NCJ Number
200076
Date Published
February 2003
Length
66 pages
Annotation
This 2002 Annual Progress Report of California's Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee provides information and data on the Committee's work in the areas of funding, evaluation, education and outreach, and the identification and dissemination of best or promising practices in helping collaborative courts (courts using therapeutic and restorative justice principles and models) improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
Abstract
The range of California courts that are implementing therapeutic and restorative justice principles and models include but are not limited to drug courts, domestic violence courts, peer/youth courts, mental health courts, homeless courts, and community courts. This annual report reviews recent data on cost-benefit analyses of collaborative justice courts, based on the committee's two projects that involve statewide studies of drug courts. The studies show substantial savings to the justice systems as a result of reduced prison and jail costs, reduced recidivism, and efficiencies in case processing. The Committee administered awards that totaled $3.28 million to 97 collaborative justice court programs in 35 courts during fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Collaborative justice courts with a substance abuse focus, family treatment courts, juvenile drug courts, and peer/youth courts were funded through these awards. There were approximately 5,500 participants in these programs during fiscal year 2001-2002. The Committee developed a project to identify promising practices and is currently completing its second phase of that project. The number of collaborative justice courts did not change significantly during 2002. There were 248 in 2002; whereas, 252 of these courts were identified in 2001. Budget constraints are likely to impact these courts over the next 2 years, so the Committee will focus on assisting courts in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of case processing. This report briefly reviews the projects in which the Committee is currently involved. Promising practices are identified by court type. 2 figures and 1 table