TRUANCY COURT FUNDING OPTIONS

Truancy Court Funding Options

Truancy Court Funding Options

Introduction

Five years ago the term ''problem-solving courts'' was not commonly used or understood in the court community. Today, however, the term describes over a thousand courts around the country (Aikman, 2006). Problem-solving courts focus on the underlying chronic behaviors of criminal defendants. Acting on the input of a team of experts from the community, a problem-solving court judge orders the defendant to comply with an individualized plan and then the judge, with the assistance of the community team, exercises intensive supervision over the defendant to ensure compliance with the terms of the plan. Individualized plans may include, but are not limited to, participating in a treatment program, submitting to periodic substance abuse screenings, and restitution. If the defendant successfully complies with the terms of the individualized plan, criminal charges are dismissed. (Drumheller, 2001)

Three Approaches to the funding of Problem-Solving Courts

This section explores three different approaches to the institutionalization of problem-solving courts: local court-initiated implementation, statewide implementation, and higher court-led implementation (Trout, 1999). These approaches are illustrated through a discussion of the implementation of problem-solving courts in three states: Michigan, Idaho, and New York. We will briefly describe each of these problem-solving courts and the steps taken to integrate these courts into the judicial system. The experience of these courts is instructive and points the way to further innovation.

Michigan: Local Court-initiated Implementation

Problem-solving courts, especially drug courts, have proliferated in Michigan. Originally, these drug courts were initiated and implemented by the local district courts, with minimal guidance or direction from state court leaders or the legislature. The potential for serious problems stems, in part, from the lack of explicit statutory authority for problem-solving courts. The state legislature has not yet addressed this issue (Drumheller, 2001). The judiciary budget, which provides funding for problem-solving courts, states that problem-solving courts are responsible for ''handling cases involving substance-abusing nonviolent offenders through comprehensive supervision, testing, treatment, services, immediate sanctions, and incentives.'' The legislature apparently believes that problem-solving courts are important (See & Braiser, 2002), but it has not yet set up a structural framework to ensure that constitutional rights are protected and that each court follows similar sentencing and operational guidelines. The State Court Administrative Office, which administers the grant programs for problem-solving courts, and the federal government both require the courts to meet ten key criteria for funding. Although these guidelines describe a minimum level of ...