courts today august/september

August/September 2015

Vol. 13 No. 4

Cou

rts T

oday

69 L

yme

Roa

d, H

anov

er, N

H 0

3755

CH

AN

GE

SE

RV

ICE

RE

QU

EST

ED

Newest CaseManagement

Solutions

Pretrial RiskPredictors:

Better Than Bail?

CTC 2015Coverage

Educational Tracks & Technology on

the Trade Floor

V O L U M E 1 3 N U M B E R 4

A U G U S T / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5

F E A T U R E S

4 MRT Outcomes in Drug Courts

10 Educational Technology Tracks atCTC 2015

18 Newest Case Management Solutions

28 Kiosks: Keeping Traffic Moving

32 Ignition Interlocks Impact on DUIs

36 Pretrial Risk Predictors: Findings

42 Jury Management Efficiencies

46 Ad Index

D E P A R T M E N T S

Publisher & Executive EditorThomas S. Kapinos

Assistant PublisherJennifer Kapinos

EditorDonna Rogers

Contributing EditorsMichael Grohs, Bill Schiffner

G.F. Guercio, Kelly Mason

Art DirectorJamie Stroud

Marketing RepresentativesBonnie Dodson(828) 479-7472

Art Sylvie(480) 816-3448

Peggy Virgadamo(718) 456-7329

is published bi-monthly by:Criminal Justice Media, Inc

PO Box 213Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

310.374.2700

Send address changes to:COURTS TODAY69 Lyme Road

Hanover, NH 03755 orfax (603) 643-6551

To receive a FREE subscription to

COURTS TODAY submit, on court letterhead, your request

with qualifying title; date, sign and mail to

COURTS TODAY69 Lyme Road

Hanover, NH 03755 or you may fax your subscription request

to (603) 643-6551

Subscriptions:Annual subscriptions for non-qualified personnel,

United States only, is $60.00. Single copy or back issues-$10.00

All Canada and Foreign subscriptions are $90.00 per year.

Printed in the United States of America,

Copyright © 2015Criminal Justice Media, Inc.

with alternative & diversion programs

with alternative & diversion programs


4 WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM

BY GREGORY L. LITTLE, ED.D. , NCP AND KENNETH D. ROBINSON ED.D.

Moral Reconation Therapy—MRT™—has beenemployed in drug court treatment programs since themid-1990s. The cognitive-behavioral program wasdeveloped by Correctional Counseling Inc. and is usedfor substance abuse treatment and for criminal justiceoffenders in 49 states, the District of Columbia andbeyond. The present article is a comprehensive review of56 recidivism outcome studies published in journals,independent program evaluations, and technical reportsover the past two decades reporting on the effects ofMRT in drug court operations and includes updatedmaterial from a previous report of 33 articles in 2006. Inaddition, this updated report combined and collapseddata from all studies of adult drug courts that cited com-

parative recidivism statistics, including programs that didnot utilize MRT as the primary treatment method.

Adult Drug CourtsMany published studies that were reviewed included

retention and/or graduation rates. MRT-based drug courtimplementations have shown to yield a retention ratesomewhat higher than non-MRT programs. Seven of thepublished studies included recidivism data with a com-parison between groups that utilized MRT and groupsthat did not. Six of these seven studies showed that MRTtreatment led to lower recidivism. The average recidivismreduction rate of the MRT treatment group in all seven

MRT IN DRUGCOURTSA comprehensive review of recidivism outcomes & meta-analysis of adult court results

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

AVERAGE REDUCTION IN RECIDIVISM

Drug Courts with MRT

Programming

Other Drug Courts

21.6%

10% to 15%

Continues on page 46



BY BILL SCHIFFNER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Innovation is the theme court pro-fessionals will hear time and againas they convene in the “City ofLakes” to check out the latest incourt technology trends, issues andsolutions at CTC 2015, being held atthe Minneapolis Convention Centerfrom September 22-24. The biennialconference provides court personnelwith three days of networking andeducational sessions as well as thelatest in courtroom technology ondisplay.

The Need toInnovate

Kicking off CTC 2015 will bekeynote speaker, Mark Britton,founder and CEO of Avvo, theworld’s largest community for legal

guidance and services. Britton’s keynote will address

“The Innovation Imperative.”Britton will discuss how the justicesystem can more effectively embraceinnovation. He will examine howinnovation has transformed servicesin many other industries—medical,transportation, food, and travel.Britton says “it’s time for the justicesystem step up its pace and developmore systems that foster innova-tion.”

EducationalTracks

CTC 2015 will be presenting sixeducational tracks through the con-ference. Each track includes a num-ber of sessions that looks at specificsections of court technology. The sixeducational tracks feature: Tools forthe 21st-Century Judge; Electronic

Court Records Management; HowIT Can Design and Deliver Solutionsto Create a High PerformanceCourt; The Judiciary in a Virtual,Mobile, Social World; Access toJustice; and Courthouse of theFuture.

“The future of court technology ishere, and the educational tracks atCTC 2015 set a solid foundation forboth users and vendors alike to mapout and adapt to emerging technol-ogy that meets the needs of thecourts, constituents and justice part-ners,” comments Manoj Jain, vicepresident and global head ofBusiness Development at ThomsonReuters.

1. Tools for the 21st-Century JudgeMost judges are likely to have a

smart phone, tablet, or both. They

CTC 2015 to Feature a Host of EducationalTechnology Tracks6 tracks from social media to court of the future



communicate via Skype, text, andemail, and they bank, shop, andplan travel using a number of differ-ent technology solutions. It is a nat-ural progression for them to expectadvances in the tools and technolo-gy in the workplace.

Ron Bowmaster, the director ofthe Information TechnologyDivision for Utah’s AdministrativeOffice of the Courts will be amongthe speakers that will look at “TheImpact of Judicial Tools on IT.” Hesays of his session, “As more andmore courts adopt electronic filingand digital documents, courts mustcreate alternative ways for judgesand staff to work directly with theseelectronic documents. Requiringjudges to print documents for useon the bench defeats the purpose ofthe digital record. This session willfocus on methodologies that are inplace that allow judges to work withthe court’s digital record both in thecourtroom and in chambers.

“This track also explores bothvendor and in-house developedsolutions in courts with varyingdegrees of technical maturity,”Bowmaster furthers. “Attendeeswill gain behind-the-scenes insightsand lessons learned from practition-ers and experts who have imple-mented these solutions for judgesand chambers staff.”

2. Managing Electronic Records As the judicial branch continues

to adopt e-filing and increasinglyrelies on electronic records systems,courts face new challenges in ensur-ing the continued accessibility,integrity, and preservation of theserecords in the face of ongoing tech-nical obsolescence. This track willhighlight the emerging policy andtechnical issues facing the courts inthis area, as well as introduce suc-cessful practices and applicablestandards.

One of the sessions in this track“Email: When Is It a Record?” will

be presented by Laurie Fischer,managing director of HuronConsulting Group’s information-governance-consulting practice.Huron is a leading provider of inde-pendent and objective informationmanagement and governance ser-vices tailored to address the increas-ingly complex and demanding regu-

latory and technological challengesof today.

“Over the past two decades,email has revolutionized businesscommunication. It has become acritical tool replacing many of themore traditional methods of com-munication, collaboration and trans-mission,” Fischer says.“Consequently, email messages maybe subject to information lifecyclemanagement requirements forpreservation, protection, retention,and disposition. This session willexamine whether email generatedby the courts should be considered“records,” therefore requiringenhanced management controls,”she adds.

3. How IT Can Design andDeliver Solutions to Create aHigh Performance CourtThere is a wave of technological

change happening, and it is hap-pening very fast—far too fast formany courts to keep pace with.Most people are using technology in

their private lives that is moresophisticated than what they use atthe office. Court “customers” arealso increasingly more tech-savvyand expect the court to provide ser-vices online. Yet many courts stillview their court technologists assimply “order takers” who executeagainst their vision.

One of the most important ses-sions in this track is “Managing theEver-Changing TechnologyDepartment.”

Managing a court technologydepartment has many challenges.Internal and external needs change,platforms frequently shift, hiringand retaining staff can be a chal-lenge, setting and communicatingtechnology expectations can be time



consuming, and project management and funding havevarious complexities. Presenters Bryant Baehr, CIO,Oregon Judicial Department and Jim Conlin deputyCIO, Oregon Judicial Branch, have encountered each ofthese dynamics and will discuss their insight/successesand challenges as they lead the State of Oregon JudicialBranch through a complete technology transformation.

“Creating a high performance court is not as simpleas installing the latest device or software,” notesMichael Kleiman, director of marketing for Tyler’sCourts & Justice Division. “It requires vision and along-term plan. As important as it is to deliver greatsoftware, it is equally as important to work with experi-enced, committed vendors on developing that plan andworking together with all interested parties to ensure itgets implemented.”

4. The Judiciary in a Virtual, Mobile, Social WorldWhat day-to-day transactions do you conduct virtu-

ally on your mobile device? What information do youaccess in near real-time through your social networks?How is your court using virtual communications, mobiledevices, and social media to improve its operations, userexperiences, and public trust and confidence? This ses-sion is dedicated to exploring courts’ use of these tech-nologies throughout the lifecycle of a case, from pretrialto post-disposition, and throughout the communitiesthey serve. Speaker Norman H. Meyer Clerk of theCourt, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico,comments: “Kicking off the Judiciary in a virtual, social,mobile world CTC track will be an overview of manyvirtual/social/mobile issues and opportunities for courts,with particular attention to social media and mobileefforts as guides for the future.”

Following that, presenters hope to bring about “anentertaining debate about why or why not social mediashould be in every court’s toolkit,” and will highlightthe advantages and dangers in this evolving area.Meyer concludes: “These and other sessions in thistrack will show how courts can improve accessibility,transparency, efficiency, and public service in cost-effective ways.”

5. Access to JusticeHow is technology being used to enhance and

improve access to justice? Courts are innovating withbasic technologies (kiosks and phones) as well as newtechnologies (interactive Web-based tools for adjudica-tion and online avatars) and evaluating current imple-mentations (how are self-represented litigants using e-filing?). For the purposes of this track, the term access isbroadly defined to include language access, navigation

Justice Systems, Inc. now offers a complete, cloud-based, Software as a Service (SaaS) solution for FullCourt Enterprise™, their innovative court case management software.

Courts Facing IT Challenges Every day Courts must address a diversity of complex processes, overlapping and intersecting tasks, and hundreds of details. Shrinking budgets, aging technology, and compounding processes and procedures cause many Courts to struggle for better solutions. In a typical environment, Courts must purchase and maintain all of the hardware and other infrastructure necessary to support an advanced case management system and additional modules. According to the IJIS Institute Info Brief: Cloud Computing for the Courts, in Courts at county and state levels, a case management system can account for 70-75% of the total IT capital expenditure and 30-40% of total operational costs, presenting a major challenge to Court IT departments. They also must contend with scalability issues (i.e., accommodating growing computing demands without performance degradation), and with reliability (i.e., keeping applications and systems running 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week). State and local courts in the USA are increasingly challenged in acquiring and maintaining modern case management capabilities with their the traditional upfront capital expenditure requirements and increasingly advanced technology.

Court Case Management in the Cloud

What is the Cloud? Cloud computing is a service model that utilizes Internet technologies to deliver scalable and flexible IT-enabled capabilities to external users. Cloud computing, or the Cloud, allows an organization to reduce its burden of IT infrastructure by permitting a third-party hosting company to maintain all of the servers and databases required to support the software system and database. With a cloud-based case management system, Court users only require a browser with an Internet connection to access the system. The Cloud can allow Courts to minimize upfront infrastructure costs, while focusing on increasing case management efficiency. With SaaS, Courts do not pay for software licensing upfront; instead, they pay an annual or monthly subscription fee. This pricing model allows courts to switch their capital expenditures to operational expenditures, according to the IJIS Institute Info Brief.

FullCourt Enterprise in the Cloud Since FullCourt Enterprise was designed as browser-based, user-friendly case management system, it is ideally suited to be a cloud-based SaaS solution. Combined with Justice Systems’ new hosting services, FullCourt Enterprise eases the burden on the Court’s upfront infrastructure costs, offers Courts simplified and rapid scalability, and provides enhanced reliability. Additionally, the Cloud will allow Courts to transition to FullCourt Enterprise faster, while improving manageability and reducing maintenance. FullCourt Enterprise manages the Court’s intricate details while automating and simplifying repetitive tasks. Justice Systems will host FullCourt Enterprise using the Oracle Cloud Platform. The cloud-based FullCourt Enterprise system will include browser-based imaging and document management, a Public Access Module, the CitePayUSA online payment system, support for PDF-based document generation and printing, enhanced security, and common data exchanges (e.g., Citation Import).

Justice Systems is the Right Solution Justice Systems’ solutions can save money, boost productivity, save office space, make information sharing easier, and keep information more secure—all within the cloud. Justice Systems’ has more than 30 years of experience in the design, development, and implementation of Court, prosecutor, and public defender automation software. With their proven technology foundation, experienced people, and focus on the needs of their customers, Justice Systems has earned the trust of hundreds of Courts across the United States. For more information, please call 505-883-3987 or visit Justice Systems’ website at www.justicesystems.com.



of the courthouse as well as the legalprocess, and a wide range of tech-nologies from basic to advanced.

Janet G. Cornell will be one ofthe presenters who will look atCourt Performance Measures: FromConcepts to Reality (or Making itHappen!). This session will demon-strate how to transfer performancemetrics from mere ideas to actualpractice and use, and why measuresand metrics are critical to opera-tions, demonstrate accountability,support access to justice, and displaygood leadership.

Cornell is a consultant, presenter,and author. She previously served asa court administrator for Scottsdale,Ariz; a staff consultant for theMaricopa County (Phoenix) ITDepartment (for a countywide $25million justice integration project aswell as interim justice court admin-istrator for Maricopa County.

6. Courthouse of the FutureMany of today’s courthouses are

woefully inadequate to support thework that must be done therein.They were designed to support phys-ical adjacencies of people, case files,justice stakeholder agencies, and

other resources. Electronic docu-ments, videoconferencing, e-filing,and other technologies have alteredthe need for these adjacencies dra-matically. The sessions in this trackwill explore these kinds of importantissues such as: What are the essentialfunctions that belong in a court-house? How can new courthousesbe designed to be more adaptable tochanges coming in the next 50 years?How can space in existing facilities berepurposed to better support judicialbranch needs? How will security,continuity of operations, and disas-ter-planning concerns affect court-house design in the future?

David Wiklund and JulieMunkelwitz will focus on “PublicDefender Kiosks and on DeckDisplays: Increasing CourthouseEfficiency Through the Creative Useof Technology.” Wiklund is an ITsupervisor for the Fourth JudicialDistrict Court in Minneapolis andmanages the Project ManagementOffice and software development.He has led the multiyear project thatdigitized all of the court records inthe Fourth District and was instru-mental in the formation of theProject Management Office. He has

also implemented several large-scale IT projects, including therecent software update and expan-sion of the Public DefenderEligibility Kiosk program.

Munkelwitz is a court operationsmanager in the Criminal Division,2nd Judicial District, RamseyCounty, Minn. She is a certifiedcourt executive with 28 years of ser-vice with Ramsey County, whereshe manages two court locationsand acts as a project manager forseveral eCourt, technology, andintegrations projects.

In addition to the six tracks thereare a number of presentations fromsponsors as well as other sessionsrunning concurrently such asCourtroom 21: State of CourtroomTechnology Today being held onTuesday, September 22, 10:00-11:00AM. Fred Lederer, William & MaryChancellor Professor and the direc-tor of the Center for Legal andCourt Technology (also known asthe Courtroom 21 Project), offers areview of the state of courtroomtechnology today. This session willintroduce courtroom and relatedtechnology for those new to thefield, as well as review recent devel-opments for those who are moreexperienced.

Innovation +Tradition

“Although there’s no sign thatbrick and mortar courthouses will bereplaced by virtual courthouses,some of the things that happenthere, like digital recordings, cannow be managed centrally fromremote locations. And these record-ings can be integrated with the casemanagement system automatically,”adds Tyler’s Kleiman. “All and all,the tracks at this year’s CTC lookterrific. All six of them are relevantto the topics we are hearing aboutfrom clients, and technology solu-tions that we are also working on,”he concludes. CT



BY BILL SCHIFFNER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

One of the major productareas at CTC 2015 will bein the case management

software category. Case manage-ment continues to help courts staycurrent in the face of growing work-load demands.

As one of the sought-after fea-tures, most legal software vendors’products now include the ability totake advantage of electronic filing bypulling data from the case manage-

ment product and pushing it intocourt filing systems with someadded options.

Growing TrendsAnother big trend is toward evi-

dence-based decisions. “As prob-lem-solving programs continue toprove out that evidence-based prac-tices really do work, courts will findother areas where risk/needs assess-

ments make sense,” says SueHumphreys, director of IndustrySolutions at CourtView JusticeSolutions.

“We’re seeing interest in that forcertain sentencing scenarios and asan element of case triage where theCMS can assess ‘at risk’ cases andsuggest alternative paths or resourceoptions to help move those cases todisposition. Even at the humanlevel, like with self-represented liti-

Case ManagementSolutions to be

Highlighted at CTC

2015



gants, the very same concepts can be used to determinewhat kind of assistance someone needs and then inter-act with that person accordingly.”

She says along with rule-driven caseflow and work-flow management in general, we’re going to see moreuses for these different types of decision-support toolsright within the court’s CMS.

Humphreys furthers, “Another big trend is ‘judicialtools,’ which is a combination of these great flows anddecision-support, along with content management andviews that can be personalized for any judicial officer.You can extend that right on out to include just aboutany role in the court—like supervision tools and such.Unfortunately, the ability to easily view, digest, and acton information in their CMS—in a straightforward andtimely way—continues to be a struggle for many courts.It’s critical that case management systems eradicatethose constraints,” she emphasizes.

More Efficient Access“We have heard a lot from clients about a need to

improve access to justice while working within strict

budgets,” reports Michael Kleiman, marketing directorof Tyler’s Courts & Justice Division. “We expect a lot oftraffic in the Tyler booth from courts interested inOdyssey Guide and File—our self-service tool that helpsguide self-represented litigants through an easy-to-useWeb-based process to initiate cases,” he adds.

Manoj Jain, vice president and global head ofBusiness Development at Thomson Reuters adds “AtCTC 2015, attendees will see that Thomson Reuters C-Track can help save time and money and significantlyreduce errors for our customers. With our help, courtshave reduced redundancies, automated paper and man-ual processes, and enabled an efficient, secure process toshare data with the justice partners. We work in closepartnership with courts and other legal entities to devel-op systems that support the legal needs of the future bydriving efficiencies between justice partners, improvingaccess to the legal process by reducing time to justice,and enabling integration with a variety of ThomsonReuters Legal Solutions available to the legal communi-ty today. In the end, we seek to improve access to justiceon a global scale.”

Riley Miles, director of development at JournalTechnologies says for courts of all jurisdictions, theireCourt is a browser-based configurable case manage-ment solution. “ECourt’s graphical user interface isnatively touch screen enabled. Access cases from any-where on your browser-enabled device—desktops, lap-tops, smartphones and tablets. Because it is browser-based, it’s very fast and designed for high-speed perfor-mance. Information may be updated from the bench, forexample, using configurable judges tools. Calendars andviews of each day’s docket—configured by person, byjudge, by courtroom, by time—are all available witheCourt,” he adds.

Let’s take a look at the current crop of case manage-ment software solutions, and some of the other productsthey integrate with, that are being showcased at CTC2015.

CMS Offerings

Caseflow ManagementWith its dynamic caseflow management (DCM)

engine, flexible screen builder, and role-driven dash-boards and navigation, JWorks is the most configurableCOTS case management system around. What yousee—and how you interact with information—is com-pletely configurable in JWorks and can be easily tailoredto roles, teams, and individuals. Built-in workflow auto-matically assigns and routes outstanding to-dos anddeadlines and lets you notify, escalate, re-route, and re-



assign work as needed. This uniquecapability goes beyond caseflow toinclude the flow of person informa-tion and specific activities like calen-daring, warrants, investigation,financials, docketing, motion track-ing, and documents to name a few.

www.courtview.com/ct, 1.800.406.4333

ManagementSystems

FivePoint Solutions providesaccountability court case manage-

ment, document management, con-tract management, records conver-sion, data integration services andpayment processing. The companyhelps their customers derive valuefrom previous technology invest-ments through integration and theelimination of information gaps.

http://myfivepoint.com, 1.803.951.2094

System IntegrationCombining technology with jus-

tice system expertise, ImageSoftsolutions seamlessly integrate with acourt’s existing Case ManagementSystem, providing judges, clerks,

court staff and constituents a “bet-ter-than-paper” experience.Offering both JusticeTech, a com-prehensive software solution thatenables courts to store, manage,automate and securely share 100%of their information electronicallyand TrueFiling, an electronic filingsolution that supports all case typesand dramatically improves courtefficiency and constituent access,ImageSoft has helped revolutionizecourt and justice system operationsthroughout North America.

www.imagesoftinc.com, 248.948.8100

Focusing on CoreCourtCompetencies

The best outcomes are achievedwhen the court is agile and refocuseson what they do the best, their corecompetencies. Agility is the ability to

move quickly and easily; AgileCourtand AgileJury are the Xerox solutionsthat deliver exactly that. They alsoaugment these solutions through abroad range of offerings that helpoptimize court services.

www.xerox.com/justice, 1.877.414.2676

Redaction ToolExtract Systems developed ID

Shield to meet the specific demandsof government and public organiza-tions to automatically capture andredact information from theirrecorded documents. ID Shieldsecures sensitive information formunicipal, county and state courtsacross the country. Extract Systemshas developed almost 90 differentdata capture and manipulationobjects that are used to build a state-of-the-art redaction solution. IDShield is built in the MicrosoftWindows environment and designed

to integrate with all CMS systems orto be used as a standalone solution. www.extractsystems.com, 1.608.821-6534

Case ManagementSystem

Tyler’s Odyssey solution is theleading case management system inthe U.S., empowering courts serving

more than 100 million citizens inmore than 600 counties across 21states, reports the firm. Built uponOdyssey case management function-ality to support appellate courts, thenew appellate case module offersrobust features to generate efficien-cies and improve workflow processesfor case management, panel assign-ment, opinion management andlower court case functions.

www.tylertechnologies.com,1.800.431.5776

Web-based CaseManagement

ECourt is database agnostic,automates repetitive tasks, bringsjudges tools to the bench, and fullysupports real-time in-court process-ing. Court professionals need only a

web browser to access full eCourtfunctionality, meaning eCourt isavailable to judges and clerks viasmartphone or mobile device. Noapps are necessary. Because eCourtis highly configurable, it will evolvewith processes within a Court asthey change over time.

www.journaltechnologies.com,1.877.587.8927

August/September 2015x

23WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM

ManagementSolutions

Thomson Reuters provides cus-tomers with unrivaled solutionsthat integrate content, expertise

and technologies, according to thefirm. C-Track CMS delivers just

that, offering courts customizablemanagement solutions configuredto how a court functions. C-TrackCMS offers new features and func-tions leading to the next genera-tion of adaptable case managementsystems.

www.thomsonreuters.com,1.877.923.7800

Online CourtSystems

Jury Systems Incorporated wasfounded by jury professionals whohave been in the business since thebeginning of jury automation in the1980s. Many of the team membersare former jury managers who prior-itize helping each client improveefficiency and streamline court pro-cedures. The developer’s newestproduct, JURY+ Web Generation, is

a browser-based JMS developed andsupported by this team.

www.jurysystems.com, 1.805.285.5800

e-filing SoftwareMore and more courts are realiz-

ing the savings of time and moneythat Tybera’s eFlex brings throughreduced manual data entry andautomated workflow. With supportfor both the software license modeland the attorney pays model, courtsare offered even more value through



new features like their documentgeneration and CASEaDia PDFbinders for judges. The firm willalso be showing a DomesticViolence eFiling Wizard that theydeveloped with the North CarolinaAOC.

www.tybera.com, 801.226.2746

Integrated CaseManagement

Justice Systems, Inc.’s FullCourtEnterprise is a complete, fully inte-grated court case management soft-ware system that runs in an on-premise or Oracle Cloud environ-ment and can easily exchange datawith other judicial agencies. Thesolution provides a powerful back-end infrastructure, an innovativebrowser-based user interface, and acomprehensive collection of modu-

lar tools and applications. FullCourtEnterprise’s customizable, table-based architecture allows the system

to be widely configured to meet thespecific requirements of the Court.

www.justicesystems.com, 505.883.3987



eFiling SystemCourtFileNow is a comprehensive

eFiling system for courts, clerks andattorneys powered by Cenifax Courts.This Internet-based system linksCourt Documents and WorkplaceTools to your Court ManagementSystem. CourtFileNow allows flexibil-ity for courts and clerks to customizethe system to the way business isdone in your county. CourtFileNowsimplifies most court processes so thatthey can be accomplished in eFiling. Italso features instant communicationof court, clerk or attorney activity to allattorneys on the case via eService andimmediate access to the most currentinformation.http://courtfilenow.net, 1.888.318.4751

Cloud SolutionsAdobe’s cloud solutions for gov-

ernment enable public sector orga-nizations to revolutionize citizenexperiences through the creationand delivery of dynamic content andwebsites. Supporting the launch ofits cloud solutions for government,Adobe is also offering tools andresources to help customers betterunderstand the benefits of adoptingnew cloud solutions.

http://adobe.com/go/govassembly,1.800.872.3023

Electronic Filingand Access

GreenCourt specializes in elec-tronic filing of and electronic accessto court documents and relatedinformation. In partnership with theCouncil of Superior Court Clerks of

Georgia, GreenCourt serves morethan 80% of the State and SuperiorCourts in Georgia. GreenCourt¹scombination of justice system exper-tise and technology innovation cre-ates affordable, tailored software foreFiling and eAccess. Judges, court

administrators, clerks, attorneys andthe general public benefit fromGreenCourt’s people-first approachto court technology.

http://www.greencourt.com,1.844.423.3453

IN A SUPPORTING ROLELitigant Solutions

TurboCourt features sophisticated guided-interview technology, proven tosolve court challenges regarding self-represented litigants. Online inter-views precisely tailored to court workflows and rules, with onscreen filer help

at every step, and innovative decision-making checkpoints, produce 100%error-free court forms ready for print, e-delivery or e-file. TurboCourt’saward-winning platform seamlessly integrates with any court managementsystem, including Tyler Odyssey.

www.turbocourt.com, 1.877.260.1792

Decision Support System Not a case manage-

ment system and not adocument managementsystem but a decisionsupport system forjudges, Mentis rein-vents the courtroom. Ajudge and recentaiSMARTBENCH user,said of his experienceusing the system,“Anything that helps usdo our job quicker, bet-ter, faster, while stillpaying attention to that overarching requirement of justice— and that’s themain thing—it’s good for everybody.” Their mission was to create a solutionfor judicial users that exceeds the efficiencies of conventional paper files.

www.aiSmartBench.com, 303.756.4564



BY DONNA ROGERS, EDITOR

KiosksKeep TrafficMoving

Kiosks…they’re pop-ping up every-where. As virtual

receptionists in corporatelobbies…in U.S. government officesto offer information….at universitiesto automate financial aid applica-tions and registration…at healthcareand hospitality entities for check-in…in airports to print boardingpasses and even to downloadmovies.

And soon they will beef up ser-vice in the “Golden Arches” in NYC.Beginning in August New Yorkerswill be among the first in the nationto use giant iPad-like kiosks atMacDonalds to choose from ninenew burger toppings and sevensauces in the burger chain’s new

“Create Your Taste” customizationeffort. It’s an attempt to attractyounger patrons and to reverse 11straight quarters of declining same-store sales, reports the New YorkPost.

Yet, while courts aren’t servingup special sauce, they can offeranother type of special: a self serveoption that saves on staffing.

Beginning in the lobby, kiosksprovide for self-service informationand wayfinding, allowing visitors tocontinue on their way more quicklywithout causing long queues.Courthouse kiosks allow automatedcheck-in for jurors allowing moresatisfaction for those serving. Ofcourse kiosks accept fines and fees,and are even providing probationers

a way to take a self-administeredalcohol/drug of abuse screening test.

These kiosks are designed tohandle high traffic applications andautomate many of the tasks thatstaff members normally have toprocess. This allows various govern-ment agencies to provide better ser-vice through reduced congestionand shorter wait times while alsolowering the overhead costs of per-sonnel, according to the web page ofOlea Kiosks Inc., a maker of stan-dard and custom kiosks. Olea hasgovernment installations at theDepartment of Homeland Security;Customs & Border Protection andDepartment of Veteran Affairs.

Kiosk use is on the rise. In fact,according to a new report by

Infax’s new SmartScreen technologyenables court patrons to be interactive

with all of the company’s moduleswithin the CourtSight Suite.

Self-service, speed and staff savingsare obvious benefits of the devices.



Sandler Research entitled "GlobalInteractive Kiosk Market 2015-2019," the self-service kiosk marketwill grow at 11 percent compoundannual growth rate. The reportnoted that retail currently holds thelion's share of the kiosk market, as itgenerated 46% of all kiosk revenuein 2014. China and India lead theretail kiosk growth.

However, the report also men-tions some of the challenges in themarket, such as the rapid pace oftechnology. Manufacturers have toupdate kiosk hardware and softwareevery six months simply to stayupdated.

In addition, tablet kiosks arebeginning to replace traditionalkiosk designs in several industriessuch as hotels and restaurants, dueto lower costs and increased cus-tomization, the report states. Health

care and financial industries are cur-rently not utilizing tablet kiosks dueto their restrictive features.

For courts, kiosks come in wall-mounted and floor mounted in allsizes and styles—standard to cus-tom—from smaller ADA compliantfootprints that are 50 inches high, tothose that are 68 inches in height.Screen sizes span from standard thatmay be 19 inches to large that are 55inches and more. These can be con-figured with peripherals includingthermal printers, a media playerdevice, magnetic and smart cardreaders, proximity sensors andQR/barcode scanners—and of latenew apps enable them to interactwith a user’s smartphone.

Infax, Inc., the leading interactivesignage and wayfinding vendor, willdebut its SmartScreen application atthe upcoming Court Technology

Conference. The application, whichwill be exhibited with Infax’s check-in software, enables patrons to beinteractive with all of the company’smodules within the CourtSightSuite.

Kristen Zeck, sales & marketingassociate, notes that now more thanever, there is a greater push in thejudicial market to go paperless andthe modules respond to this.DocketCall, CourtSight’s flagshipproduct, is an electronic docket dis-play system that automates thecourt’s docket each day, eliminatingpaper print-outs. Courts can uploadtheir public notices to theCourtBoard dashboard and displaythem on monitors rather than cork-boards. And JuryCall electronicallyallows potential jurors to remaininformed about where they are toappear throughout the jury selection



process.SmartScreens tie everything

together by allowing patrons tointeract with all the CourtSightmodules. On a single screen patronscan see an overview and interactwith maps, directories, FAQs andthe docket. The module also offers acheck-in feature that gives casepatrons and potential jurors theability to check in for their specificappointments.

To an unfamiliar patron the largetouchscreen monitors are reportedto be intuitive and inviting, drawingthem to the self-service monitors toobtain their answers, saving staffvaluable time. The ADA compliantSmartScreens can be mounted on awall or in a floor mounted kiosk.

The ease of using SmartScreens injudicial settings will make it an“unparalleled solution to courthousetraffic,” says Zeck. At the touch of afinger, potential and selected jurorscan easily find their way around thecourthouse, look up docket informa-tion, view FAQs and check in and outof the court, she furthers. “Processesthat often hold up the court are

streamlined into one efficient, inter-active application that keep court-house patrons and staff moving.”

Speeding up the Process

The main purpose of kiosks is theself-service aspect, notes JohnArntsen, vice president of ClientServices, Courthouse Technologies,the juror software developer andkiosk provider. Thus, the main func-tionality in a jury operation is forself-service check-in and attendanceas well as jurors completing theirquestionnaire. Similar to kiosks’ usein an airport, court-specific kiosksare meant to increase the accessibili-ty of services without requiringadditional personnel. For example,he says, if you have four kiosks, thismeans you can have four jurorscheck in at the same time and onlyrequire one staff member to overseetheir use.

Kiosks are meant to replace cer-tain tasks and responsibilities thatcourt staff would normally beresponsible for. However, due to

budget issues, staffing issues, acces-sibility issues, etc., it places limits onthose staff . “Kiosks are a great ideato solve these issues while costingyou less,” he says. Kiosks are meantfor any place—banks, retails stores,etc.— where the customer experi-ence can be sped up, or made moreconvenient without it affecting abusiness’s bottom line—and courtsare no different, he informs.

At the CTC conference,Courthouse Technologies plans toexhibit its entire jury platform andhow technology can be used to cre-ate more efficiency and conveniencefor jurors and court staff alike, notesArntsen. “The goal is to show howeffective use of technology, com-bined constant communication canincrease a court’s jury yield and savethem money. “

CHT will also have on display itslatest kiosk that compensates jurors.“We are the first company to pro-duce a cash-dispensing kiosk specif-ically for paying jurors,” points outArntsen. Its payment system is inte-grated with CHT’s core jury man-agement system, which is complete

The BreathcheK kiosk from Streetime,installed in 20 agency locations thus far,contains a Lifeloc FC20 PBT that collects abreath sample from the client. Jurors can perform a host of tasks on this kiosk from Courthouse Technologies.



with audit trials, and standardaccounting principles.

Alcohol ScreeningFor self-administered drug court

automated alcohol screening,Streetime Technologies offers akiosk called BreathcheK that requiresthe client to enter an ID on a touchscreen to complete an automatedpassive breath test. Their fingerprintis then digitally validated. The clientthen blows into holes in a box thatcontains a Lifeloc FC20 PBT thattriggers the unit and a breath sampleis collected. If the BAC is at .002 orgreater they trigger a positive andfurther testing is recommended.Breathchek has the ability to testclients with minimal staff involve-ment, explains John Diamond, vicepresident of Sales, StreeTimeTechnologies.

Courts are looking for automationof compliance to reduce staff involve-ment and costs associated with it, hesays, and this does just that. TheAlcohol Addiction Recovery Center a

nonprofit in Forth Wayne, Indiana,uses the system to not only validatethe reporting in of clients but also isable to administer breath tests in vol-ume at a far lower cost than withstaff administered tests, he details.Kiosks provide the ability to com-plete large numbers of tests in ashorter period of time thus insuringcompliance with court orders. Byreducing staff involvement it there-fore reduces costs, he concludes.Floor-standing BreathcheK kiosksare providing efficiencies to pretrial,probation and parole clients in 20locations so far, including DouglasCounty Drug Court, Omaha, Neb.,Dallas County communitySupervision and Corrections Dept.

Another recent innovation fromStreeTime, according to Diamond, isits SleepTime √ in Kiosk. It frees upstaff time by allowing clients tocomplete a self-administered uploadof their Sleeptime “watch” in theagency lobby. A passive breathalyzertest is also completed prior to eachupload.

The SleepTime device is actuallya precision accelerometer that mea-sures not only body movement andintensity of movement during sleep(it also serves as a wristwatch duringwaking hours). An accelerometer isa device for measuring accelerationand gravity-induced reaction forces.It detects magnitude and directionof the acceleration and can be usedto sense orientation, vibration andshocks similar to activity trackerslike FitBit.

The SleepTime upload operateson research going back to the 1930sabout alcohol’s effect on sleep. Thescience behind the technology,reports the company, is that con-suming alcohol or other abuseddrugs will place the user in a deepersleep initially and as it wears off thebody goes into withdrawal, causingmore subconscious waking episodesand with the waking episodescomes sleep movement, which the

SleepTime watch records in itsmemory. A sleep movement base-line process is created for eachclient, and if that baseline is deviat-ed the SleepTime data upload resultcreates a flag for that client to drop aUA on the next scheduled upload.The results are immediately emailedand/or texted to the agency programadministrator. Meanwhile the kioskinstructs the client to “see staff” anda urine sample is collected and adeep lung breathalyzer test isadministered.

Coming Soon to aCourthouse Near You

Overall, kiosks are helping com-munity supervision officers screen-ing drugs of abuse clients to helpsave time and money on randomtesting. They are receiving fees andfines to help increase collections.They are interacting with yoursmartphone to help direct you toyour courtroom. And when court isin recess, you may even be able touse one to order lunch! CT

Infax’s new SmartScreen technologyshown in a floor-mounted option.

SmartScreen technology from Infax.



BY MICHAEL GROHS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

ONSeptember 1, 2015,Texas will becomeone of the states that

allow someone with a DUI to get hisor her license back, and MothersAgainst Drunk Driving (MADD),which is based in Irving, Texas, ispleased about it. They should be.According to MADD data, 10% of alldrunk driving fatalities occur inTexas. In 2013, that figure was 1,337deaths, and data show that IIDs –when installed – work to lower theamount of DUI recidivism. There willbe fewer intoxicated drivers on theroad, and people convicted of a DUIwill not have their lives disrupted bynot being allowed to drive. Offenderswill be able to get to work and droptheir kids off at school.

Under HB 2246, which was signedinto law by Gov. Greg Abbott, driversconvicted of a DUI with a blood alco-hol content of less than 0.15 will be

able to drive as long as they have anIID installed on their car. Rep. JasonVillalba (R-Dallas) helped write thelaw and noted that people previouslyhad been required to accept a licensesuspension, and while judges haddiscretion to allow exemptions suchas allowing an offender to drive toand from work, which was commonin rural areas but not in urban areassuch as Dallas, the problem, saysVillalba, was that offenders were stilldriving even though their license hadbeen suspended. Not only that, saidEd Cohen of Smart Start, a personmight be out there driving not onlywithout a license, but also withoutinsurance, and possibly under theinfluence. “A trifecta of bad ideas.”According to data from the NationalHighway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA), as many as80% of motorists continue to driveon a suspended license.

Limited SuccessKentucky also passed a mandato-

ry IID law in 2015, but while Rep.Dennis Keene considers the passagea victory, as he told WLWT, “Thefinal passage of mandatory interlocklegislation in Kentucky is not every-thing we fought for.” The bill willrequire first-time offenders to installan IID in order to retain drivingprivileges, but unlike many of theother 24 states with mandatory first-time offender laws, it is requiredonly if there were aggravating cir-cumstances such as having a child inthe car, driving 30 or more milesover the speed limit, or causinginjury to another person. Rep.Keene had been working on the billsince the start of his six terms of ser-vice. His daughter was nearly killedby a drunk driver in 2002.

There are considerations when dis-

New laws may allow IIDs to lower DUI recidivismrates without forcing license suspensions.



cussing bills regarding all offendersinterlock ignition laws. When Texaslawmakers were considering their bill,the concern arose over whether thestate had the resources required todeal with all first-time offenders.When New Jersey lawmakers, the firstto put a drunk driving law on recordway back in 1906, were debating thecurrent state’s proposed law, DanPhillips, the legislative liaison for theAdministrative Office of the Courts,raised potential issues. For one, saidPhillips, it might put judges in theposition of having to "go through along analysis" such as they do incriminal trials in regards to whetherthe IID should be installed or if theoffender’s license should just be sus-pended. Bob Ramsey, who publishesa handbook on the state’s DUI laws,voiced concern for family members ofoffenders who would likewise have toparticipate in the program despitehaving committed no crime. There isalso the matter that the Bill wouldrequire the devices to be placed on asingle car and not do anything to pre-

vent the offender from driving anoth-er. That is the very loophole twoWisconsin lawmakers are trying toclose in their own state. As it is, if anoperator is convicted of a DUI andordered to install an IID, he or she willhave to designate the vehicle andhave it fitted with the device. Theloophole came in when an operatorwas caught driving another vehiclethat had not been outfitted with thedevice. “It wasn’t necessarily a crimi-nal offense. It was more like they wereoperating after revocation which wasa lesser violation,” Sen. Wanggaard,one of the two sponsors of the bill toldFOX6NOW. The proposed legislationwould tie the IID to the driver’slicense, thus making it a restrictedlicense and dictating that any car theyare driving has to have an IID.

IIDs all aroundTwo politicians from New York

are proposing taking IID use furtherthan mandatory use for first timeoffenders. Assistant AssemblySpeaker Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn)

has proposed Bill A.6445, whichwould require that all vehicles inNew York have ignition interlockdevices by 2019. He further pro-posed that IIDs be retrofitted toolder vehicles and that the BAClowered to .06, a reduction of 25%,which was also recommended bythe National Transportation SafetyBoard in 2013, which stated that thereduction would lower the amountof accidents by 40%-50%. The Billwas drafted as a result of an accidentin which the Bouaz-Ostane familywas killed in a fire resulting from analcohol-related crash on theSouthern State Parkway.

Data suggest that mandatory IIDson all vehicles would significantlyreduce the more than 10,000 peoplekilled as a result of DUI related acci-dents in the U.S. each year. A sys-tematic review of 15 studies con-ducted by the CDC found that theuse of IID use realized a 67% reduc-tion in recidivism. Dr. Patrick Carterof the University of Michigan InjuryCenter and his team set out to deter-



mine the number of lives that couldbe saved if IIDs were mandatory onall cars. Using data from FatalityAnalysis Reporting System and theNational Automotive SamplingSystem's General Estimates System,the group assessed data of alcohol-related accidents that occurredbetween 2006 and 2010. The results,which were published in theAmerican Journal of Public Health,suggested that 85% of alcohol relat-ed auto accident deaths and between84%-88% of all non-fatal accidentsover a 15-year period were prevent-ed: a figure that equates to nearly60,000 lives saved and 1.25 millionnon-fatal crashes avoided. Theresearchers also found that the datasuggested installing IIDs on all newvehicles would realize a financialsavings of $343 billion in uninten-tional injury costs over that sameperiod.

U.S. Senator Charles Shumer ofN.Y. has even taken the matter a stepfurther. He is asking the nation toincrease funding for the developmentof high-tech sensors that woulddetect if the driver is drunk and pre-vent the ignition from starting. Hestates that such sensors are less bur-densome than traditional IIDs andcould be made as a regular option onautomobiles. He furthers that suchsensors, which detect alcohol onbreath and skin, should be mademandatory for all DUI offenders.

ALCOLOCK USAThe WR2 alcohol interlock fea-

tures electrochemical fuel cell sen-sors to ensure that every test is test-ing only for alcohol, thereby reduc-ing the chance of a false-positive.The WR2 is programmable at thefactory level to include serviceappointment reminders, randomretests, and violation resets. Thedevice has the ability to operate inextreme conditions at altitudes of upto 3,500 meters and features anenhanced data logging capability for

more and a more sophisticatedreporting format that includes statis-tical analysis of events over extend-ed periods to enable comprehensiveprogram review.

www.alcolockusa.com, 1.888.937.9646

DRAGERThe Interlock 7000 is an in-car

breathalyzer that reinvents the tra-ditional ignition interlock device toi n c o r p o r a t eenhanced userfeatures andm o n i t o r i n gc a p a b i l i t i e s ,says the com-pany. In addi-tion, the intel-ligent camera,mouth alcoholdetection, andG P S / G P R Soptions antici-pate the com-pliance regula-tions (for com-pliance with an ignition interlockrestriction only). With more than 60years of experience, Dräger is aworld leader in advanced breathalcohol measurement devices. Itsignition interlock devices are builton the proven technology of itsAlcotest line of breath alcoholinstruments, which are trusted inpolice departments worldwide.

www.draeger.com, 1.800.332.6858

SMART STARTThe SSI-20/20™ is a discreet,

state-of-the-art device that boastsmyriad benefits for users and moni-toring authorities. On-screen instruc-tions and interface design are simpleand intuitive for easy breath alcoholtesting. The Photo ID module addsan extra method of tamper detectionto the SSI-20/20 wherein recordedphotos identify the user with everytest. The SSI-20/20 also boasts GPSoptions, multiple programmableblowing patterns, restricted driving

time options, compatibility with allvehicle makes/models, wireless datadownload, integrated heater for coldweather, programmable violation lev-els, alcohol-specific fuel cell technolo-gy, and immediate notification of vio-lation to monitoring authorities.

The SSI-20/30, Smart Start’snewest model, features a bright colordisplay screen and a user-friendlykeypad. The SSI-20/30 is roughlythe size of a cell phone, with multi-ple testing options and quick instal-lation. Beneficial for users and mon-itoring authorities alike, it offers GPStracking, compatibility with all vehi-cle makes/models, upcoming testalerts, anti-circumvention features,multiple languages, integratedheater for colder weather, program-mable violation levels, and immedi-ate notification of violation to moni-toring authorities. The mouthpieceis removable, so the device is alwaysclean, and the alcohol-specific fuel

cell technology ensures maximumtest accuracy. Finally, the device iscompatible with our Photo ID mod-ule, which allows monitoringauthorities to confirm the identifica-tion of the tester through color pho-tos of each test.www.smartstartinc.com, 1.800.880.3394,

[email protected]



BY G.F . GUERCIO, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

WHOcan predictthe future?Who among

us has a crystal ball? Still judges andagencies are asked to make deci-sions about offenders pretrial thatwill affect the person greatly. Howcan we better analyze these deci-sions? This has been the focus ofmany studies to date with outcomesand assessments that are changingthe way those in position makethese decisions. And it all starts withscience—the science of predictiveanalyses.

“There are hundreds of studies ofcriminal behavior over many yearsinvolving thousands of offenders thathave found a great deal of consisten-cy with regard to the basic domainsof risk: criminal history, anti-socialattitudes, values and beliefs; tem-perament and anti-social personality

patterns; peer associations; familialfactors; employment, educationaland financial achievement; substanceabuse; and lack of pro-social leisureactivities,” says Edward Latessa,director, School of Criminal Justice,University of Cincinnati.

“It is important to remember thatwith Pretrial assessment there areseveral important issues that need tobe taken into consideration,” hecontends. “Some methodologicaland practical issues in developingpretrial assessment are all the prob-lems normally associated withdeveloping assessment tools plusskewed samples: many high-risk,serious defendants are not grantedpretrial release. The legal status lim-its the type of information that canbe gathered, and there are time con-straints for the assessment.”

He says for traditional pretrial

programs—looking at FTA (failureto appear) or risk of reoffending—most tools are similar and sort fairlywell. For pretrial programs that wantto provide services—for exampleplace in drug court—most of theexisting general assessment toolswill do just fine—for example theLSI or ORAS (Level of ServiceInventory or Ohio Risk AssessmentSystem) series of tools.

Latessa was involved in develop-ing the ORAS-PAT (PretrialAssessment). In describing thedevelopment and validation of thepretrial screening tool, he says thatthe data collection tool covers theo-retical risk and need domains. Theability to identify higher-risk defen-dants both for safety and the use ofresources is an important aspect, butjust as important is identifying low-risk defendants not needing super-

PRETRIAL RISK PREDICTORS:

ASSESSING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

AND IMPACT.



vision or detention. In fact, he notes,assigning intense supervision orpreventive detention to low-riskdefendants either removes the indi-vidual from positive social aspects orexposes them to risk factors thatwere previously nonexistent result-ing in greater risk of recidivism ornegative supervision outcomes.

“We need to start developingalternatives to arrest so that lowlevel offenders don’t get taken tojail—such as citations and othertools for law enforcement,” he says.“I would like to see an app devel-oped that police could use to assesssomeone prior to bringing them tojail. If they are low risk, non-seriousoffenses they could simply give acitation to appear or some otheralternative.”

Along with increases in publicawareness, correctional agencies are

becoming more aware about issuesinvolving pretrial prison overcrowd-ing, says Kevin M. Williams, Ph.D.,manager, Product Development,Clinical/Education/Public SafetyDivision, Multi-Health Systems, Inc.“There is also increasing recognitionthat pretrial remand decisions areoften influenced by the offender’sfinancial status as opposed to theiractual risk to reoffend or fail to reap-pear. These issues have sparkedrenewed interest in evaluatingobjective risk/need assessments inpretrial settings.”

More and more agencies are rec-ognizing the importance of applyingevidence-based practice to their riskassessment methods, he says,meaning ongoing research specificto these issues is imperative.“Effective assessment will not onlyrelieve burdens involving prison

overcrowding and overwhelmingofficer caseloads, but also improvepublic safety.” He is “hopeful” thatthe current trends will continue inidentifying current or new objectiveinstruments that best predict pretrialreoffenders or those that may fail toappear.

He points out the current litera-ture suggests that the core factorsthat are most predictive of reoffend-ing are consistent across demo-graphic variables, types of offending,geographic locations, and settings(e.g., pretrial vs. post-conviction).“This suggests that there will not bea need to create new risk assess-ments for pretrial settings, butinstead existing measures can beused for these decisions. Thebiggest challenge will be to identifyassessments that are time- andresource-effective but also possess



clear evidence of predictive validity.” “The number of tools available is

quite large, possibly too large to listin one article,” he suggests. “Themost prominent tool we provide atMHS is the Level of Service/CaseManagement Inventory (LS/CMI).

It is the latest revision to the Levelof Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) and also includes a screening ver-sion (LSI-R:SV). These instrumentsare the most well-researchedrisk/need measures of general reof-fending risk and use objective,empirically-based criteria for assign-ing risk. In a pretrial setting, thistype of instrument is informative indetermining whether an offender isat risk to reoffend if they arereleased into the community whileawaiting trial.”

Dr. Williams says, “Generallyspeaking, any instrument thatdemonstrates strong empirical sup-port in the prediction of reoffendingor failure to appear—particularly ina pre-trial sample—will be mosteffective. Ideally, the measureshould be able to be completedobjectively in a time- and resource-effective manner. As implied previ-ously, the LS/CMI, LSI-R, and LSI-R:SV should be effective in pretrial

settings.” He points to Bonta &Motiuk (1991), which reported thatLSI-R scores correlated with deci-sions to remand offenders into cus-tody. “The State of Hawaii’sDepartment of Public Safety hasalso reported research demonstrat-

ing the effectiveness of the LSI-R forpretrial applications in their state.”(See http://icis.hawaii.gov/wp-con-tent/uploads/2013/07/PSD_risk-class_2003-06.pdf)

Broward CountySuccess

Tim Brennan, Ph.D, chief scien-tist, at Northpointe Inc., relates useof their applications at the BrowardCounty Sheriff’s office: “This agencyinstalled the COMPAS (CorrectionalOffender Management Profiling forAlternative Sanctions) risk assess-ment models to inform pre-trialrelease decision-making as a tool toimprove population management,control crowding and reduce costs,while simultaneously showing noincrease in crime.” The report byMann (Mann et al. 2012) and col-leagues on the impact of thechanges in policies and practicesindicated the closure of one jail in

October 2009, deferring the con-struction of a new jail and closinganother, saving taxpayers millions ofdollars. The conclusion of theseauthors was as follows: “Findingsconfirmed the accuracy of theinstrument. The validation studyindicated that COMPAS had highlevels of accuracy in predicting gen-eral recidivism, violence, and failureto appear for court.”

Dr. Brennan notes there are sev-eral ways to combine risk factorsinto an overall predictive algorithmor instrument.

Clinical judgment/ human intu-ition: The classifying officer, judge orpsychologist simply reviews all therisk factors in their head and intu-itively makes a predictive decision.

Simple linear additive (unweight-ed) point scales: This simply adds upthe risk factor scores into a singlerisk score. Cut points are applied toseparate high and low scoringoffenders usually into three risk lev-els. Cut points can be developed bypolicy arguments, statistical proce-dures or even guesswork.“Surprisingly several studies haveshown that this simple method per-forms as well as more complex actu-

COLORADO TOOL EXAMPLERisk Public Safety Court % of

Category Rate Appearance Rate Defendants

1 91% 95% 20%2 80% 85% 49%3 69% 77% 23%4 58% 51% 8%

The table provided by Pretrial Justice Institute shows results from an empirically-derived pretrialrisk assessment tool, in this case, the statewide tool that was constructed through research forColorado. The first column shows the risk level of defendants as determined by the pretrial riskassessment tool, with “1” being the lowest risk and “4” being the highest risk. As the tableshows, defendants that scored as low-risk by this tool went through the pretrial period withoutan arrest for new criminal activity (Public Safety Rate) at a rate of 91 percent, and made all theircourt appearances at a rate of 95 percent. These percentages go down with each risk level.Colorado jurisdictions that have implemented and tracked this tool have found that defendants’predicted success on pretrial release and actual success are nearly identical.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen, executive direc-tor, Pretrial Justice Institute



arial methods in predicting futurecrime,” he says.

Weighted additive linear pointscale: In this alternative to simplelinear additive approach each riskfactor is given a different weight,generally based on its importance.“For several decades it has been thepreferred method of most criminaljustice researchers for developingpredictive equations for a large vari-ety of predictive risk decisions,”Brennan notes.

The emergence of machine learn-ing (ML): These include a variety ofpredictive and classification meth-ods from the field of artificial intelli-gence. They are just beginning to beused in corrections and criminal jus-tice. Examples include neural net-works, support vector machines andvarious kinds of decision trees.

These methods differ dramaticallyfrom the above linear additivemethods, by their ability to deal withnon-linear and non-additive rela-tions within the data. “Since muchcriminal justice data is characterizedby some of these data features theexploration of ML methods maylead to some important advances incriminal justice,” he says.

Ensemble or aggregation meth-ods: A recent ML approach usesmassive computing power to rapidlycompute many separate predictiverisk assessment models giving labelsof low, medium or high label foreach offender. These separate riskmodels are then automaticallyaggregated into a final overall score.This integration often uses a simple“majority voting procedure” thattallies the high/medium/ low votes

for each offender and assigns theoffender to the group that has themaximum number of votes across allthe models, Brenna details.

‘Largest-ever Dataset’The Laura and John Arnold

Foundation provided a recent studypublished in April 2015 in theFederal Sentencing Reporter (Vol.27, No. 4, 2015 Vera Institute ofJustice) “Pretrial Risk Assessment:Improving Public Safety andFairness in Pretrial DecisionMaking” by Anne Milgram, et al.(see “Resources” for more on thereport and the institute.)

It states: “We recently assembledthe largest-ever dataset of pretrialrecords, encompassing more than1.5 million cases drawn from hun-dreds of jurisdictions across the



United States, and analyzed them todetermine what factors about adefendant or his case are most pre-dictive of the likelihood that an indi-vidual will commit new crimes, newviolent crimes, or fail to appear forcourt if released before trial.

“Indeed, with only nine such fac-tors, we were able to create anassessment—the Public SafetyAssessment-Court (PSA-Court)—that accurately predicts the risk ofnew crime, new violence, and courtappearance in a manner that notonly improves public safety, but alsoenhances fairness and helps juris-dictions use resources more effi-ciently. The PSA-Court has beensuccessfully validated in four addi-tional sites, including the entirestate of Kentucky and three diversecounties across the United States.”

In Kentucky, the tool has helpedjudges reduce crime by up to 15 per-cent among defendants on pretrialrelease, while at the same timeincreasing the percentage of defen-dants released before trial, therebyreducing both crime and jail popula-tions. The tool also helped judgesidentify the number of defendants—approximately 8 percent— whowere far more likely to commit vio-

lent crime than average defendants.“Defendants flagged by the tool asbeing at an elevated risk of violencewho were released pretrial were, infact, re-arrested at a rate of 17 timeshigher than that of other defen-dants.”

Some have wondered whetherthese types of improvements topublic safety might come at theexpense of fairness. The study’sauthors note that the PSA-Courtwas designed to be—and hasproven to be—race- and gender-neutral. The assessment’s factors

pertain to criminal history, currentcharge, and current age; and no fac-tors are included that could beimplicitly or explicitly discriminato-ry, such as education level, socioe-conomic status, race, gender, orneighborhood of residence. Thebenefits of this design have beenborne out in the results fromKentucky: the tool has accuratelyclassified defendants’ risk levelswithout regard to whether theywere white or Black, male or female,the authors explain.

All fairness equations go back to

Resources• Pretrial Justice Institute—Organization takes the stance that it

is time to end use of cash in the bail system, and replace itwith a system in which lower- and moderate-risk defendantsare released to the community without having to post anymoney, and those who pose unmanageable risks are detainedwithout bond. www.pretrial.org/solutions/

• Vera Institute of Justice—The Federal Sentencing Reporter ispublished by the University of California Press on behalf of theVera Institute of Justice, an independent nonprofit organizationthat combines expertise in research, demonstration projects,and technical assistance to help leaders in government andcivil society improve the systems people rely on for justice andsafety. Also, it is the only academic journal in the UnitedStates that focuses on sentencing law, policy, and reform.www.vera.org/project/federal-sentencing-reporter.

• National Pretrial Justice Coalition— Policy statements and res-olutions from the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conferenceof State Court Administrators, the International Association ofChiefs of Police, the National Sheriffsʼ Association, theAssociation of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National Associationof Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the American Council ofChief Defenders, among others, call for jurisdictions to useempirically-derived pretrial risk assessment tools. www.pretri-al.org/get-involved/pretrial-national-coalition/.

• Luminosity, Inc.— Conducts pretrial-related research studiesincluding “The Public Safety Assessment-Court Pretrial RiskAssessment,” The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention,” Theeffect of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing,” “Pretrial RiskAssessment in the Federal Court.” www.luminosity-solutions.com.

Tim Brennan, Ph.D, chief scientist atNorthpointe Inc., home of COMPAS(Correctional Offender ManagementProfiling for Alternative Sanctions).



the legal charge, according toCherise Fanno Burdeen, executivedirector, Pretrial Justice Institute.Referring to the Stack v. Boyle casein Supreme Court (342 U.S. 1),where multiple defendants weregiven the same bail based on thecharge but the judge noted thechances all posed the same risk levelwere slim, she comments, “Whenwe rely on the charge alone, we arewildly mis-assessing risks.” Sheadds, “We also know from the riskassessment research that riskassessments that are based on intu-ition or on the consensus of keystakeholders, perform poorly. Yetsuch tools continue to be used inmany jurisdictions today. As aresult, defendants who are actuallylow-risk sit in jail pending trial, andmany who are high-risk are beingreleased to the community.”

Colorado StudyOver 60 percent of inmates in our

jails are there pending adjudicationof their cases, Burdeen furthers. “Astudy done in Colorado found that,when controlling for risk levels,defendants who are released with-out having to post any money priorto release do just as well, in terms ofboth appearance in court and com-pleting the pretrial period with noarrests for new criminal activity, asthose who are required to postmoney. (Michael R. Jones,Unsecured Bonds: The As Effectiveand Most Efficient Pretrial ReleaseOption, Washington, DC: PretrialJustice Institute, 2013.)

As the table with the Coloradorisk assessment results illustrates,(see Colorado Tool Example) only 8percent of defendants show up inthe highest risk category in thatstate, she discerns. Almost 70 per-cent of the defendants fall into thetwo lowest-risk categories, with veryhigh rates of success while on pretri-al release. “The risk assessment

studies that have been done in otherjurisdictions show similar results;that most defendants do very wellon pretrial release,” she says.

Earlier this year, a federal judgein Missouri looked at the question offinancial bonds from a differentangle, Burdeen notes. In a caseinvolving a class action suit chal-lenging the use of financial bondsfor poor persons, the judge ruledthat the Constitution prohibits thesetting of a bond that a defendantcannot afford to meet. The Courtwrote: “No person may, consistentwith the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, be heldin custody after arrest because theperson is too poor to post a mone-tary bond.” (Pierce v. The City ofVelda City, No. 4-15-cv-570-HEA,U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Missouri, 2015.)

Based on these findings, sheshares her view of the future: “If wegrasp this opportunity and listen tothe science, in the near future alljudicial officers throughout thecountry, when making pretrialrelease decisions, will be guided bythe results of empirically-derivedpretrial risk assessment tools. Whenthat occurs, and if we match riskassessment findings to appropriate,evidence-based risk managementstrategies, the pretrial detainee pop-ulations of our jails will include only

those individuals who pose suchhigh risks that no release conditionor combination of conditions couldprovide reasonable assurance ofpublic safety and court appearance.All other defendants will be releasedto the community either on theirown recognizance or with condi-tions of release designed to mitigateany risks identified through the riskassessment.”

For More Information:Multi-Health Systems, Inc.,

www.mhs.com, US: 1.800.456.3003Ext. 264, Canada: 1.800.268.6011Ext. 264, International: 416.492.2627Ext. 264, [email protected],LSI (Level of Service)

Pretrial Justice Institute, www.pre-trial.org, 1.240.477.7152, SOLU-TIONS (www.pretrial.org/solutions)

School of Criminal Justice,University of Cincinnati,[email protected], ORAS-PAT(Ohio Risk Assessment System–Pretrial Assessment)

Northpointe Inc., www.north-pointeinc.com, 1.888.221.4615,[email protected],COMPAS (Correctional OffenderManagement Profiling for AlternativeSanctions)

The Laura and John ArnoldFoundation,www.arnoldfoundation.org,1.713.554.1349, PSA-COURT (PublicSafety Assessment-Court)

“When we rely on thecharge alone, we are wildly mis-assessing risks.”

Cherise Fanno Burdeen, executive director, Pretrial Justice Institute



BY DONNA ROGERS, EDITOR

Keeping voters happy byusing convenient technolo-gy is a great way to ensureyour county stays ahead ofthe “jury technology

curve,” notes one jury technologydeveloper. And what will keep themhappier but using the fastest grow-ing form of communication: texting.Texting allows a person to commu-nicate without completely stoppingwhat they are doing to send a quickcommuniqué, and allows them tocheck important notifications whilemulti-tasking (hopefully not whiledriving a car).

This developer, Judicial SystemsInc., allows courts to keep in touchwith jurors on the go, 24/7. Forexample, jurors can query the courten route by texting or emailinginquires, in common non-formattedsyntax, such as where do I park?, whendo I need to report? and how do I getthere? Jurors are also able to receivelast minute changes or reminders ofreporting instructions, allowingthem to always be “in the know.”

New technology is about provid-ing the public with as much conve-nience as possible, agrees John

Arntsen, vice president of ClientServices, Courthouse Technologies(CHT). This can be achievedthrough kiosks, emails, text messag-ing, etc., he says. “In fact, the morethe public is informed and the moreaccess they have, they more cost-effective and efficient a court’s juryoperation can be.”

Overview ofFunctions

Overall jury management—which refers to all of the functionsinvolved in the identification, quali-fication, summoning, and supportfor prospective jurors—has becomeincreasingly sophisticated and effi-cient, saving time for both theprospective juror and the court. Inaddition to more specific reportingtimes, jurors can be better qualifiedby the court, receive automatic noti-fications once they report and theycan receive compensation for servicebefore they depart the courthouse.

Many steps go into creating themost effective jury managementsolution. The automation processbegins with creating/maintaining

the master jury list, summoning/qualifying prospective jurors, man-aging prospective jurors as theyserve, post service documentationand compensation and should ide-ally conclude with conducting post-service performance evaluations,according to the Joint TechnologyCommittee (JTC), a working groupestablished by the Conference ofState Court Administrators(COSCA), the National Associationfor Court Management (NACM)and the National Center for StateCourts (NCSC).

To assist Courts in developingtheir own jury automation systems,the JTC published a new standard InDecember 2014, called the “JuryManagement System Require-ments,” through a project designedfor the Minnesota Office of StateCourt Administration and overseenby the Administrative Manager ofthe 4th Judicial District ofMinnesota, Hennepin County. It isdesigned to provide a tool to pro-vide context for existing, and identi-fication of possible new, technologystandards initiatives for the courtscommunity (see www.ncsc-jury-

GETTINGAHEAD OFTHE JURYTECHNOLOGYCURVESOLUTIONS THAT CUT A CLEAR

PATH TO JURY EFFICIENCIES.

Texting is one way to keepjurors happy says jury solutiondeveloper Judicial Systems Inc.



studies.org). The document containsa plethora of information describingthe numerous jury automation busi-ness capabilities available anddetailing needs, such as businessrules, report and display and infra-structure needs, for each.

Here we asked some ofthe vendors showcasingnew technologies on thefloor at CTC what they areoffering to help streamlinethe jury process.

Integration is Key

“The most important fea-ture of a jury system is itsability to integrate allperipheral products, tech-nology and services with thecore jury system,” saysArntsen. He explains thatthis will allow you to havemore active communication withjurors and will be able to providethem with more timely information.

