ILNews

Innovative court programs get funding support from Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has awarded more than $450,000 in court reform grants for the 2013-2014 grant cycle.

Courts across the state were given funds to help launch innovative programs or streamline operations to eliminate redundancies. A total of 37 courts – a higher number than usual – applied for funding this year, with fifteen being awarded a grant.

Projects receiving grants focused on the implementation of the Odyssey Case Management System in Hancock and St. Joseph counties; establishing a Veterans Treatment Court in LaPorte County and a Domestic Violence Problem-Solving Court in Lawrence County; and doing a study on the rehabilitation of D felons in Starke Circuit Court.

Both Owen and Fountain counties were awarded funds to purchase equipment to remotely conduct hearings so the local courts can reduce the costs associated with transporting incarcerated defendants to the courthouse.

This year, the Supreme Court awarded $486,196 in court reform grants. Money for the grant program comes from Title IV-D, reimbursements the court receives for expenses incurred in obtaining overdue child support payments.

The recipient courts and grant amounts are as follows:

1.    Dearborn Superior Courts Probation, $40,000
2.    Floyd County, $35,828
3.    District #23 (Floyd, Clark and Scott counties), $40,000
4.    Grant County, $40,000
5.    Hancock County, $20,000 and $37,000
6.    Hendricks County, $8,370
7.    LaPorte County, $40,000
8.    Lawrence County, $40,000
9.    Lake County, $30,000
10.    Madison County, $20,000 and $37,000
11.    Owen County, $10,093
12.    St. Joseph Probate Court, $10,000
13.    St. Joseph County, $28,280
14.    Starke Circuit Court, $30,000
15.    Fountain Circuit Court, $19,625

Along with getting more applications, the caliber of proposals was very high, according to the Supreme Court, making narrowing the pool and choosing the recipients difficult.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT