By Kathleen Seifert, CFCC Student Fellow (2016-2017)
This semester, the CFCC Student Fellows learned about the importance of employing therapeutic jurisprudence[1] and preventive law[2] to maximize positive, therapeutic outcomes for people involved in various courts. Problem-solving courts “address matters that are under the court’s jurisdiction through a multidisciplinary and integrated approach that incorporates collaboration among court, government, and community-based organizations.”[3] Problem-solving courts embody the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and preventive law.
In 2002, the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Problem-Solving Courts was directed to oversee six drug treatment courts in Maryland. Since then, problem-solving courts have seen significant expansion. As of 2015, Maryland has 37 drug treatment courts, two re-entry courts, three mental health courts, nine truancy reduction courts, and one veteran’s court in Prince George’s County, along with a veteran’s docket in Baltimore City. In 2014-2015, it cost $6.2 million to operate these problem-solving courts.[4]
Drug treatment courts are designed to coordinate treatment among criminal justice, mental health, and social service agencies to encourage the participants to break the cycle of substance abuse and addiction. Drug treatment courts operate in all Maryland counties with the exception of Allegany, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, and Worcester counties. Graduation requirements may vary from court to court. To graduate from a drug treatment court, participants may need to complete a variety of program requirements, such as paying restitution and costs, participating in a support group, working toward gainful employment, completing community service, 90-180 days of clean urinalysis, receiving a positive report from the Drug Treatment Court team (including the judge), and/or creating a plan to maintain sobriety after graduation.[5] In 2014-2015, 885 people participated in drug treatment court programs in Maryland, and 499 graduated from their program — a 50.7% success rate.[6]
Mental health courts are designed to identify and treat individuals whose mental illness contributes to their criminal behavior. Mental health courts create treatment plans which can include assistance with employment, housing, mental health treatment, and other community support services. Maryland operates mental health courts in Baltimore City, Harford County, and Prince George’s County. In 2014-2015, Maryland mental health courts treated 702 people.[7]
Truancy reduction courts are designed to improve school attendance and the student’s attitude about education. Truancy reduction courts operate in Baltimore City, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Somerset, Prince George’s, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester counties, although Baltimore City’s Truancy Court Program operates out of the University of Baltimore School of Law’s Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts and is a voluntary program rather than an official court.[8] Graduation criteria may vary from court to court, but most require some level of demonstrated decreases in absences and/or tardies. In 2014-2015, 341 students participated in truancy reduction court programs, and 254 students graduated from the program — a 74.4% success rate.[9]
What do you think about the success rate of these problem-solving courts? Do you think that these problem-solving courts should be expanded to serve more Marylanders? Do you think additional funding should be provided to operate these problem-solving courts?
[1] Therapeutic jurisprudence is the study of the role of the law as a therapeutic agent by serving as a lens that focuses on the law’s impact on an individual’s emotional and psychological well-being. Babb, Barbara A. & David B. Wexler, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 2 (2014), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2360252.
[2] Preventive lawyers assist their clients achieve the client’s goals in a manner that minimizes legal risks, identifies potential future legal dilemmas, and helps the client avoid future legal dilemmas. Winnick, Bruce J., The Expanding Scope of Preventative Law, 3 FLA. COASTAL L. J. 189 (2002).
[3] Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, Annual Report: Problem-Solving Courts, 4 (2015).
[4] Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, Annual Report: Problem-Solving Courts, 8-9 (2015).
[5] Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Drug Treatment Court, available at http://www.circuitcourt.org/learn-about/drug-treatment-court. Montgomery County Circuit Court, Drug Court Programs: Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/circuitcourt/court/drugcourt/DrugCourt_FAQ.html#_Graduation_Requirement.
[6] Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, Annual Report: Problem-Solving Courts, 13-14 (2015).
[7] Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, Annual Report: Problem-Solving Courts, 14-15 (2015).
[8] Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, Annual Report: Problem-Solving Courts, 16 (2015)
[9] Ibid.
Pingback: From Therapeutic Jurisprudence to Roper: When Social Science Serves as Authority in Law | Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts
This is a good introduction to problem solving courts! I think that they are very effective, particularly the drug courts. I think it would be good to expand the problem solving courts to counties where they might not exist, however seeing as how they are so expensive and requiring funding I think studies should be done in each specific county as to what area the county has the most problems with, whether it be drugs, truancy, mental health, etc. This way we can help ensure that the court will benefit the most amount of people.
I agree with a lot of what Alex says. I think the data you present is promising, and I believe that those rates of success would only increase with additional funding. I heard a PG County judge speak recently about the drug court he presides over, and he really emphasized the need for immediacy in these courts. By that, he meant that if news came in that a court participant deviated from their orders or plan, then they should be in front of the job as soon as possible to discuss what happened and how to proceed. If more funds were available to these courts, it would become increasingly possible to accomplish such immediacy with participants.
I agree that problem solving courts are a necessity. This is my view for reasons we learned this semester which are related to the question of the underlying reasons of certain behaviors. However, I think that in order for these courts to have a lasting success, awareness needs to be raised about accompanying these court’s participants in their social reinsertion after they are done with the court program. For instance, as Mary our classmate put it, the success of drug court could well depend on what type of housing is available to participants once they are back in the community.
I think problem solving courts are innovative, and breaking down specific problems people deal with into specific courts and analyzing the issue in that particular court is the best way to focus on rehabilitating the individual and seeing results. I would love to see a growth of funding and an overall growth of problem solving courts to all Marylanders. As a CFCC student fellow who has worked in the Truancy Court Program, I can personally vouch for the success of the program in my particular school, National Academy Foundation. I have seen breakthroughs with students regarding school participation, attendance, and grades. The character building classes and judge-student interaction enables this student breakthrough. I have seen students who, at the beginning of the semester, never attend class and earn poor grades transform into students who are both coming to class consistently and earn much higher grades.
Pingback: FROM THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE TO ROPER: WHEN SOCIAL SCIENCE SERVES AS AUTHORITY IN LAW | httpsubaltlawcfcc
Pingback: From Therapeutic Jurisprudence to Roper: When Social Science Serves as Authority in Law | Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Mainstream