ILNews

Problem-solving courts cut recidivism, help defendants

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What can courts do to reduce jail and prison populations, slash recidivism, and make a positive difference in the lives of people in the criminal justice system? Mounting evidence suggests problem-solving courts are one answer.

“What they are is a new paradigm of thinking about criminal justice,” said Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, whose House Bill 1016 would add to the statutory framework for such courts that he’s championed since 2010. A major component of the bill would allow courts and staff to provide certain rehabilitation services and collect the fees for them.

koch-eric-mug.jpg Koch

Koch said he sees expanding problem-solving courts – most commonly drug courts, re-entry courts and mental health courts – dovetailing with efforts in the General Assembly this year to revise the criminal code. He said the courts also are good public policy because they address the constitutional requirement of rehabilitation as a goal of the criminal justice system.

“Over the long haul it saves costs to the system rather than cycling people in and out,” Koch said. “In the long run, this is very taxpayer-friendly and life-changing for the individual.”

Problem-solving courts are a form of diversion available to judges in the jurisdictions where they function. They aim to address underlying causes that may range from economic circumstances to mental illness or addiction.

“We believe all courts ought to be problem-solving courts,” said Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council. “We’re finally getting to a point where when people are committing crimes, we’re not just reactive in a punitive way.

“This is not being soft on crime, this is being smart on crime,” he said. “If there’s a way to reduce recidivism, we win.”

It’s with the consent and usually the labor of a judge and court staff that the programs get up and running, tailored to a community’s needs, said Diane Mains, a staff attorney at the Indiana Judicial Center, which certifies problem-solving courts.

Beginning with the annual report to the Commission on Courts that will be filed for 2013, the Judicial Center will report performance measures for Indiana’s problem-solving courts, but available data is encouraging. A 2007 Judicial Center study surveyed outcomes from five drug courts. Across those courts, 11.6 percent of people who graduated from drug court programs reoffended within 2 years, compared with 37.2 percent of similar offenders who didn’t go through drug court.

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck has overseen re-entry court in the county for more than a decade and recently was honored with the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence from the National Center for State Courts, in large part for his work as a leader in establishing problem-solving courts.

“The Supreme Court and the Judicial Center really created an atmosphere that encourages judges to do things outside the box, to do extra things, which is what we do in problem-solving courts,” Surbeck said. He said re-entry court has helped reduce the rate of recidivism by one-third.

Mains said instruction in problem-solving courts, such as the “Thinking for a Change” curriculum, focuses on cognitive behavior and attempts to get to root causes. House Bill 1016 would allow court staff to provide that kind of rehabilitation training as long as the staff member is certified in the training they provide.

Similar training is available for offenders who may misuse alcohol or drugs, for instance, but aren’t deemed to have addictions, she said. The bill is not intended to allow court staff to provide more intensive counseling requiring licensed professionals.

“If you talk with any judge, they will talk about the continuing cycle of seeing the same people and not addressing the reason” they offend, Mains said.

Vanderburgh Superior Judge Wayne Trockman oversees several of the county’s problem-solving venues that include drug, re-entry, veterans, juvenile drug and forensic-diversion courts.

problems“We’ve moved from mainly a drug-court model targeting low-risk offenders over the past 12 years to more of a re-entry court model,” Trockman said. Offenders with sentences of as much as 15 years at the Department of Correction may qualify.

“A person who would normally receive a 15-year sentence is not necessarily any less qualified for our court than someone who would normally receive a six-year sentence,” Trockman said. “It’s pretty easy to catch addicts breaking the law, and an addict can rack up a criminal history pretty fast,” which can lead to sentence enhancements.

Trockman said the Vanderburgh problem-solving courts try to have a docket of about 100 people at any given time. Each Tuesday, he holds court for program participants who come in for regular update visits. A board with members from law enforcement, housing providers, faith-based services, businesspeople and others monitors program participants. Board members meet with the judge and provide progress assessments ahead of his visits with program participants.

“We develop relationships with people in the program, and we have a short dialogue,” Trockman said of a typical Tuesday in court. “We let them set goals and give them positive feedback on what they’re doing right, and issue sanctions if they’re not doing things right.”

Vanderburgh County operates its problem-solving courts through fees, county assistance, and federal and DOC grants. Community buy-in has allowed Trockman to initiate some novel approaches to entrenched problems.

Through forensic diversion, he can identify offenders who face a minimum nonsuspendable sentence for drug dealing, for example, and treat them differently. “I’ve designed it where they don’t go to (DOC) general population at all,” Trockman said. They instead go to therapeutic detention. Upon successful completion, they transfer to community correction.

The success rate of that program – judged as those who don’t reoffend three years after completion – is about 60 percent, Trockman said. Re-entry and drug courts have a success rate of 70 to 80 percent. Vital to success, along with treatment and counseling, are wraparound services that address employment and housing. “You cannot be successful with someone if you don’t help them find a job, and a job that pays a living wage,” he said.

Surbeck said the Allen County re-entry court relies on community corrections staff to provide wraparound services including housing, employment and counseling.

steele-brent2012-mug Steele

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has witnessed positive changes in the problem-solving courts in his district. Lawrence County’s drug court, for instance, has “some fantastic success stories, and the reason is the judges in the county being very proactive and donating the time and effort for the court,” Steele said.

When a defendant has an opportunity to have a charge diverted to a drug court or other problem-solving court and continue to be productive while getting needed assistance, the outcome is desirable for everyone, he said. But he’s cautious about creating too many such venues too quickly.

“What I don’t want to see is having too many problem-solving courts” that undermine the structure and authority of the Circuit and Superior courts, Steele said. “So far it sounds good, but it’s subject to go bad.”

Trockman said he can tally how much has been saved in DOC incarceration costs – $45,000 or more each year per inmate – for people who’ve instead gone through problem-solving courts.

“We have countless stories of women regaining custody of their children, fathers mending relationships with families and starting to pay child support maybe for the first time in their lives,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Reality Based Sentencing
    Based upon some of the bills currently before this session of our legislature, it is a shame that many of our legislators won't do some good where there is already a great success story and that is the recidivism rates amongst sex offenders. The latest statistic according to IDOC says there is only a 1.05% same crime type recidivism rate, second lowest to murder. In my opinion, if any group has earned a chance at reduced sentencing coupled with intensive counseling, which has been proven to work, based on steadily declining recidivism rates, it is lower level sex offenders. While recognizing every case is not the same and there is absolutely crimes deserving lengthily prison sentences in every crime category including sex offenses, there are others that might be better served by keeping offenders involved in treatment, in the community, in their jobs and in their families, all of which appear to reduce all types of recidivistic offenses by offenders. It would appear, if the main goal of our judicial system is truly to reform and rehabilitate offenders and protect the public, the majority of those convicted of sex crimes have earned that chance based upon reality, not upon the few headline grabbing stories that fuel public fear and outrage. Chuck Nute Member: IndianaVoices.org

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT