’s office, treatment providers, representatives from the prosecutor’s office, and the public

defender during the planning process for the Buffalo

and Erie County Drug Court (BDC). The primary

goal of BDC was the development, implementation,

and operation of a drug court to address the increasing number of drug offenders entering the system.

Early evaluation results of the BDC indicate that the

BDC partners have been successful in their efforts.

More than 250 drug offenders participated in the program during its first year. At the time of the evaluation, 50 clients had successfully completed the

program and 180 remained active. Treatment attendance rates are reported to be high (78 percent), and

graduated sanctions are consistently applied for noncompliance. Less than 10 percent of the offenders

have failed in the program and have been transferred

to the criminal justice system.

In addition to the early indications of program effectiveness, BDC has also been successful in obtaining

funding for treatment services for drug court clients,

resulting in an expansion of communitywide treatment alternatives. BDC also has increased links

among program planners, which has resulted in more

training opportunities for treatment professionals.

For more information, contact: The Honorable Robert

T. Russell, Jr., Presiding Judge, 50 Delaware Avenue,

Suite 200, Buffalo, NY 14202.

Early Felony Disposition Program, Central

District, Los Angeles County, California

In response to an increase in the felony caseload, a

judge from the superior court and a judge from the

municipal court in the Central District of Los Angeles

County initiated this adjudication partnership. An

informal partnership, the Early Felony Disposition

Program (also known as LA Fast) was developed to

expedite the disposition of less serious, nonviolent,

first-time felony offenders in the municipal court.

Working with the district attorney, the public defender, the sheriff, and representatives from pretrial

services and the probation department, the judges

met regularly to review the court’s research on offenders and the trial calendar backlog to consider

options in developing the program.

The program was implemented in one municipal

courtroom. Initially the program included first-time

drug possession offenders but has been expanded to

include welfare fraud and escape cases. The expedited procedures result in a unique accomplishment—

the adjudication of these cases within 3 days of

arraignment. Since the program’s implementation,

it has consistently removed between 300 and 500

felony cases per month from the stream of cases that

would normally go to the superior court. Because of

its success, similar early disposition programs have

been established in several other municipal courts in

Los Angeles County.

For more information, contact: The Honorable

Veronica McBeth, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles

Municipal Court, 110 North Grand Avenue, Los

Angeles, CA 90012–3055.

Intermediate Sanctions Policy Group, Sixth

Judicial District, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

In 1994, the director of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) joined with the district court

judge and a legislator to form the Intermediate Sanctions (IS) Policy Group to collaborate on the expansion of alternative sanctions as sentencing options.

Representatives from key criminal justice agencies

that would be affected by the creation of a continuum

of sanctions met to set common goals and develop an

implementation plan for the group. The IS Policy

Group, which includes representatives from the
6

courts, prosecutor’s office, public defender’s office,

law enforcement agencies, and juvenile probation office, believes that whenever one part of the system

acts in isolation, the effectiveness and the efficiency of

the entire system are adversely affected.

Through the commitment of group members, the operation of the courts has changed significantly. The

group’s accomplishments include reducing the delay

for probation revocation cases (the time to dispose of

such cases has been reduced from 3 months to 10 or

14 days) and setting aside one afternoon each week

to hear driving under suspension (DUS) cases, which

account for nearly 20 percent of the associate court

docket. The group has conducted a study of DUS

cases to develop a profile of DUS offenders and to

determine the most effective solutions. The results of

the study will be used to guide the state legislature on

how to address this issue.

Other accomplishments include addressing the

problem of supervising the increasing misdemeanant

population by implementing a “self-supervision”

probation alternative, which would not require formal oversight by DCS, and developing and endorsing a continuum of sanctions. The IS Policy Group

continues to meet regularly to collaborate on emerging issues.

For more information, contact: Jean Kuehl, Assistant

Director, DCS, 951 29th Avenue SW., Cedar Rapids,

IA 52404.

Intermediate Sanctions Task Force, Dakota

County, Hastings, Minnesota

Following a history of conflict and friction among

justice professionals in Dakota County, the appointment of a new director of the Community Corrections

(CC) program in 1991 created an opportunity for

criminal justice organizations to work together to

improve services. The cooperative effort of a former

presiding judge, a member of the Board of Commissioners (BOC), and the CC director resulted in the

establishment of the Intermediate Sanctions Task

Force (ISTF), which brought together representatives

from the court, county attorney’s office, public

defender’s office, sheriff’s department, CC staff,

BOC staff, and local police to develop a consensus on

how local justice problems should be solved. The primary goal was to establish a mechanism for developing consensus and bringing key leaders together to

discuss their differences and address problems in a

cooperative manner.

Participants report that the most important outcome

of this effort was that the ISTF process became a

“permanent fixture” in the criminal justice community. Task force members are now committed to cooperation and communication, rather than conflict, for

dealing with criminal justice issues. One interviewee

noted that ISTF has become an independent seat of

authority in the county justice system—if an agency

expects to introduce significant procedural changes

that might affect other agencies, it must bring these

procedures to ISTF first.

Other ISTF accomplishments include a reduction

in weekend jail overcrowding, increased use of

electronic home monitoring, creation of a probation

service center and two child safety centers, and

increased use of a continuum of sentences. ISTF

continues to plan and implement innovative and collaborative efforts to achieve its goals in the areas of

sentencing and probation.

For more information, contact: Mark Carey, CC

Director, Judicial Center, 1560 West Highway 55,

Hastings, MN 55033.

Jail Utilization Systems Team, Monroe County,

Rochester, New York

In 1992, after the county executive required all Monroe County department heads to attend quality management training, these managers began working

together to solve problems in the county. As a result,

local criminal justice system officials formed a public

safety sector team, which included judges, the public

defender, the district attorney, the sheriff, the directors of public safety and probation, and representatives of related agencies (pretrial services, the

Rochester Police Department, the county law enforcement council, the defense bar, and the local

magistrates association). The Jail Utilization Systems

Team (JUST) set as its highest priority the alleviation

of jail overcrowding and developed a three-pronged

approach to address the problem: an early screening
7

process for first-time, nonviolent offenders by a senior district attorney who recommends cases for early

disposition (pre-grand jury); a multifaceted effort to

develop and enhance an array of graduated restrictions for out-of-custody defendants awaiting trial and

graduated sanctions for convicted misdemeanants;

and the development and implementation of an integrated justice information system.

Team accomplishments include significant reductions in case processing time and average length of

time in jail for nonviolent offenders and dissemination of an annual report on successful innovations.

In addition, JUST reported savings of 162 jail beds

per day in 1996, 208 jail beds per day in 1997, and

an estimated 2-year net cost avoidance of more than

$5 million. Team members believe that one of their

most important accomplishments is that now top

people from key agencies meet regularly, and these

discussions have improved the operation of the

criminal justice system.

For more information, contact: Thomas Gibson, ATI

Program Manager, Monroe County Department of

Public Safety, City Place, Suite 2100, 33 North

Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, NY 14614.

Juvenile Drug Treatment Court, Santa Clara

County, San Jose, California

The presiding judge of the juvenile court in Santa

Clara County contacted representatives from other

criminal justice agencies to address the growing

juvenile crime problem in the county and discuss

the idea of a juvenile treatment program. Using an

adult treatment court model that the judge learned

about at a drug/alcohol seminar, the partnership

planned and developed the Juvenile Drug Treatment

Court over a 1-year period. The special court began

operation in 1996.

The program provides alcohol and drug treatment

services to juvenile offenders. The success rate of the

treatment was shown to be around 90 percent. The

program has conducted three graduation exercises

for youth who have completed the program and has

started groups for alumni and parents of alumni.

Partnership members have continued discussing the

program’s progress and setbacks in individual cases.

The group has successfully expanded services to include inpatient drug treatment, 10 full-time mentors

who are graduate or postgraduate students, and a

mental health practitioner who assists in drug and

alcohol evaluations. In addition, the local YMCA has

become a member of the drug court team and has developed a program that includes training in life and

job-seeking skills, as well as group counseling for

teens and parents. Team members report that this program demonstrates what is possible when resources

are marshaled and parents are involved.

For more information, contact: The Honorable

Tom Edwards, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court,

840 Guadeloupe Parkway, San Jose, CA 95110.

Juvenile Justice Restitution and Mediation

Project, Wilmington, Delaware

In 1992, the Delaware Center for Justice, a nonprofit

community group, initiated a pilot victim-offender

mediation project in the family court. The program

director negotiated the details of the project with the

deputy attorney general in charge of juvenile cases

and representatives from the family court, public

defender’s office, and probation services to develop a

significant role for mediation in juvenile cases. Four

principal steering committee members indicated that

they were primarily interested in, and would support,

a program that focused on improving enforcement of

restitution in juvenile cases, which by consensus became the focal point of the Juvenile Justice Restitution

and Mediation Project.

In 1996, the attorney general’s office referred 1,295

cases to the program (of which 907 included orders

for restitution and 388 included orders for victimoffender mediation). Data from the program indicate

that more than 90 percent of juveniles who paid

restitution through this program completed their restitution obligations. In addition, by taking over the

supervision of juvenile cases that involve restitution,

project staff have reduced the workload of the family

court, juvenile probation officers, and the deputy attorney general’s staff. Finally, because the program

makes restitution a “front burner issue” in which juvenile offenders deal with the consequences of their

behavior early in their supervision, victims receive

restitution quickly and report more satisfaction.
8

For more information, contact: Mary Elizabeth Mical,

Program Director, Victim Offender Mediation Program, Delaware Center for Justice, 501 Shipley

Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Willamette Criminal Justice Council, Benton

County, Corvallis, Oregon

In 1992, a consortium of concerned citizens,

elected officials, and criminal justice service providers (representatives of the presiding judge, the

Indigent Defense Consortium, the trial court, the

court administrator, and others), led by the Benton

County district attorney, organized the Willamette

Criminal Justice Council (WCJC) to facilitate the

efficiency and effectiveness of interagency communication among the criminal justice services in the

county. Formalized by an intergovernmental agreement in 1993, WCJC adopted bylaws and began a

strategic planning process to develop a mission,

vision, short- and long-term goals, and a plan to

implement high-priority projects. Since its institutionalization, the WCJC has continually reviewed

the status of priority activities, identified new priorities, and updated its priorities. As a result of

WCJC’s efforts, the 1995 Oregon Legislative

Assembly required all counties to appoint a local

public safety coordinating council.

WCJC’s accomplishments also include the creation

of a citizens’ committee appointed by city council

members to provide an opportunity for community

members to work with public officials on pressing

issues, the development of a child abuse investigations protocol, the creation and implementation of

an ongoing data systems integration project, the

development of a victimization survey and juvenile

justice crime prevention plan, and a growth in minority outreach efforts. Working through a partnership with 26 other counties, the group also led the

development of a recently completed case management system for prosecutors that saved participating

jurisdictions the cost of developing such a system.

For more information, contact: Stephanie Holmes,

WCJC Coordinator, P.O. Box 686, Corvallis, OR 97321;

World Wide Web: http://www.cwcog.cog.or.us/wcjc/.

Conclusion

Despite longstanding barriers to successful cooperation, the movement toward forming local and state

partnerships to respond to criminal justice issues is

growing. Leaders in many jurisdictions have learned

how to successfully engage their criminal justice

counterparts in the process of improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of justice. Given the

range of issues currently being addressed, adjudication partnerships carry the potential to substantially

change the adjudication process as it is known today.
9

Adjudication Partnerships Checklist for Success

1. Key individuals in the justice system must

provide leadership to give direction to the

adjudication partnership. These leader(s) must:

___ Identify the current problem and articulate a

vision for how the local justice system will

tackle the problem.

___ Convince other key people of the vision’s value

and viability so that it becomes a shared vision.

___ Build coalitions (or partnerships) to achieve the

envisioned change.

___ Motivate and inspire people to commit their time

and effort to the program.

2. Membership of the adjudication partnership

steering committee should be broad based and

include a critical mass of key leaders who are

truly committed to the goals strategy. The

partnership must:

___ Identify and involve key players and stakeholders who will be critical to the success of the

partnership.

___ Include sufficient numbers of key leaders who

are committed to the goals and strategies of the

partnership to move projects forward.

___ Maintain continuity among members to successfully achieve the shared vision of the partnership.

3. The adjudication partnership goals must be clear,

useful, and achievable. The partnership steering

committee must:

___ Set specific short- and long-term goals.

___ Define goals that are useful to partnership

members and achievable within a prescribed

timeframe.

___ Establish priorities.

4. The decisionmaking and planning process

employed by the steering committee must reflect

a team approach. Partnership steering committee

members must:

___ Hold regular, well-planned meetings to maintain

momentum.

___ Conduct meetings that are open, frank, and

civil, and foster respect and cooperation among

members.

___ Be flexible, willing to compromise to some

extent, and open to new ideas.

___ Seek consensus when making decisions regarding goals, plans, and strategies.

___ Define roles and responsibilities of participating

agencies and individual members to ensure

accountability.

5. Steering committee members in an adjudication

partnership must embrace a long-term view.

Members must:

___ Be patient and persistent because solutions to

adjudication problems require time.

___ Recognize the complexity of partnership goals

and strategies and develop realistic timeframes

for accomplishing them.

6. The adjudication partnership steering committee

uses research and state-of-the-art practice to

guide program development and objective data

to monitor and evaluate its programs. The

steering committee must:

___ Review and analyze relevant information

documenting successful programs and best

practices to benefit from the experiences of

others.

___ Systematically gather data to evaluate the

effectiveness of partnership programs and

continually monitor results.

7. The adjudication partnership team seeks broad

criminal justice system and community support.

The partnership team must:

___ Ensure the involvement of key criminal justice

players to obtain criminal justice system support.

___ Provide information about the criminal justice

partnership to the community and seek community input on partnership programs.
10

For More Information

To obtain more information about adjudication partnerships, contact:

American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI)

99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510

Alexandria, VA 22314

703–549–4253

World Wide Web: http://www.ndaa-apri.org

National Center for State Courts (NCSC)

Information Services

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 32185

757–259–1818

E-mail: infoservice@ncsc.dni.us

National Legal Aid and Defender Association

(NLADA)

1625 K Street NW., Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20006

202–452–0620

E-mail: info@nlada.org

World Wide Web: http://www.nlada.org/

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–514–6278

World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: http://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.

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response center staff are available Monday through

Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time.

Resources

Alliegro, S., B. Bright, J. Chacko, C. Cooper, G. Gish,

D. Lawrence, J. Rutigliano, and L. Torkelson (1993).

“Beyond Delay Reduction: Using Differentiated Case

Management.” The Court Manager 8(2): 12.

American Prosecutors Research Institute (1992).

Community Prosecution: A Guide for Prosecutors.

Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research

Institute.

American Prosecutors Research Institute (1997). Domestic Violence: Prosecutors Take the Lead. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

American Prosecutors Research Institute and National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1997).

Confronting Violence Against Women: A Coordinated

Action Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Bakke, H., and M. Solomon (1989). “Case Differentiation: An Approach to Individualized Case Management.” Judicature 73(1): 17–21.

Barajas, E., Jr. (1996). “Moving Toward Community

Justice,” Community Justice: Striving for Safe,

Secure, and Just Communities. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Corrections, 4–6.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1997). Community

Courts: A Manual of Principles. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Davis, L. (1994). “Developing Felony Tracks.” The

Judges’ Journal 33(1): 9.

Guynes, R. and N. Miller (1988). Improving Court

Productivity: Two New Jersey Experiences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Reports, No. 208, March/April, 2–7.

Jacoby, J.E., H.P. Gramckow, and E. Ratledge. (1992).

Expedited Drug Case Management Programs. Issues

for Program Development. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice.
11

The Bureau of Justice Assistance would like to

acknowledge the contributions of the following

individuals in the researching, writing, and

editing of this publication: Jennifer Panagopoulos, Kevin O’Brien, Heike Gramckow,

Kathy Free, and Bonney Adams of the American Prosecutors Research Institute; Victor

Eugene Flango of the National Center for State

Courts; and Addie Hailstorks of the National

Legal Aid and Defender Association.

This document was prepared by the American Prosecutors Research Institute, under grant number

95–DD–BX–0170, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice, in cooperation with the National Center for State Courts and the National Legal

Aid and Defender Association. 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. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice,

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Jacoby, J.E., H.P. Gramckow, and E. Ratledge (1995).

The Impact of Community Policing on the Criminal

Justice System. Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

McEwen, T. (1999). “NIJ’s Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing—Factors That Add

Up to Success.” National Institute of Justice Journal

No. 238, January, 2–10.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals

(1997). Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs.

Petersilia, J. (1987). Expanding Options for Criminal

Sentencing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Robinson, L. (1996). “Linking Community-Based

Initiates and Community Justice: The Office of Justice Programs.” National Institute of Justice Journal

No. 231, August, 4–7.

NCJ 173949

May 1999