Category: Spotlights

In October 2024, the Pennsylvania Courts held a first-ever statewide Behavioral Health Summit that brought together over 500 judges, leaders, and stakeholders to address the growing behavioral health crisis within the judicial system. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dougherty emphasized the increasing severity and frequency of behavioral health challenges and called the summit a “call to action” to improve court responses and support justice-involved individuals with behavioral health needs.

The summit, hosted in partnership with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), fostered collaboration among judges, county and state leaders, and advocates. It highlighted the importance of both education and building relationships in creating informed solutions that positively impact the community. This initiative seeks to develop comprehensive strategies that address behavioral health issues and ensure both effective legal proceedings and compassionate, trauma-informed care.

A significant prior step in this effort was the establishment of the Office of Behavioral Health by the Pennsylvania Courts last year. This office is focused on promoting best practices at the intersections of at-risk populations and the courts.  It is also dedicated to providing training and educational resources for judges, ensuring they are equipped to navigate cases involving those with behavioral health challenges.  Key areas of focus include truancy, domestic relations, juvenile delinquency, criminal justice, and civil commitments.

The office is currently supporting the establishment of seven judicially led, behavioral health regional councils to ensure ongoing collaboration and progress. The councils will launch via regional summits across Pennsylvania with a focus on helping county leaders to understand and engage the legislature and stakeholders on regional priorities.  

In 2016, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) developed the Enhanced Resource Guidelines (ERGs) to outline best practices for handling child abuse and neglect cases. To support implementation, NCJFCJ launched a project to train select jurisdictions in ERG-based practices.

The ERGs emphasize keeping families together, ensuring access to justice, cultural responsiveness, appropriate family time, and child safety. Research has shown that ERG implementation improves case outcomes, including faster permanency, better parental understanding in court, and increased family engagement.

Researchers from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), NCJFCJ’s research arm, analyzed data from three urban courts trained in ERG implementation. Their pre/post analysis found that ERG training positively impacts case processing and outcomes. Post-implementation, adoption rates increased, and hearings were less likely to be continued, reducing delays. Findings are under review for publication and will be presented this April at the 24th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect in Rockville, Maryland.

Additionally, NCJJ has published a catalog of dependency case management reports to help courts track key data for assessing and improving permanency outcomes. This resource provides guidance on essential data collection, report creation, and information-sharing strategies to enhance child welfare case processing.

Behavioral health diversion is built on a guiding hypothesis: Diverting non-violent individuals with serious mental illness away from the criminal justice system and into community-based treatment and support services will transform lives, reduce recidivism, generate cost savings, and ease the burden on jails, courts, and state hospitals. This hypothesis has been proven in well-resourced urban centers like Miami. The Wyoming Judicial Branch is now testing whether it holds true in a rural, under-resourced jurisdiction like Wyoming.

To test this hypothesis, the Wyoming Judicial Branch launched the state’s first diversion pilot in Campbell County on January 1, 2024. The program operates as follows: eligible individuals (those who commit non-violent misdemeanors, have a diagnosis of serious mental illness, are assessed as moderate to very high criminogenic risk, and do not pose a public safety threat) are offered the option of diversion. Participants who choose diversion and successfully complete an individualized treatment plan have their charges dismissed. Those who decline or fail to complete the program return to the traditional criminal justice process.

With funding from the State Justice Institute, the Wyoming Judicial Branch partnered with the National Center for State Courts to provide training and technical assistance for the Campbell County pilot and up to three additional pilots across the state.

Early results are promising. The pilot program’s first graduate spent 623 days in jail before entering diversion and zero days in jail after entering the program. While it is too early for definitive conclusions, these results suggest behavioral health diversion works in rural settings.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has brought together experts and practitioners to develop comprehensive guidance on AI Readiness for the state courts. The project, funded by SJI, aims to provide resources for courts along the whole spectrum of AI maturity, from courts that are just beginning to think about AI to courts that have already implemented AI projects.

The AI Readiness Workgroup includes court leaders, court practitioners on the cutting edge of AI implementation, and experts in court technology, psychology, computer science, design, and law. In a 2-day kickoff gathering in Chicago, pictured below, the workgroup heard presentations from subject-matter experts, engaged in brainstorming and problem-solving activities, reviewed existing guidance on AI for courts, and viewed demonstrations from courts that have already implemented ambitious AI projects.

The Workgroup is currently hard at work drafting a variety of resources for courts that are just beginning their AI journeys. Topics include establishing the court’s AI governance structure, building AI literacy in the court workforce, assessing data governance practices for AI readiness, identifying AI opportunities, and updating policies. Once these resources are developed, the Workgroup will tackle resources for courts that are already at various stages of AI development, including topics like vetting technology vendors, implementing change management, and evaluating AI outcomes.

The project is scheduled to conclude in Summer 2025, but interim deliverables will be published as they become available, beginning in the Spring.

This project builds on the foundations of earlier work by NCSC and other organizations, including COSCA and NACM. For more information, see the AI Rapid Response Team Resource Center.

The RFK National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice (RFKNRCJJ) has used a proven framework to partner with state and local jurisdictions to conduct multiple probation and youth justice system reviews designed to improve outcomes for youth and families at-risk or involved in the juvenile justice systems for more than fifteen years. RFK’s successful technical assistance partnerships have produced an impressive array of positive innovations and reforms to the policies and operations that impact youth outcomes and increase community safety.

The RFK National Resource Center is applying these positive experiences and lessons learned in the Probation and Youth Justice System Project in Clark County, Washington; San Diego County, California; and the tri-county District 25 in the state of North Carolina. The project will produce replicable methods, approaches and operations for probation, courts, and the broader youth justice system.

The RFK National Resource Center has produced other resources and guides that permit youth justice system reviews to be successfully replicated nationwide.

RFK will be hosting a 2025 Transformation of Youth Justice National Symposium in San Diego, California on June 18-20, 2025, designed for multi-disciplinary professionals and youth-serving stakeholders committed to advancing youth justice transformation.

The Keeping Families Together: Preserving and Reunifying Families with Substance Use Disorder (KFT) project was established to refine and test a Family Recovery Court (FRC) model for child welfare-involved families with substance use disorders. In collaboration with the Williamson County Family Recovery Court, Dr. Catherine LaBrenz and her team at the University of Texas at Arlington (Dr. Hui Huang, Dr. Philip Baiden, and Dr. Yeonwoo Kim) partnered to manualize the FRC model, assess ongoing barriers and facilitators of implementation, provide continuous quality improvement, and examine the effectiveness of the model in increasing recovery and reunification. Through interviews with key stakeholders, they identified four key pillars that differentiate the FRC from traditional courts: 1) trauma-informed and non-adversarial approach; 2) family-centeredness; 3) accountability; and 4) community connectedness.

Through a shared vision and active collaboration, the FRC providers have increased community infrastructure to support parents and ensure thriving families. This includes provider participation in bimonthly meetings, trainings, and biweekly staffing to enhance a trauma-informed community approach to work with child welfare-involved families. Since the start of this project in 2023, 20 parents have been accepted into the program: of these, six have graduated, four had their cases transferred or were expelled, and the remaining 10 are currently in the program.

“I was offered recovery court after multiple CPS cases. I just wasn’t ready to get clean and I actually ended up going to rehab on my own. They offered me family recovery court afterwards and that was probably the family recovery court saved my life. I don’t think that I would have succeeded without it. Just going to rehab alone, probably would not have done it for me. I will be two years clean in November and that’s thanks to all the support with family recovery court, the accountability that they [have], they hold you accountable. You know, you have to go to court dates and see coaches and therapists and all those things combined. Without it, I wouldn’t’ have been able to be here today, I don’t think.”

-Parent Graduate

“I definitely see us involving more community partners, which is exciting. As we meet new families, we start identifying things we don’t know how to handle, or we are able to better identify the need outside of the recovery piece.”

-FRC Provider

The Assessment Center Outcome and Reporting Network (ACORN) initiative was established to create a more consistent performance and outcome measures for Assessment Centers (AC) nationwide.  The National Assessment Center Association (NAC) in collaboration with the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and Dr. Jeff Kretschmar, worked to support a cohort of six ACs (listed below) to assess data capacities and capabilities to identify opportunities to align AC performance and outcomes to the AC Framework.   The development of more consistent performance and outcome measures allows us to assess AC impact on prevention, diversion, and early intervention and is a necessary step prior to broad scale assessment of the AC Framework.

This project first conducted a wide-scale assessment of Assessment Center’s (AC) information systems and data capacity.  It then identified six ACs with varying capacities to participate in trainings and technical assistance, identify gaps in data collection, and create an “action plan” that identifies enhancement and improvement goals.  The TTA Team worked with the cohort to complete mock ACORN reports.  Following the completion of each section, the cohort convened to discuss challenges, successes, and actionable ways to improve data collection.  With the cohort ending September 2024, plans are being made to continue the use of ACORN and scale it’s use to other ACs across the country. 

 ACORN Cohort:

1. 1. The Harbor Juvenile Assessment Center (Clark County, Nevada)
2. 2. Multi-Agency Resource Center (Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana)
3. 3. Family Resource Center (Ashtabula County, Ohio)
4. 4. The Bridge (Ada County, Idaho)
5. 5. Juvenile Assessment Center (4^th Judicial District, Colorado)
6. 6. Assessment Center (Delaware County, Ohio)

“The most helpful for me was being able to look at what type of information was important for us to capture. It also was a great opportunity to be able to organize some things that we hadn’t organized before with data collection specifically. Being new to the Assessment Center, it gave me an opportunity to learn more about what other AC’s do which was very helpful.” – Sara Miller; Director, Delaware County Assessment Center, Ohio

“Sustaining support for the emerging peer network the SJI-funded demonstration assembled is a wise investment in juvenile justice system improvement, particularly as research supports the effectiveness of robust diversion and the national network of AC expands.” – Hunter Hurst, Director, National Center for Juvenile Justice

Many people who become involved in the criminal legal system experience behavioral health and social service-related needs that remain unmet throughout their system involvement. These unmet needs can result in people cycling through the system, taking a toll on their well-being and placing a burden on the system. In recognition of this challenge, jurisdictions across the United States have begun to implement court navigator programs to bridge the gap between the behavioral health and criminal legal systems.

Researchers at Policy Research Associates, Inc. conducted a three-year project to better understand court navigator programs. Across three phases of work, researchers completed a national scan of court navigator programs, conducted site visits to five programs, and interviewed nearly 100 people involved with these programs (e.g., court actors, navigators, service providers, and people who had received services).

The national scan of programs found 18 court navigator programs located across 21 different states. Most programs operate in a single jurisdiction though some operate in multiple jurisdictions, statewide, or nationally. Programs are typically funded via local governments or grants and navigators are often employed through non-profit or behavioral health agencies. Navigators direct people around courthouses, answer basic questions about the court process, and connect people to services in the court and in the community. Generally, court navigators emphasize connecting people to services via a ‘warm handoff’ to ensure the connection is made successfully.

During interviews, respondents described key takeaways that spoke to the goal, workflow, and benefits of court navigator programs. We briefly summarize six takeaways here:

• 1. The main goal of many navigator programs is to reduce recidivism by clarifying court processes and helping people get connected to needed behavioral health and social services.
• 2. The navigator role is autonomous and flexible allowing navigators to tailor and adjust their schedules as needed.
• 3. Navigators spend a lot of time developing and maintaining vast referral networks. This community building is the foundation of court navigator success.  
• 4. Navigators reduce the workload of court staff, jail staff, and service providers by taking on the work of connecting people to services within the courthouse and in the community.
• 5. Court navigator programs have been well received in the counties in which they operate.
• 6. People helped by navigators describe the experience as incredibly positive.

To demonstrate the final takeaway, one person who had received services from the navigator in Buncombe County shared, “Its nerve-wracking being [in court] sometimes and it’s nice to have someone just pleasant, friendly, respectful. He was just very helpful.”  Another person who had received services from a navigator with the Criminal Justice Liaison Program in Tennessee expressed, “I couldn’t tell you how much I appreciate the work that she has [done]. Like I said, she went over and beyond what her job title is. She really did. … every state ought to have [a Court Navigator Program].” Nearly everyone interviewed for this project recommended that all courts consider implementing this type of position.

A resource guide describing court navigators in detail is forthcoming in September 2024. In the meantime, if you want to learn more about court navigators, you can access our National Compendium of Court Navigation and Support Services, our podcast episode on court navigators, or a summary of court navigator programs appearing in 2024 edition of Trends in State Courts published by the National Center for State Courts.

Media pieces and products:

• National Compendium of Court Navigation and Support Services: https://www.prainc.com/resources/compendium-court-navigation-programs/
• A podcast episode describing court navigator programs: https://soundcloud.com/policyresearch/dp-court-navigators
• A summary of court navigator programs appearing in 2024 edition of Trends in State Courts published by the National Center for State Courts: https://www.ncsc.org/publications-and-library/trends

The Trauma-Informed Practice Strategy Lab (TIPS Lab) was born out of the need to address the trauma of people involved in criminal courts—an urgent need shown by statistics on the prevalence of violence and victimization in the United States. The Center for Justice Innovation is leading the development of the TIPS Lab, which includes a forthcoming blueprint for criminal court practitioners to recognize, address, and respond to trauma. The goal of the TIPS Lab is to bridge the gap between training and implementation of trauma-informed practices to support criminal court practitioners in non-specialty courts.

The TIPS Lab is documenting and supporting emerging and leading trauma-informed practices in criminal courts with special attention to the role court staff, administrators, and judicial officers play. The TIPS Lab launched in 2023 and has three distinct phases: Phase One of the project focused on conducting a national inventory of both the major challenges and opportunities that criminal courts face when implementing trauma-informed practices as well as an in-person symposium of though leaders in the field. Phase One culminated with the development of the publication Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities. Phase Two focused on the development of a forthcoming TIPS Lab Blueprint to provide courts detailed guidance on their implementation of trauma-informed practices. Phase Three will focus on the practical application of the TIPS Lab Blueprint through providing intensive technical assistance to a cohort of four to six diverse criminal court jurisdictions across the United States.

---

For more information, please contact Alejandra Garcia, Associate Director of Recovery and Reform, Center for Justice Innovation: garciaa@innovatingjustice.org.

Article about the Symposium: https://www.innovatingjustice.org/articles/trauma-informed-courts

Initial TIPS Lab Publication: https://www.innovatingjustice.org/publications/trauma-informed-courts-implementation

In 2011, Utah became the first state to embed the concept of proportionality into its rules governing discovery in civil cases.  Utah Rule 26 created three tiers based on the amount-in-controversy at stake with tight deadlines and significant restrictions on the scope of allowable discovery for cases valued less than $50,000 (Tier 1), slightly longer deadlines and expanded discovery permitted for cases valued between $50,000 and $300,000 (Tier 2), and more traditional deadlines and scope of discovery for cases valued more than $300,000 (Tier 3).  The result was more effective judicial case management, leading to fewer discovery disputes in tort and non-debt collection contract cases and significantly faster case resolution time.  Utah’s experience with civil justice reforms became a cornerstone for the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee recommendations concerning triage and case management.     

Although COVID-19 disrupted civil justice reform efforts, court leadership in many states expressed confidence that the CJI recommendations, especially triage and judicial enforcement of case scheduling orders and deadlines, were the key to addressing civil case backlogs.  With grant funding from the State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) returned to Utah to examine the longer-term impact of Utah’s civil discovery reforms.  Using data on civil cases filed from 2013 through 2019, focus groups with Utah district court judges and civil practitioners, and surveys of attorneys in civil cases, the 10-Year Retrospective on Utah Civil Discovery Reforms focuses on the sustainability of Utah’s reforms over time as well as practitioner perceptions of civil legal practice. 

NCSC continues data analysis, especially to account for shifts in caseload composition and discovery assignments, such as a decreased proportion of debt collection cases and increased Tier 3 cases driven by both increased tort cases and an increased tendency to assign tort cases to Tier 3.  Although discovery disputes have continued to decrease over the past 10 years, the Utah district courts have not sustained the faster disposition times that were achieved in the first two years following implementation of the rules. Tier 1 and Tier 3 cases are still resolving faster than before the new discovery rules were enacted, but Tier 2 cases now resolve slower than in 2011.  Compared to the period immediately after the discovery rules went into effect, Certificates of Trial Readiness (COR) were less likely to be filed in a timely manner, and more cases were disposed six months or more after the COR due date.  In survey responses, attorneys noted inconsistent judicial case management practices, including enforcement of discovery deadlines and restrictions, which may explain some of the loss of progress on case resolution time.  Of particular interest, attorney survey responses showed strong appetite for more consistent judicial enforcement with more than half expressing a preference for strict enforcement of the discovery rules.  NCSC expects to complete data analysis and release its final report with recommendations in September 2024.