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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT