|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports |
Last Updated: 22 March 2021
Citation: Thom, K., Mills, A., Meehan, C., and McKenna, B (2013). Evaluating problem-solving courts in New Zealand: A synopsis report. Auckland: Centre for Mental Health Research.
This publication would not have been possible without the funding assistance and more general support provided by The New Zealand Law Foundation.
Published in November 2013 by the Centre for Mental Health Research
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, New Zealand.
Table of Contents
5
1
Introduction
Problem-solving1 courts were developed in the United States in the late 1980s and have extended to a number of jurisdictions throughout the world (Freiberg, 2001). In New Zealand, family violence courts were the first problem-solving courts to be established in 2001 (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, & Ong, 2008), followed by a youth alcohol and drug court in Christchurch in 2002 (Searle & Spier, 2006). A speciality court for at risk youth was then established in Auckland in 2007 and a homeless court in the same city was implemented in 2010. The Ministry of Justice is currently piloting two adult alcohol and other drug courts in the Auckland region and there are also a number of Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts for young people (See Richardson, Thom, & McKenna, 2013 for further discussion of problem solving courts in Australasia).
The New Zealand government has recognised that addictions, mental illness, and social care needs such as lack of family support and unemployment are inextricably linked to rates of crime (Corrections, 2009). Limitations in the ability of existing health and social care agencies to effectively address these issues have resulted in traditional adversarial courts becoming revolving doors for offenders, whose criminal behaviours arise from psychological and social impairments (King & Freiburg, 2009).
Court innovations, such as problem-solving courts, have been developed to assist in addressing the psychosocial causes of offending. These courts seek to improve the psychosocial wellbeing of those whose maladaptive behaviour brings them to court in the first place (Winick, 2006). Problem-solving courts use a psychological lens in viewing defendants as motivated (or unmotivated) actors, who adjust their responses to the courtroom according to their motivation during hearings, anticipated emotions about future hearings and perceptions of the fairness of their treatment by the court.
Currently, there is limited research available on the function and effectiveness of the problem- solving courts in New Zealand. This report, funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation, outlines a preparatory study of the problem-solving movement in New Zealand, with the view of providing the foundations for future evaluations which are methodologically robust and theoretically grounded.
1 The team acknowledges the recent preference in Australasia and beyond to use the term ‘solution-focused’ courts instead of ‘problem-solving’ courts. Throughout our reports in this series we have chosen to use the term problem- solving courts because of its wide usage internationally, particularly in the United States where much of the research literature is well developed. Further exploration needs to be undertaken in New Zealand to understand the intricacies in the usage of ‘solution-focused’ over ‘problem-solving’ – this kind of exploration is beyond the scope of our reports.
6
2
Methodology
2.1 Aims
The aim of this project was to conduct a preparatory study of problem-solving courts in New Zealand, with the view of coming up with an evaluation programme to use in the future studies that could work across different problem-solving courts. The study has three related phases, each with its own objectives:
2.1.1 Phase one: The New Zealand context
Objective: To survey what unique variables specific to New Zealand problem-solving courts may need to be considered in future evaluations. What are the current features of New Zealand problem-solving courts? What issues specific to these courts may inform future evaluations?
2.1.2 Phase two: Current evaluation practices
Objective: To review current methodologies used to evaluate problem-solving courts. What are the methods commonly used to evaluation these courts? What are the limitations and strengths of the methods used? What could future evaluations of problem-solving courts learn from existing studies?
2.1.3 Phase three: Evaluation model for future studies
Objective: To develop an evidence-base and theoretically grounded evaluation model relevant to the New Zealand context. What would an evaluation program look like if it incorporated the most useful and robust aspects of the existing evaluations? What are the features, specific to New Zealand problem-solving courts that should shape future evaluations? What are the factors currently missing from existing evaluations that need to be included in future studies?
2.2 Methods
The study involved observation and informal discussions with the judiciary involved in running New Zealand problem-solving courts, as well as the completion of comprehensive literature reviews. The project then used the findings from this preparatory investigation to consider the content of an evaluation program to apply across problem-solving courts in New Zealand.
2.2.1 Observations and informal discussions
The team conducted observations of several of the courts to gain insights into the current functioning of problem-solving courts. The aim of the observations was also to ascertain whether there were variables unique to the New Zealand context that might need to be included in future evaluation studies. Observations were strengthened by informal discussions with members of the judiciary with key roles in the problem-solving court movement. These discussions assisted in solidifying the teams’ initial ideas and greatly informed the development of the evaluation model.
Observations of the following courts took place: New Beginnings (Homeless) Court (1 day observation); Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (1 day observations each at the Auckland City and Waitakere sites); Family Violence Courts (1 day observation at each at the Waitakere, Auckland City and Manakau sites) and the 1 day observation of the application of the community justice approach at the Porirua District Court. The informal discussions with judges strengthened the teams’ ability to confirm ideas following these observations.
7
A summary of the main findings from our observations and discussions with judges were constructed. Within this report, the summary remains generalised in order to maintain anonymity of those involved in discussions with the team and also to leave any issues facing the specific courts unspecified.
2.2.2 Literature reviews
To meet the objective of phase one, a review of current methodologies used to evaluate existing problem-solving courts was conducted. The literature reviews aimed to explore what methods were used across the studies as well as to detail the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen methods.
Studies published in journals, sections of books, and online papers/reports relating to five types of problem-solving courts within the United States or Commonwealth countries was undertaken. The courts included: Alcohol and Other Drug Courts, Family Violence Courts, Community Justice Centres, and Indigenous Courts. Youth Courts were not included but have been reviewed by some members of the team previously (See Madell, Thom, & McKenna, 2012). Only literature describing the results of original quantitative or qualitative evaluation studies published up until March 2013 were included. Letters, case law review, whole books, news items and unpublished manuscripts and papers discussing conceptual issues were excluded from the systematic review. Each literature review does, however, contain background context to the functioning of the courts, which did rely on some material that was not necessarily research-based.
A search strategy was developed that was inclusive of a wide range of literature. Search terms were used to search the online databases MedLine, PubMed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, JSTOR, Expanded Academic, Project muse, Academic Research Library, Brookers online, and the search engine Google Scholar. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest. We also searched for literature written by key authors in the area.
Owing to the diverse nature of the included studies, the content of all papers was also synthesised and a table of studies was drawn up to assist in the synthesis of literature.
2.2.3 Model development sessions
The evaluation model was developed across several ‘work-shop sessions’ where team members discussed the different variables considered in existing studies, alongside knowledge gained from the observations and informal discussions. At this stage the team considered how the theoretical framework provided by therapeutic jurisprudence scholars might shape the future models of evaluation. As the team learnt while completing the preparatory study, therapeutic jurisprudence is often considered integral to the functioning of problem-solving courts and is also used internationally as a method of inquiry. Within the workshops, therefore, the team set out to investigate how therapeutic jurisprudence may provide a conceptual framework for future evaluation studies.
8
3
The New Zealand context
Section three summarises the teams’ observations and informal discussions with members of the judiciary. The team attempted to observe as many problem-solving courts as possible. For various reasons, the team were not able to observe all the courts included in our sample for the literature reviews. We did not include homeless courts in our literature review sample but did carry out observations in the New Beginnings courts in Auckland. The observations of the new beginnings court are included in this section because they informed our final considerations of a future evaluation model that could be considered across multiple problem-solving courts.
The following provides a brief contextual background of each court, followed by a profile of the functions and processes of each court based on the teams’ observations, informal discussions and consideration of court policy frameworks.
3.1 Family violence courts
3.1.1 Background
Family violence courts first emerged on the scene within the United States. The first domestic violence court opened in 1987 in Massachusetts (Wolf, 2005) and, in 1996, the integrated domestic violence court model was introduced in New York State. This latter model, which seeks to address both criminal and civil elements of domestic violence cases, influenced many of the specialist family violence courts in operation today (Mazur & Aldrich, 2003). As of 2009, there were 208 confirmed domestic violence courts in the United States (Labriola, Bradley, O'Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2009), with more recent estimates suggesting at least 300 are in operation today. New York State alone currently has over 60 of these courts.
Family violence courts, like other specialist courts, generally take a coordinated and ‘whole- system approach’ to adjudication with the overall aim of promoting individual and social change (Mirchandani, 2006). Berman and Feinblatt (2001) identified further core characteristics of family violence courts similar to other problem-solving courts, including their focus on tangible outcomes, system change, judicial monitoring and collaboration. It is important to note that family violence courts also have a number of features that set them apart from other problem-solving courts, namely the focus on victim safety and offender accountability. This is a reflection of the two basic principles of family violence courts to facilitate “early intervention for low risk offenders and vigorous prosecution for serious repeat offenders” (Tutty, Koshan, Jesso, Ogden, & Warrell, 2011, p. 20).
An overview of twenty years of domestic violence courts (Moore, 2009) in the United States and Canada found that family violence courts share the common goals of:
Therapeutic jurisprudence, the philosophy that underpins many problem-solving courts, also directs family violence courts’ attention towards not just the circumstances surrounding domestic violence and the impact on victims, families and communities, but also the potential beneficial and harmful impacts of justice intervention itself (Fritzler & Simon, 2000).
9
3.1.2
Family Violence Courts in New Zealand
Common elements of family violence courts in New Zealand include voluntary participation, judicial monitoring, hearings to determine progress, and a less adversarial approach than the traditional courts (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, et al., 2008). The family violence courts aim to respond in a way that is timely, while maintaining the safety of victims and families and holding offenders to account. New Zealand currently has eight of these courts in operation (Boshier, 2011).
There are variances in the operation of family violence courts in New Zealand. In the Auckland region, the team noted that the exact composition of the multi-disciplinary team and services offered to offenders and victims differ. All the courts involve designated judges, prosecutors and community probation officers. Central to the running of all three courts was also the co- ordinator who not only acted as the central point for organisation issues, but also appeared to develop longitudinal relationships with defendants that supported their pathways through the court process. The team observed the Waitakere court to have victim advocates, while at Manukau and Auckland City courts, victim advisors were part of the team. The court appointed victim advisers and advocates were consulted about matters pertaining to victims (e.g. where they were living), but in general the views of victims were put across through victim impact statements. Research on the three Auckland courts suggested the support offered by victim advocates, as opposed to victim advisors, is rated highly by victims (see section 4.4 for further details). A treatment provider for offenders is also physically present at the Waitakere court but is not included in the other two courts’ processes.
Community Link in Courts (CLIC) representatives, who provides help with family, housing, finances, alcohol and other drug and/or health issues can also be in attendance. The judge did not refer to the CLIC during the team’s observations but they were consulted by lawyers on a few occasions.
To conclude, the guidelines for the operation of family violence courts were issued in 2008. However, the courts have continued to be developed in different ways largely due to differential access to resources across regions. Some family violence courts, for example, have access to many services including alcohol and drug services, victim support, women’s refuge, violence related programme providers and only deal with a small number of cases. In other courts, situated in busy urban settings, there are a high number of cases involving serious violent offences with limited access to resources. It was suggested that in an ideal world all the family violence courts should involve a suite of responses to tailor the process to the needs of individual offenders and ensure the safety of victims.
3.2 Alcohol and Other Drug courts (AODCs)
3.2.1 Background
The first recorded example of AODCs commenced in 1989 and involved a Miami judge taking a ‘hands on’ approach to reoffending inextricably linked to drug addiction. Offenders in this court were assigned a treatment disposition rather than prison sentence. This process of adjudication became known as ‘drug courts’, and similar approaches were swiftly applied in other areas where recidivism was thought to be caused by psychological and social problems.
AODCs, like other problem-solving courts, are non-adversarial. They offer offenders intensive supervised drug treatment programmes as an alternative to the normal criminal justice sentencing process (Nolan, 2002). This is achieved by a specialist team, consisting of the drug court judge, registrar, prosecutor, defence counsel, case managers, social workers and treatment advisors including probation, victim advocates and advisors. Together, this team works to decide on the best sentence and treatment plan for each offender. In exchange for
10
successful completion of the treatment programme, the court may reduce the offender’s sentence or offer a lesser penalty. By providing a holistic approach, the drug courts aims to facilitate effective engagement in treatment programmes, thereby increasing the chances of successful treatment outcomes for offenders and decreasing the likelihood of recidivism.
The 10 key components were developed by National Association of Drug Court Professionals are integral to the functioning of most drug courts internationally. These include:
Existing research evaluations within the United States often measure the success of drug courts against these key components (see section 4.1).
3.2.2 The New Zealand Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts (AODTCs)
A twin pilot of AODTCs is currently running in Waitakere and Auckland City over five years. The AODTC deals with defendants who have moderate to severe AOD addiction/dependency who need intensive treatment. The AODTC processes defendants who have plead guilty, are deemed to be high risk and in high need, and are facing a term of imprisonment of up to three years for an offence that was driven by alcohol or other drug dependency. The AODTC are made up of a judge, case manager, court coordinator, designated defence counsel and police prosecutor (Ministry of Justice, 2012a). All AODTC participants must consent to the programme requirements. These include: treatment participation, regular and random drug testing, attendance at treatment and scheduled appointments including court appearances.
Defendants must choose to take part in the AODTCs and are free to withdraw from the programme if they wish to receive an alternative disposition. The programme with the AODTCs takes between 12 to 18 months to complete and begins with an assessment conducted by Community Alcohol and Drug Services. The AODTC operates a three-stage programme, with each stage being 4-6 months. People graduate between stages and then have a full graduation on completion. The treatment tenders (funded by Health) were won by Salvation Army, Odyssey House and Higher Ground and most defendants receive their addiction treatment through these services. Each AODTC will have around 50 cases, with the max number of cases the courts can have at any time being around 125.
The 10 key components to drug courts developed in the United States were integral to formation of the AODTC (see 3.2.1). This means the judge is part of a team who come up with an agreed
11
response to each defendant’s situation, although ultimately the disposition is the judge’s responsibility. The relationship and interaction between the defence and prosecution lawyers is less adversarial. Instead there is much cross-over between the lawyer’s roles with free and frank discussions taking place in the courtroom and in the pre-court meetings of professionals. Case managers who have a treatment background act as a conduit between treatment providers and the team and a case co-ordinator who functions in an administrative role providing links between the court and the team. The case managers also visit people while they are receiving treatment and attend important events/milestones if defendants does not have any other sources of support – the team observed that this was highly regarded by defendants. The treatment providers are crucial members of the team, providing independent advice and updates regarding the defendant’s progress. Consistency of staff members who comprise the team is also essential to the effectiveness of the court, so that all members get to know the participants and vice versa contributing to a transparent and honest process.
As with similar courts in the United States, the AODTC takes an abstinence approach. Peer support workers are involved in supporting defendants through the 12-step programmes. The team observed clients being given cards to mark off their attendance at Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings. Although AA and NA are not official treatment providers and clients are not obliged to go, it was clear that engagement with AA and NA carries some weight in terms of how the defendant’s progress is viewed by the court.
The court operates on a system of rewards and sanctions. A big part of the philosophy is giving praise or affirmation for the goals defendants have achieved. The AODTC uses ankle bracelets and drug testing to detect alcohol and drug consumption respectively, rather than self-reporting to monitor the defendant’s progress each week. The idea behind drug testing is that it helps the defendant in providing honest information, allowing for acknowledgement of their setbacks as well as positive progress towards abstaining. An example of rewards given to defendants during the observations included providing a defendant with a zoo pass to take his children on a day trip over the holiday period. Applause was often used as a method of praise and was clearly appreciated by defendants and their supporters.
The team observed the AODTC experiences similar resource issues as the family violence courts, with limited treatment services being available for people with addiction issues. The team noted instances where defendants were remanded back into custody due to lack of available residential treatment places. Such delays have the potential to reduce a defendant’s motivation to engage in treatment and may have a knock on effect in their prison conditions if they lose their cells or prison jobs every time they come to court. As the AODTC pilots are in their infancy, it remains unclear what added constraints the courts might place on limited treatment addiction services in the Auckland region. It is also unclear how similar pilots could be rolled out across the country where in some regions there are limited addiction treatment service providers.
3.3 Community justice
3.3.1 Background
Community courts and community justice centres work in partnership with local organisations and the wider community to problem-solve local justice, crime and safety issues. The first community courts were developed in the United States and have now spread to the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, with interest from places as far as China.
The review of the literature indicated there is no definitive ‘community justice’ model. Amongst all the different problem-solving court initiatives in operation, community courts and community justice centres show the most variation in underlying structure and operation. Although many
12
courts are influenced by the original Red Hook or Midtown community court models from the United States, they tend to take on a local flavour reflecting the distinct needs of the communities. Correspondingly, the scope and nature of the courts vary as do the types of areas they service, from single suburban or inner-city neighbourhoods to entire medium-size cities (Lee, 2000).
Despite variations in the operation of community courts and justice centres, some key characteristics common across these initiatives include:
3.3.2 Community justice initiatives in New Zealand
The Porirua Court and Community Project operates out of the Porirua District Court. It was the result of a grassroots initiative instigated by the local judges as part of a broader local government initiative developed in consultation with residents (Council, 2009). The Porirua Court and Community Project was inspired by the community courts internationally and is an attempt to mainstream the community justice approach within existing structures and processes
13
of the district court. The Porirua court also fosters relationships through having the same judges handling cases and locating services centrally.
The team observed the judges in this court largely carried out ‘practice as usual’ while attempting to apply a problem-solving approach where possible. Consistency of judges to see the progress of cases through the court was of paramount important. The team observed the judge making sure defendant’s future appointments with the court were made on dates the judge would be sitting. The role of lawyers was also seen as critical and the process worked better with the same lawyers being involved with every case. It is important for defendants to be able to appoint their own lawyers. However if the lawyer has a good knowledge base of the community justice approach, then they are able to advise their clients of the judges’ practices and help clients adjust to the idea that the court could help facilitate wider changes in their lives. Other health and social service representatives were also present in the courtroom. Their roles were clearly marked on the back of their chairs to ensure the public awareness of their presence. On the day of the team’s observation, for instance, there were representatives of a local alcohol and drug service, restorative justice, the Salvation Army, a court liaison nurse and the youth service (WATCH). These professionals did not engage directly with the judge during the team’s observation but were referred to at various points in the proceedings. For example, due to all defendants being screened for alcohol and drug issues, the alcohol and drug representative was sometimes referred to when making reference to a screening.
In one case the team observed the use of a solution focused approach in the mainstream court. The defendant had a lengthy history of alcohol and drug issues. The judge assessed the defendant’s motivation in a sympathetic manner and ordered a pre-sentence report that included an addictions treatment plan. There was more time spent with this defendant than others on the list and his personal life was probed in detail. Through this probing, it was recognised that the defendant has a strong motivation to change his life due to his family commitments. The defendant was already motivated to seek help but did not realise the court could support him until this personalised conversation took place.
It was acknowledged through informal discussions with the team that the education component of mainstream community justice approaches needs to be developed to better engage the community. Additionally, initiatives such as the Red Hook in New York City and the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne that provide services to people who are not necessarily on the criminal list could also be developed in New Zealand. The court was not resourced currently, however, to develop such initiatives that may lead to better public engagement.
3.4 Homeless courts
3.4.1 Background
Homelessness courts were established in San Diego, United States in 1989 and are now used internationally. They aim to divert homeless people away from the criminal justice system and link them with appropriate services. These courts are underpinned by the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and evaluations have shown this approach to be more effective in dealing with the underlying issues of homelessness, giving a much greater opportunity for reducing future offending.
3.4.2 Te Kooti o Timatanga Hou, The New Beginnings Court
Te Kooti o Timatanga Hou was established in Auckland in 2010. The court is aimed at defendants who have pleaded guilty; have committed on-going, low-level reoffending within Auckland’s inner city; are homeless and/or have no fixed address; are affected by mental health concerns and/or intellectual disability; and are affected by chronic alcohol and/or substance
14
abuse issues. This court is made up of governmental and non-governmental agencies that can assist the defendant with their rehabilitation. Therapeutic and treatment plans are developed to address any mental health, addiction, or intellectual impairment issues. The defendant may then be accepted into the court for monitoring (Woodley, 2012).
The Court of New Beginnings operates for one half-day each month. Defendants entering the New Beginnings court must be persistent offenders; a potential defendant with no history of offending is not accepted into the court because it is not an early intervention programme. After a guilty plea has been entered, a plan is developed to address any victim-related issues that may be pertinent to restorative justice initiatives. A treatment plan is also developed to address any mental health, addiction, or intellectual impairment issues. There are many professionals that comprise the team approach within the New Beginnings Court, including the judge, prosecutor, restorative justice representatives, duty solicitors, collection agencies (fines, levies etc), corrections (Community Probation), a Lifewise representative, a Auckland City Mission representative, a Salvation Army court officer, a programme case manager, a public defence lawyer and a court manager. Meeting the housing needs of defendants requires Housing New Zealand input. A representative was not present during our observations and it was suggested that their presence significantly affects the court’s ability to make positive movements in defendants’ lives. A restorative justice approach was evidence in this court, but at times it appears difficult to contact victims and/or the crime committed was victimless. As of 31 August 2012, a total of 54 people had been referred to the Court of New Beginnings. Of these 48 were eligible for the programme.
The case manager is crucial to the successful running of the court and in liaising with other agencies (e.g. Salvation Army and drug and alcohol treatment providers) to help defendants with any health and social needs. An important aspect of the court noted by the team was the fact that the case manager is funded by the providers who service the court. This demonstrated their commitment to the court and the significance they placed on the court’s ability to make changes in the lives of defendants.
The court uses a reward and sanctioning approach, with defendants being able to be credited for good behaviour by way of fines they owe being cancelled. Treatment for alcohol and other drug addiction is offered to defendants. However, the court has experienced the significant resource issues many of these services face in the Auckland region, including lengthy waiting lists for admittance to residential care.
The courtroom environment and judicial style differed somewhat in the New Beginnings Court when compared to the other courts. During court proceedings, the defendant was seated, for example, with the lawyers and case manager rather than in the dock. The judge interacted intensely with the defendants and created an environment that minimised the use of legal or medicalised language. Strong support from peers was evident in the court and the court provided a positive environment for defendants to participate at all stages.
15
4 Current evaluation practices
Section four summarises the teams’ review of existing evaluations of alcohol and other drug courts, community justice centres, indigenous courts, and family violence courts. For a full account of each review, please refer to the other reports in this series supported by the New Zealand Law Foundation.
4.1 Alcohol and other drug courts
4.1.1 Existing evaluations
Research on AODCs has come predominantly from the United States and evaluates these courts against the 10 key components developed by National Association of Drug Court Professionals (see section 3.2). Although AODCs may vary in how they apply and operationalize the 10 key components (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997), meta-analyses of existing evaluations have consistently demonstrated they improve treatment outcomes and reduce recidivism (Carey & Waller, 2011). Carey et al’s., (2012) meta-analysis of 125 AODC evaluations conducted over ten years found better outcomes for programmes which followed the Ten Key Components; worked collaboratively as a team, provided wraparound services, provided structure and accountability, monitored performance and trained team members. AODCs which invested in treatment and supervision services, staff training, program evaluation, and data reviews from management information systems were found to be more cost-effective. Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, Roman, and Rossman (2012) researched 23 AODCs over six comparison sites and found AODCs participants committed less criminal acts. Carey & Waller (2011) found 24 Oregon drug court programs reduced recidivism (measured as number of rearrests) on average by 44%. In addition, the National Institute of Justice’s Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation of 23 AODCs found an average reduction in recidivism of 16% (Rempel & Zweig, 2011).
Outside of the United States, research has provided mixed results. In their Canadian study, Somers et al., (2012) added to the growing evidence around the effectiveness of AODCs in reducing recidivism. Heale and Lang (2001) reported that the introduction of AODCs has been innovative and promising in terms of diverting offenders into drug treatment. Additional commentary suggested that AODCs have achieved a good deal of local and international support, providing intensive, long-term treatment services to service users with long histories of drug use, contact with the criminal justice system and previously failed treatment attempts. Carswell’s (2004) mixed-method evaluation of the pilot Christchurch youth AODC indicated positive results in terms of reduced recidivism and early identification and reduction of alcohol or drug dependency in young people through treatment delivery, on-going monitoring and successful interagency co-ordination.
While it has been shown that AODCs have a positive effect on reducing recidivism and preventing harms associated with drug use, there were four critical themes that emerged from our literature reviews. (1) The promotion of an abstinence focus in AODCs was seen to be at odds with the harm minimisation focus of some countries drug policy. McIvor (2010) has shown that abstinence-focused programmes are generally more successful where the judicial response to any relapse is sympathetic, so long as the relapsing offender had previously been making determined efforts to become drug-free (Matrix Knowledge Group, 2008). (2) The ability of AODCs to reduce recidivism has also been questioned. In their follow-up evaluation of the Christchurch youth AODC pilot, for instance, Searle & Spier (2006) reported a majority (70%) of the pilot sample reoffended within 12 months of exiting the court. (3) The merger between drug
16
treatment and criminal justice has thought to have triggered conflicts between the ideologies of professionals working within AODC settings (Duke, 2006; Gilling, 1994). Given the different philosophies and cultures of external agencies, it may be unrealistic to expect that a drug court alone will be able to influence the broader health and welfare system to achieve long-lasting change (Richardson et al., 2013). (4) It was noted by Sommers et al., (2013) that there may be inadequate support with women who participate in AODCs reflected in the fact that men are more likely to graduate from the drug court than women, even though men are more heavily represented in the criminal justice system (McIvor, 2010; Somers, et al., 2013). Much of the critical commentary on AODCs originates from commonwealth jurisdictions and points to several areas to address in future evaluations of these courts.
Overall, the review of AODCs evaluations demonstrated the potential for these courts to reduce recidivism and generate other positive outcomes, such as a reduction of alcohol or drug dependency. The development of AODCs represents an innovative and promising intervention in terms of diverting offenders into drug treatment.
4.1.2 Key issues for future evaluations
The review of existing evaluations showed the strength of studies from the United States. The 10 key components provide a robust framework for evaluations that are grounded in the practice of AODCs. Given AODCs have a long history that is matched with plentiful evaluations, countries outside of the United States might improve their research by considering the framework provided by the 10 key components. Key issues identified through the review include:
17
4.2
Community justice initiatives
4.2.1 Existing evaluations of community courts and justice centres
The marked uptake of the community court model has been influenced by the successes seen in the now iconic examples such as Red Hook and Midtown community courts. There has been limited evaluation, however, of community courts or justice centres outside of the United States.
Community justice approaches used in the United States have been found to mostly meet their goals of using alternative forms of sentencing for low-level offending. In their meta-analysis, Henry and Kralstein (2011) found an increased use of alternative sanctions and reduction in jail sentences after the introduction of the Bronx Community Solutions initiative. This same review found that Midtown Community Court made greater use of alternative sanctions than the centralized court. The meta-analysis contributes to earlier studies which also found these two community justice initiatives increased alternative sanctions, reduced jail sentences and time- served sentences (Hakuta, Soroushian, & Kralstein, 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff, 2000; Sviridoff et al., 2002). Studies of wider community justice initiatives in Philadelphia and Seattle further confirmed these results (Durkin et al., 2009; Mahoney & Carlson, 2007). These positive findings, however, have not been consistently found in other jurisdictions.
Overall, existing evaluations suggest positive results from the perspective of defendants (Abuwala & Farole, 2008; Frazer, 2006; Henry & Kralstein, 2011; Justice Education Centre, 2002; Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007; McKenna, 2007). At Hennepin County Community Court the majority of residents were willing to reallocate taxes towards a community court (Weidner & Davis, 2000) or to pay slightly increased taxes and/or transfer tax money from other criminal justice agencies to fund the continuation of the court (Eckberg, 2001; Weidner & Davis, 2000). Confidence in the community justice centre’s effectiveness at bringing people to justice, dealing with young people accused of a crime, and responding to the needs of the community was also reported in one study (Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007).
The literature was generally critical of the fact that community justice centres do not always actively engage the public in the court processes. In some instances the public were unaware of the functions of the community justice centres. In Liverpool, for example, respondents were asked how much they knew about the work of the criminal justice agencies in their area. Overall, around three out of ten said that they knew ‘a lot‘ or ‘a fair amount‘ and this awareness decreased as the study progressed (Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007).
Reports on the reduction in recidivism rates have been mixed. In the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) in Melbourne they dropped from 41% down to 34% – in comparison to offenders from other courts with the same profile (Ross, Halsey, Bamford, Cameron, & King, 2009). Nugent-Borakove (2009) conducted an outcome evaluation and found the community justice courts were no more effective at stopping recidivism than the traditional courts, however, they were significantly more effective at reducing the frequency of recidivism than traditional courts and also had a positive effect on low level, high volume offenders. Other studies (See Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009; Sviridoff, et al., 2002) found no clear effect on individual offender recidivism rates.
Overall, the review of existing literature found that the rapid expansion of community justice has not been accompanied by a comparable increase in robust and in-depth evaluation studies. The review of research-based literature found a significant lack of peer-reviewed evaluations and a modest assortment of unpublished evaluative documents.
18
4.2.2
Key issues for future evaluations
As community courts and community justice centres gather momentum, it is important for evaluation studies to be performed. The review of existing literature illustrated there is room for growth in the evaluations of community courts and community justice centres. Of the limited evaluations available, most involved qualitative process evaluations. Although these kinds of evaluations offer valuable insights into the processes involved in practising community justice, they do not generate data on outcomes that would support the anecdotal suggestions community courts and community justice centres reduce recidivism (Nugent-Borakove, 2009). An overall consideration for future research is nuanced understandings of the meaning of ‘community’ and how community justice centre outcomes differ from traditional court procedures.
Key issues identified through the review include:
19
4.3
Indigenous courts
Indigenous courts have arisen as part of a judicial response to the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples within criminal justice systems internationally. The first indigenous courts emerged in the United States in 1982, and were then established in Australia (1999), Canada (2001) and Aotearoa New Zealand (2008).
Defining exactly where indigenous courts fit within alternative adjudication systems is complex. Frieberg (2005) distinguishes indigenous courts from restorative justice and problem-solving courts but maintains that they are a specialist court with problem-solving and therapeutic principles including participation, coordination of services and community involvement. Marchetti and Daly (2007), however, assert that the Australian Indigenous Sentencing Courts deserve a unique theoretical and jurisprudential category of their own, principally as they seek to achieve cultural and political transformation of the law.
Definitional problems are exacerbated by the fact that indigenous courts vary across jurisdictions according to their structure and authority. The Navajo Indians Peacemaking courts, for example, are completely controlled by the Navajo people, comprising a Navajo Council, judges and police force (Coker, 2006). This system has been incorporated into American Indian law giving it significant authority. The Australian indigenous justice system, in contrast, has subsumed Aboriginal peoples, and their practices, into existing court processes and is largely led by non-Indigenous leaders (judges, magistrates) who hold authority. There is a fundamental difference, therefore, in the level of sovereignty permitted to indigenous peoples in each of these jurisdictions.
4.3.1 Existing evaluations of indigenous courts
Despite the length of time these courts have been in operation, much of the existing literature is outdated and/or comprised of commentaries, critical discussion or conference papers. There is, however, a small but growing body of research literature on indigenous courts, which is encouraging given the need for rigorous scrutiny of the incorporation of indigenous approaches within prevailing Western judicial systems.
The literature review considered eight studies that have investigated the operation of indigenous courts in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The Navajo People of the United States has the oldest established judicial system for an indigenous people in the world; a survey conducted with participants of the Navajo Peacemaking Court provides some insight into these courts procedures and results (Gross, 2001). In Australia there is a growing body of work on indigenous courts, including an early evaluation of the Koori Courts in Victoria (Harris, 2006) and further research on the Children’s Koori Courts in Victoria (Borowski, 2010, 2011), the Nowra Circle Sentencing Court, and eight Circle Sentencing Courts in New South Wales (Potas, Smart, Brignell, Thomas, & Lawrie, 2003). More recently, research has also explored the Murri Court in Queensland (A. Morgan & Louis, 2010) and the Indigenous Sentencing Courts across five sites: Dubbo and Nowra in New South Wales and Mount Isa, Rockhampton and Brisbane in Queensland. In New Zealand an evaluation of the Ngā Kooti Rangatahi (marae-based Māori youth court) was recently completed (Ministry of Justice, 2012b).
The studies reviewed suggest that an indigenous approach has utility in addressing intimate violence, offending by young people and in the sentencing of adults. All the courts reviewed were accepting of an indigenous worldview, illustrated by the inclusion of elders or respected persons who held some authority and the incorporation of cultural practices, language or setting (e.g. marae based). In many studies, the elders were seen as being instrumental in restoring peace, balance or healing throughout the proceedings.
20
Many of the characteristics that assisted the courts to achieve their positive outcomes paralleled restorative justice approaches that occur in some mainstream courts, but with the added shaping of cultural practices and knowledge. Some studies, for example, reported how the courts open and close the proceedings with a prayer; have an informal atmosphere that encouraged open, two-way communication; provided ample time for questions from all parties; created a space for transparent decision-making; facilitated a casual process that was flexible, rather than rigid; and encouraged relationship building and accountability for responsibilities to take place within the context of the wider community.
There were also some limitations noted in the studies reviewed. Firstly, the eligibility rules for accessing indigenous courts varied between jurisdictions to the detriment of some parties. In New Zealand, Kooti Rangatahi eligibility is not restrictive and is available to Māori and non- Māori rangatahi. In contrast, legislation in Australia restricts indigenous courts to those who are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait descent. Secondly, in both the New Zealand and Australian courts the offender must have pleaded guilty to a charge before being considered for eligibility by the presiding judges. Thirdly, the inclusion of the victim in the proceedings was not always expected. Some courts involved the reading of a victim impact statement, while the Navajo courts facilitated the sharing of healing stories between the victim and offender, which appeared to be an integral factor in their success. Fourthly, the review indicated that the indigenous courts were, in many cases, an emotional process for the offender, their family and, where applicable, the victim. It was not always clear from the studies what safeguards were in place to provide support for any negative experiences of such emotional processes. Finally, although the Australian indigenous courts involve the presence of elders or respected persons, these courts are led by non-indigenous magistrates and as such the acceptability of these courts is open to criticism.
4.3.2 Key issues for future evaluations
The studies provided useful insights into the development of appropriate methodologies for evaluating indigenous courts. A strength of three studies looking at the Navajo Peacemaking, Murri Courts, and Kooti Rangatahi, for example, was the inclusion of a cultural advisor throughout the research project (Gross, 2001; Ministry of Justice, 2012b; A. Morgan & Louis, 2010). These advisors were instrumental in helping to design an appropriate evaluation framework and aided in the data collection where non-English speaking persons were required (Ministry of Justice, 2012b). In other studies, the formation of a collaborative relationship between the researchers and relevant government department was essential in designing databases and collecting quantitative data.
There are also lessons to be learnt from the difficulties faced in many of the studies. Key issues for future evaluations include:
21
The need for mixed methods. Qualitative methods were used to collect data in the majority of studies. When a quantitative approach was used it appeared to be most effective when complemented with qualitative data collecting, such as interviews and observation. Two of the Koori court evaluations, for example, drew on multiple sources of data including court, police and corrections records and qualitative data obtained from participants of the court (Harris, 2006).
22
4.4
Family violence courts
4.4.1 Existing evaluations of family violence courts
In consideration of the large number of family violence courts currently in operation within the United States alone, the literature review largely considered family violence courts that have been subjected to some level of evaluation primarily within Commonwealth jurisdictions. We have included large scale evaluations of these courts within the United States to provide a general overview of studies conducted in this country.
Since their introduction, specialist family violence courts have been relatively successful in increasing the proportion of early guilty pleas in an effort to better protect victims and hold offenders accountable (Tutty, et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Davidson, 2008). In a number of jurisdictions, research findings have indicated quicker adjudication of cases, particularly if an integrated, coordinated response to domestic violence is used (Cook, Burton, Robinson, & Vallely, 2004; Hoffart & Clarke, 2004; Reid Howie Associates, 2007; Vallely, Robinson, Burton, & Tregidga, 2005). However, other aspects of family violence courts have affected fast processing of cases. For example, New Zealand family violence court guidelines state that domestic violence charges should be heard and determined within 13 weeks (Ministry of Justice, 2008). This was achieved in just 31% of cases in Waitakere in comparison to 70% at Manukau, and this is likely to be a consequence of the more intensive offender monitoring processes that take place at Waitakere Family Violence Court (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, et al., 2008). Cook et al., concluded that moving a case through the courts speedily may not always have positive outcomes. They highlighted that victims may need time to benefit from any supports the court can offer – supports that may not be available after the court process (Cook, et al., 2004).
In general the family violence court model prioritizes both the needs and participation of victims. Whilst victim participation may be promoted as a way of empowering victims, studies have found it may also increase the risk of retaliation. Several research studies have also shown high levels of victim dissatisfaction with monetary penalties as they are perceived as dling little to address the offender’s problems that led to their offending in the first instance (Cook, et al., 2004; Vallely, et al., 2005). In some jurisdictions, notably Canada and New Zealand, offenders may be offered the chance to avoid a criminal conviction if they accept responsibility for the offence and successfully complete a court mandated treatment programme. As there is a lack of visible or lasting consequences for the offender, this option risks sending a clear message to offenders, victims and the public that family violence is not taken seriously (McKenzie & Carrington, 2007; M. Morgan, Coombes, Te Hiwi, & McGray, 2007). Without a record of convictions, it is more difficult to hold offenders accountable in the context of patterns of such on-going violence (Coombes, Morgan, & McGray, 2007). Several research studies have, however, found that victims highly appreciated these advocacy services, explaining that such support had helped them make difficult decisions to proceed with cases and lead to higher levels of victim satisfaction, confidence and feelings of safety (Cook, Burton, & Robinson, 2005; Cook, et al., 2004; Hoffart & Clarke, 2004; M. Morgan, et al., 2007; Reid Howie Associates, 2007; Rodwell & Smith, 2008; Vallely, et al., 2005; Wilkinson & Davidson, 2008).
Evaluation studies have revealed a number of barriers may restrict the use and efficacy of treatment programmes as a court-mandated intervention. First, in some jurisdictions, notably the UK, such programmes are not readily available which may contribute to a persistent reliance on monetary penalties (Cook, et al., 2004; Reid Howie Associates, 2007). Secondly, research in New Zealand has demonstrated how limited funding for programmes may affect completion rates (Knaggs, Leahy, & Soboleva, 2008). Thirdly, stakeholders in an evaluation of the Manukau Family Violence Courts noted that although cognitive behavioural-based programmes generally require participant suitability for the course to be thoroughly assessed, such assessments have not taken place (Knaggs, Leahy, & Soboleva, 2008). Finally, the research
23
literature has also raised concerns about the difficulties of trying to ensure that offenders actively engage in and commit to these programmes (Cook, et al., 2004). Unless offenders are under probation supervision, judges may not receive information about the offender’s progress or even their attendance (Knaggs, Leahy, & Soboleva, 2008; McKenzie & Carrington, 2007). Conclusive research evidence to support the idea that batterer programs reduce domestic violence is also lacking and what research that does exist on this issue is largely negative. One study, for instance, involving a sample of over 1000 men participating in batterer programs found “no statistical association at all between programmes and an offender’s likelihood of re- offense” (MacLeod, Pi, Smith, & Rose-Goodwin, 2009, p. vi).
There is mixed evidence as to whether family violence courts as a whole are able to reduce reoffending. An evaluation of 24 New York Domestic Violence courts found a reduction in the rate and number of rearrests for any charges and for domestic violence charges amongst convicted offenders (Cissner, Labriola, & Rempel, 2013). Further studies carried out in Canada had similarly positive results (Hoffart & Clarke, 2004; Tutty, et al., 2011). In New Zealand, existing research suggest unfavourable results regarding the impact of family violence courts on recidivism. Overall family violence reconviction rates in Manukau rose by 4% with the introduction of the family violence court, and reconviction analysis for the Waitakere court showed no significant statistical difference (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, et al., 2008).
Family violence courts have somewhat struggled to understand and meet the needs of victims from other cultures. Cultural barriers were cited as a key concern in the evaluation findings of the Calgary Specialized Domestic Violence Trial Court, as stakeholders felt that immigrants from patriarchal cultures could challenge the specialised justice response and cultural differences posed an additional barrier to victims’ understanding of and participation in criminal justice approaches. Furthermore, it was recognised that in some cultures severe consequences may be metered out to those victims who had engaged in the criminal justice by their husbands and by their families/wider communities, as it could bring a sense of shame to the family. (Tutty, et al., 2011). Finally, several evaluations have noted the need for victim support provision for those victims whose first language is not English, including the need for suitably qualified, independent translators so victims are not dependent on members of their own or the defendant’s family for translation services (Cook, et al., 2004; Reid Howie Associates, 2007; Tutty, et al., 2011). Diversity training was also recommended for justice personnel working at the Calgary Domestic Violence Court (Tutty, et al., 2011).
4.4.2 Key issues for future evaluations
Family violence courts, both internationally and in New Zealand, have now been established for a number of years. As they become more entrenched in the justice system, high quality research is needed to evaluate their successes and limitations. This section further outlines some of the methodological limitations of the existing research on family violence courts and makes suggestions for further research to strengthen the state of knowledge in this area.
24
violence courts is to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions, the exclusion of offenders in research is a significant oversight, making it difficult to give a true assessment of effectiveness. Interviews with victims are predominantly female victims who have been abused by their ex-partners/partners, leaving other forms of family violence, which may be dealt with by the courts unexamined. Finally, the opinions of defence lawyers are noticeably lacking, even though they play a key role in the court process.
25
5
Evaluation model for future studies
This section brings together the information collected for this preparatory study in an effort to highlight the key issues that need to be addressed in future evaluations of problem-solving courts in New Zealand. The first section covers 10 key issues that the team found repeated across the observations, informal discussions and key literature. The second section offers a theoretical framework that could help future evaluations incorporate these 10 key issues in a meaningful way.
5.1 Ten key issues
Based on the observations and informal discussions, coupled with the comprehensive reviews of existing evaluations internationally, the team identified ten key issues that would be crucial to investigate further in future studies:
26
is unclear whether this could become the case in other courts. Future studies should consider the caseloads of courts and their effect on judges’ ability to use a problem-solving approach and to access suitable treatment. Finally, there is a lack of research in New Zealand that has considered the impact of judicial monitoring on the offenders’ motivation, completion of treatment programs or long term recidivism. This kind of research focus was also missing from the international literature and is an area worthy of further consideration.
It is important to know that research that has addressed the efficacy of courts using the 10 key components of AODCs covers most of the above issues. Future research in New Zealand would benefit from learning more from the methodological detail of existing studies (e.g. data collection methods, protocols and tools) that have investigated the application (or not) of the key components in the United States AODCs.
27
5.2
A therapeutic jurisprudence model of problem-solving courts
Rigorous evaluative research of problem-solving courts has also been hampered by the lack of a theoretical framework which articulates how these courts work. This theoretical gap has been narrowed with the development of the ‘therapeutic jurisprudence model of problem solving courts’ by Weiner and colleagues (Wiener, Winick, Georges, & Castro, 2010). Wiener et al., have assigned detailed measures for the components of the model, to facilitate quantitative analysis of the components against the desired outcomes of the court and allow for cross-court comparisons. It must be noted that the model is yet to be tested and refined, but offers a useful model that could be applied in New Zealand.
This section outlines the ‘therapeutic jurisprudence model of problem-solving courts’. A rationale is provided for the inclusion of some of the quantitative measures used to test the model, in the development of an evaluation framework for problem solving courts. A justification for a mixed methods evaluative research framework for problem-solving courts will then be provided in line with the 10 key issues identified in section 5.1.
5.2.1 The model
Figure one illustrates the therapeutic jurisprudence model of problem solving courts in diagrammatic format. The model has five basic components: (1) judicial intervention; (2) client attributes; (3) client perceptions; (4) client judgement and (5) healthy outcomes. The model suggests that ‘judicial intervention’ (such as the interactive style of the judge and continuity of the judicial authority throughout court appearances) will interact with the defendant’s personal attributes to influence perceptions of the fairness of the law, which in turn enhances the defendant’s ‘judgment’ (primarily motivation to change). Individual cases will demonstrate positive healthy outcomes and a reduction in recidivism based on the extent to which the judicial intervention positively enhances this pathway.
Figure 1. Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model of Problem Solving Courts (Wiener et al, 2010).
28
Wiener et al., detail methods that can be used to explore the five components of the model. Many of these methods were used in the studies reviewed as part of this preparatory study and have, therefore, been tested within the field of problem-solving courts. At the same time, the model introduces measurement tools that have not yet been applied in this context, allowing for future research to explore some of the key issues the team has identified as missing in the current literature. The following outlines these measures, with the view of providing a rationale for their inclusion in future evaluations of problem-solving courts in New Zealand.
29
(3)
Re-integrative shaming: This is the perception of being respected and supported, even though the sources of this support acknowledge the wrongful nature of the behaviour undertaken. Re-integrative shaming is measured by three subscales – a 5 item measure of reintegration, a 4 item measure of stigmatisation and a seven point measure of shaming (Tyler et al, 2007).
5.2.2 Further considerations
Judges in problem-solving courts collaborate with a host of community agencies to address the mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, and social care needs of defendants (Winick and Stefan 2005). The role of the judge is to create an environment in the court setting that motivates, encourages, and reinforces defendants to participate in services. The model developed by Wiener et al., (2010) fails to take into consideration the influence of collaborative inter-agency teams or the specific psycho-social interventions they offer (see key issue 9). In fact, the role of the multi-disciplinary, inter-agency collaborative team is overlooked in the emphasis put on the court process and the psychological response of defendants. If expanded, this model could test the ability of the inter-agency collaborative team (rather than only the judge) in interacting with the defendant’s personal attributes to produce favourable perceptions, which in turn potentially enhances the defendant’s motivation to change and other beneficial outcomes. Stakeholder views on the effectiveness of the model are also necessary.
The development of the ‘therapeutic jurisprudence model of problem solving courts’ has been associated with the use of measurements to test and refine the model (Wiener, et al., 2010). The inclusion of these measurements in the evaluation framework of these courts makes sense. However, each type of problem solving court has unique characteristics, the impact of which will need to be described and explained using data generated through mixed methods (e.g. inclusive of interviews, focus groups and observations).
30
6
Conclusion
This preparatory study of problem-solving courts in New Zealand aimed to provide an evaluation programme that could be used in the future studies across different problem-solving courts. It did this by firstly surveying the New Zealand context, focusing on understanding how a selection of problem-solving courts function, what evaluations of them exist, and what key issues they currently face. The evaluation practices internationally were also critically explored in relation to alcohol and other drug courts, community justice centres and courts, indigenous courts and family violence courts. Finally, the team conducted workshop sessions to analyse the information collected through the first two phases to arrive at a series of 10 key issues to be considered in any future evaluations of problem-solving courts in New Zealand. A theoretical model was also provided that could underpin and shape the methods in future evaluations.
Overall, the project team hope that this report, alongside the accompanying literature reviews in this series, act as resource to better understand how to overcome the trials and tribulations of evaluating problem-solving courts.
31
References
Abuwala, R., & Farole, D. J. (2008). The Effects of the Harlem Housing Court on Tenant Perceptions of Justice. New York, NY Center for Court Innovation.
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. New York: Centre for Court Innovation.
Borowski, A. (2010). Indigenous Participation in Sentencing Young Offenders: Findings from an Evaluation of the Children's Koori Court of Victoria. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 465-484.
Borowski, A. (2011). In Courtroom 7— The Children’s Koori Court at Work. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 1110-1134.
Boshier, P. (2011). Investing in Life: Meeting the Cost of Family Violence. NZ Lawyer Extra, 39(25 Nov 2011).
Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finigan, M. (2012). What Works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court: Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, VIII(I), 6-42.
Carey, S., & Waller, M. (2011). Oregon Drug Courts: State-wide Costs and Promising Practices.
Final Report. Portland, Oregon: NPC Research.
Carswell, S. (2004). Process Evaluation of the Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.
Cissner, A. B., Labriola, M., & Rempel, M. (2013). Testing the Effects of New York’s Domestic Violence Courts: A Statewide Impact Evaluation. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
Coker, D. (2006). Restorative Justice, Navajo Peacemaking and Domestic Violence. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 67-85.
Cook, D., Burton, M., & Robinson, A. (2005). Enhancing “Safety and Justice”: The Role of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts in England and Wales. British Society of Criminology, 7(008). Retrieved from www.britsoccrim.org/volume7/008.pdf
Cook, D., Burton, M., Robinson, A., & Vallely, C. (2004). Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/Fast Track Systems, Crown Prosecution Service and for Constitutional Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/specialistdvcourts.pdf
Coombes, L., Morgan, M., & McGray, S. (2007). Counting on Protection: A Statistical Description of the Waitakere Family Violence Court. Palmerston North: Massey University.
Corrections, D. o. (2009). Drivers of Crime Ministerial Meeting: Proceedings. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Corrections.
Council, P. C. (2009). Community Outcomes Action Plan 2009-2015: Porirua City Council.
32
Duke, K. (2006). Out of Crime and into Treatment?: The Criminalization of Contemporary Drug Policy since Tackling Drugs Together. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 13(5), 409-415. doi: doi:10.1080/09687630600613520
Durkin, M., Cheesman, F., Maggard, S., Rottman, D., Sohoni, T., & Rubio, D. (2009). Process Evaluation of the Philadelphia Community Court: Executive Summary. Philadelphia, PA: National Center for State Courts.
Frazer, M. (2006). The Impact of the Community Court Model on Defendant Perceptions of Fairness. A Case Study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Freiberg, A. (2001). Problem Solving Courts. Journal of Judicial Administration, 2001, 8-12. Freiberg, A. (2005). Problem-oriented Courts: An Update. Journal of Judicial Administration, 14,
178-219.
Fritzler, R., & Simon, L. (2000). Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Combat in the Trenches.
Court Review, 37, 28-29.
Gilling, D. J. (1994). Multi-Agency Crime Prevention: Some Barriers to Collaboration. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 246-257. doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2311.1994.tb00810.x
Grant, K. (2007). Grassroots Rule. Retrieved from http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/journals/insidehousing/legacydata/uploads/pdfs/I H.070209.022-023.pdf.
Gross, E. K. (2001). Evaluation/Assessment of Navajo Peacemaking. United States: Department of Justice.
Hakuta, J., Soroushian, V., & Kralstein, D. (2008). Do Community Courts Transform the Justice Response to Misdemeanor Crime? Testing the Impact of the Midtown Community Court New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Harris, M. (2006). " A Sentencing Conversation": Evaluation of the Koori Courts Pilot Program, October 2002-October 2004: Courts and Programs Development Unit, Department of Justice.
Harvey, E., Shakeshaft, A., Hetherington, K., Sannibale, C., & Mattick, R. P. (2007). The Efficacy of Diversion and Aftercare Strategies for Adult Drug-involved Offenders: A Summary and Methodological Review of the Outcome Literature. Drug Alcohol Review, 26(4), 379-387.
Heale, P., & Lang, E. (2001). A Process Evaluation of the CREDIT (Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment) Pilot Programme. Drug and Alcohol Review, 20(2), 223-230.
Henry, K., & Kralstein, D. (2011). Community Courts: The Research Literature: A Review of Findings. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Hoffart, I., & Clarke, M. (2004). HomeFront evaluation: Final Report. Calgary, Alberta.
33
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Initial Evaluation of Reconviction Rates in Community Justice Initiatives. Ministry of Justice Research Summary, 9(09), 1-4.
Justice Education Centre. (2002). Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Judicial Branch.
Karp, D. R., & Clear, T. (2000). Community Justice: A Conceptual Framework. In C. M. Friel (Ed.), Boundary Changes in Criminal Justice Organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 323-368). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Katz, S. (2009). Expanding the Community Court model: Testing Community Court Principles in the Bronx Centralised Courthouse. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
King, M., & Freiburg, A. (2009). Non-adversarial Justice Sydney: The Federation Press.
Knaggs, T., Leahy, F., & Soboleva, N. (2008). The Manukau Family Violence Court: An Evaluation of the Family Violence Court Process. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Knaggs, T., Leahy, F., Soboleva, N., & Ong, S.-W. (2008). The Waitakere and Manukau Family Violence Courts: An Evaluation Summary. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Labriola, M., Bradley, S., O'Sullivan, C. S., Rempel, M., & Moore, S. (2009). A National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts. New York, NY: Centre for Court Innovation.
Lee, E. (2000). Community Courts: An Evolving Model. New York, NY: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Llewellyn-Thomas, S., & Prior, G. (2007). North Liverpool Community Justice Centre: Surveys of Local Residents: Lord Chancellor's Department.
MacLeod, D., Pi, R., Smith, D., & Rose-Goodwin, L. (2009). Batterer Intervention Systems in California: An Evaluation. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts.
Madell, D., Thom, K., & McKenna, B. (2012). A Systematic Review of Literature Relating to Problem-Solving Youth Courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(3), 412-422.
Mahoney, B., & Carlson, A. (2007). The Seattle Community Court: Start-up, Initial Implementation, and Recommendations Concerning Future Development. Denver, Colorado: The Justice Management Institute.
Marchetti, E., & Daly, K. (2007). Indigenous Sentencing Courts: Towards a Theoretical and Jurisprudential Model. Sydney L. Rev., 29, 415-444.
Matrix Knowledge Group. (2008). Dedicated Drug Court Pilots: A Process Report Ministry of Justice Research Series 7/08: Ministry of Justice.
Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003). What Makes a Domestic Violence Court Work-Lessons from New York. Judges J., 42(2).
McIvor, G. (2010). Drug Courts: Lessons from the UK and Beyond. In A. Hucklesby & E. Wincup (Eds.), Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice (pp. 135-160). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
34
McKenna, K. (2007). Evaluation of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. North Liverpool, UK: Ministry of Justice.
McKenzie, D., & Carrington, H. (2007). Monitoring Report for the Auckland Family Violence Court: The First Three Months. Auckland: Preventing Violence in the Home.
Ministry of Justice. (2008). Family Violence Courts National Operating Guidelines. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2012a). Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts Handbook (Version 1 ed.). Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2012b). Evaluation of the Early Outcomes of Ngā Kooti Rangatahi. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/rangatahi-court- evaluation-of-the-early-outcomes-of-te-kooti-rangatahi/publication.
Mirchandani, R. (2006). “Hitting is Not Manly”: Domestic Violence Court and the Re- imagination of the Patriarchal State. Gender & Society, 20, 781-804.
Moore, S. (2009). Two Decades of Specialized Domestic Violence Courts: A Review of the Literature. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
Morgan, A., & Louis, E. (2010). Evaluation of the Queensland Murri Court: Final report: Technical and background paper.
Morgan, M., Coombes, L., Te Hiwi, E., & McGray, S. (2007). Accounting for Safety: A Sample of Women Victims’ Experiences of Safety through the Waitakere Family Violence Court. Palmerston North: Massey University.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, DC: United States Deptartment of Justice.
Nolan, J. L. (2002). Drug Courts: In Theory and in Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Nugent-Borakove, M. E. (2009). Seattle Municipal Community Court: Outcome Evaluation Final Report. Seattle, WA: The Justice Management Institute.
Potas, I., Smart, J., Brignell, G., Thomas, B., & Lawrie, R. (2003). Circle Sentencing in New South Wales: A Review and Evalaution. Sydney, Australia.
Reid Howie Associates. (2007). Evaluation of the Pilot Domestic Abuse Court. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Justice Department.
Rempel, M., & Zweig, J. (2011). Findings and Implications of NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). Paper presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals 17th Annual Training Conference, Washington, D.C.
Richardson, L., Thom, K., & McKenna, B. (2013). The Evolution of Problem-solving Courts in Australia and New Zealand: A Trans-Tasman Comparative Perspective. In R. Weiner & E. Blank (Eds.), Specialist Problem-solving Courts: Social Science and Legal Perspectives. New York City: Springer Press.
35
Rodwell, L., & Smith, N. (2008). An Evaluation of the NSW Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Ross, S., Halsey, M., Bamford, D., Cameron, N., & King, A. (2009). Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (2007-2009). Melbourne, VIC: Department of Justice, Victoria.
Searle, W., & Spier, P. (2006). Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot: One Year Follow-up Study.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.
Slinger, E., & Roesch, R. (2010). Problem-solving Courts in Canada: A Review and a Call for Empirically-based Evaluation Methods. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 258-264.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples: Zed books. Somers, J. M., Currie, L., Moniruzzaman, A., Eiboff, F., & Patterson, M. (2012). Drug Treatment
Court of Vancouver: An Empirical Evaluation of Recidivism. International Journal of Drug Policy 23(5), 393-400.
Somers, J. M., Rezansoff, S. N., & Moniruzzaman, A. (2013). Comparative Analysis of Recidivism Outcomes Following Drug Treatment Court in Vancouver, Canada. International Journal Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
Sviridoff, M. (2000). Dispensing justice locally: The implementation and effects of the Midtown Community Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
Sviridoff, M., Rottman, D. B., Weidner, R., Cheesman, F., Curtis, R., Hansen, R., & Ostrom, B. (2002). Dispensing Justice Locally: The Impacts, Costs and Benefits of the Midtown Community Court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Tutty, L. M., Koshan, J., Jesso, J., Ogden, C., & Warrell, J. G. (2011). Evaluation of the Calgary Specialized Domestic Violence Trial Court & Monitoring the First Appearance Court: Final Report to National Crime Prevention and the Alberta Law Foundation. Calgary: RESOLVE: Alberta.
Tyler, T., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders’ Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553-585.
Urbanoski, K., & Wild, C. (2012). Assessing Self-determination for Addiction Treatment: Validity of the Treatment Entry Questionnaire. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 43, 70-79.
Vallely, C., Robinson, A. L., Burton, M., & Tregidga, J. (2005). Evaluation of Domestic Violence Pilot Sites at Caerphilly (Gwent) and Croydon 2004/05: London: Crown Prosecution Service.
Watson, A., Angell, B., Vidalon, T., & Davis, K. (2010). Measuring Perceived Procedural Justice and Coercion among Persons with Mental Illness in Police Encounters: The Police Contact Experience Scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(2), 206-226.
36
Weidner, R. R., & Davis, C. (2000). Benefits and Costs of the Hennepin County Community Court: A Preliminary Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: Institute of Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.
Wiener, R. L., Winick, B. J., Georges, L. S., & Castro, A. (2010). A Testable Theory of Problem Solving Courts: Avoiding Past Empirical and Legal Failures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5-6), 417-427.
Wilkinson, K., & Davidson, J. (2008). They've been my lifeline. An evaluation of South Yorkshire's Specialist Domestic Violence Court initiative: the Independent Domestic Violence Advocacy Service. Project Report. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
Winick, B. (2006). Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Enhancing the Relationship Between Law and Psychology*. Law and Psychology. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199211395.003.0003
Wolf, R. (2005). California’s Collaborative Justice Courts: Building a Problem-Solving Judiciary.
New York: Center for Court Innovation.
Wolf, R. (2012). The Public Wants to be Involved: A Roundtable Conversation about Community and Restorative Justice. New York, NY: Centre for Court Innovation.
Woodley, A. (2012). A Report on the Progress of Te Kooti O Timatanga Hou – The Court of New Beginnings. Auckland: Point Research Limited.
Zweig, J. M., Lindquist, C., Downey, P. M., Roman, J., & Rossman, S. B. (2012). Drug Court Policies and Practices: How Program Implementation affects Offender Substance use and Criminal Behaviour Outcomes. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 43-79.
37
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLFRRp/2013/7.html