At the September show, he notes,“we will be focusing on the newertechnology and services CHT canprovide that no one else can.Hosting services, text messaging,integrated summons mailing, andcash-dispensing jury paymentkiosks are just some of the things wehave in store. “

Easy AdminControls

To support instant communica-tions, the Judicial Systems Inc. tex-ting solution mentioned above hasnew “breakthrough” admin capabil-ities, according to Judicial Systems’president Gary Dower. The jurymanagement component of itsJury2015Plus Jury AdministrationSystem, mJuror, now not only com-municates pertinent information tojurors by means of texting andemail, but also provides authorizedcourt personnel the ability to com-

municate with andmanage the juryadministration sys-tem itself. Courtadministration canadjust, cancel orreschedule thereporting instruc-tions for jurors fromtheir smart phonesby means of textingand email. Along with the ability toimmediately manage juror reportinginstructions, mJuror allows desig-nated court staff such as judges,bailiffs, etc., to be notified instantlyof such changes. And, in additionthese written announcements, courtpersonnel now have the ability torecord announcements to be broad-cast to jurors as audio messages inthe form of MMS text and email.

Tyler Technologies views the pub-lic as “digital citizens” who increas-ingly interact with businesses via theweb. These citizens want to interactwith the court in the same way, andexpect similar experiences for all theironline activities, the company says.

Tyler Tech will be demonstratingits new Odyssey Jury solution atCTC. It provides an online portalwhere jurors may complete their ini-tial response card, request to berescheduled to a different day, or beexcused from service based on juris-dictional local rules, details MichaelKleinman, director of Marketing ofTyler’s Courts & Justice Division.The new jury system completelyintegrates with its Odyssey casemanagement system.

He furthers that citizen’s requestsare then automatically approved or

Xerox’s AgileJury solutionshows active pools at a

glance.

JURY+ WebGeneration screen-shot shows juror'shistory/activity inthe JMS.

Courthouse JMS Messaging Center fromCHT sends an automatic email if a jurorfails to appear.



sent to a jury clerk’s queue for pro-cessing using Odyssey’s workflowand task management features.Once the request is updated, thejuror can receive notification viaemail with their updated status.

In keeping with the mobility ofaccessing information, the OdysseyPortal is architected using the latestHTML5 technology so jurors canuse any device—PC, iPhone,Android, iPad, Blackberry, etc.—toaccess this data.

For those jurors that do notrespond online, the flow is also auto-mated. Odyssey Jury provides flexi-ble document management featuresthat allow users to batch scan stacksof response cards and automaticallyattach them to the juror, the pool, orpanel via a barcode, Kleinman notes.Since the document is associatedwith the juror, it will follow themthroughout their service lifecycle,thus allowing these documents to beincluded as part of a panel packetthat is sent to the courtroom. Thejury system assembles the scannedresponses and online response datainto an integrated document. Oncecreated, the packet can then beshared electronically to allow for apaperless transfer of information.

Improving the juror experience isa trend in jury management solu-tions, agrees Tessa Prophet, market-ing specialist with Jury SystemsIncorporated. Fortunately this issomething this company—whichwas founded by jury professionalsback in the 1980s—has alwaysemphasized, she says.

“JURY+ Web Solution (our onlinejuror response), JURY+ SMSNotifications (a text reminder regard-ing service), and JURY+ ExpressCheck-In (our seamless juror check-in) are just a few examples of how wecontinue to concentrate on improvingthe jury process, communicating moreeffectively with jurors, and deliveringa positive experience to both courtemployees and jurors alike,” she says.

At CTC, Jury Systems will behighlighting three products. JURY+Web Generation is a new browser-based JMS (introduced in 2014) thatshe says is quickly gaining populari-ty. “Existing clients using JURY+Next Generation, our Windows-based version, are thrilled with howsimple of a transition working withJURY+ Web Generation is.”

Next JURY+ Express Check-In isan attendance module that can beconfigured in various ways. It can beused as a device in which jurors walkup to it and give themselves atten-dance in either the jury room or acourtroom. Alternatively, for courtsthat require personnel to check jurorsin, it can be run in “user mode” forquick scanning. The module can per-form a myriad of functions, such ascalculating juror mileage, printing ourwork certificates, or giving jurors theoption to donate their pay, she says.

And finally, Prophet furthers,with the JURY+ Web Solution

prospective jurors can go online andupdate their information, qualify/dis-qualify themselves for service,request a postponement, and more.Typically when a client implementsJURY+ Web Solution, onlineresponse rates vary between 50%-75%. She notes that if your court’scurrent response rate is lower, it maybe time to take a look at it.

EvolvingTechnology

Jury Management systems con-tinue to evolve as technology andprocesses allow innovations, saysLane Turner, AgileJury productmanager with Xerox. “Solutionssuch as [telephone] IVR, kiosks,mobile device access and onlineportals that allow jurors to managetheir profiles, request postpone-ments, and track their attendance,although not new, are providingeven more options for potentialjurors every day.”

With infax’s JuryCall, patrons can find their name and where they are to report in 60seconds or less.



Xerox will be showcasing twonew jury-specific features at the CTCshow. The first is a way of using apostcard for jury service notificationand the second is a multi-use kioskthat provides courts more function-ality than the typical jury checkin/out kiosk, notes Turner.

Xerox believes that flexibility andconfigurability are the most impor-tant features of a jury managementsystem, and build that into theirproducts, says Turner. By flexibilityhe means that the software mustallow both jury staff to be able tochange their processes to realizecost savings and efficiencies, andalso provide jurors options for inter-acting with the jury services staff inmany different ways includingonline, via IVR or in person. These

systems also need to provide config-urability allowing jury staff to makechanges to the system as needs arise(e.g. legislative changes).

Xerox AgileJury was designed byjury administrators for jury administra-tors. The solution covers “the entirejury process from printing and mailingthe jury summons to providing jurorspayment cards once their service iscomplete and everything in between,providing our client with a complete,yet flexible solution to meet theirneeds,” Turner emphasizes. From cre-ating summons, to recording qualifica-tion to attending, empanelling andpaying jurors, this solution wasdesigned to make these functions easi-er for Courts to perform. Finally, bycombining AgileJury with other solu-tions such as print/mail services, eJurorinteractive web response, interactivevoice response, jury displays, docu-ment management, payment cards,and its mobile apps, he concludes, “itgives jury services managers theoptions they need to make their juryprocess work more efficiently.”

Summoning CostsAnother perennial issue for Courts

in mailing juror summonses is howfrequently people are on the move.According to the U.S. Census Bureau,14% of people move annually,Kleinman of Tyler points out. Thus,another key challenge with anincreasingly mobile jury pool is tolower the cost of summoning jurors.He says that Odyssey Jury containsthese costs—including that of postagespent on undeliverable summons—byintegrating with the National Changeof Address registry to validate currentaddresses of jurors in a summons listand reach potential jurors even whenthey’re on the move.

Information at a Glance

Unless the information from asolution can be communicated and

viewed it is not worth its salt.JuryCall, a module from the Infax’sCourtSight Suite digital signagesolution, solves this problem byintegrating with any jury manage-ment system to automate the jurorselection process for individualssummoned for jury duty. It displaysa potential juror name, badge num-ber or panel number and can visualpage a potential juror. By usingJuryCall, patrons can find theirname and where they are to reportin 60 seconds or less.

In addition, while prospectivejurors wait in the jury assembly area,large displays in the waiting roomcan show a judge’s message, livenews feeds or important court infor-mation. No matter the progressionof the jury selection process, dis-plays can show the appropriate sub-set of jurors at each step.

JuryCall can also be supplement-ed with a self-help kiosk. It can beused to automate the juror check-inprocess and provide service certifi-cation at the end of the day. Kioskscan also be configured to print jurorbadges.

CreatingEfficiencies &Lowering Costs

In the end, many of the impor-tant features of jury systems are thesame, notes Kleinman. “The key dif-ferentiators are the juror experienceand how well jury managementsolutions share information withother court systems to create effi-ciencies and lower costs,” he states.

Overall, he concludes, the integra-tion automates processes, eliminatesduplicate data entry, and “empowersjury clerks to achieve an efficient andreliable jury process for the jurors,attorneys, court staff and the judge.”

Getting ahead of the technologycurve is what all Courts are strivingfor. Jury management softwareshould help in that effort. CT

For more information:Courthouse Technologies (CHT)John ArntsenVice President of Client Servicesjarntsen@courthouse-

technologies.com1.877.685.2199 x.222

Judicial Systems, Inc.www.judicialsystems.comGary Dower [email protected] 1.800.205.4068

Jury Systems [email protected]

Tyler [email protected] 1.800.431.5776

Xerox Justice Solutionswww.xerox.com/justiceMichael [email protected] 1.800.772.0597



studies was 21.6%, which comparesfavorably to the 10%-15% recidi-vism reduction rate of other drugcourts.

Juvenile Drug CourtsMRT has been implemented in

dozens of juvenile drug courtsacross the country for more than 15years. However, fewer outcomestudies have been published onjuvenile drug courts as compared toadult drug courts. A total of 19 studies were

reviewed that reported on MRT-based juvenile drug courts. Theaverage retention rate in these stud-ies is 70.1%. Three of these studiesincluded recidivism data with acomparison between groups thatutilized MRT and groups that didnot. The combined recidivism of theMRT-treated juvenile offenders inthese three studies was 35.7%, com-pared to 52.7% in the comparisongroups. This shows a reduction inrecidivism of 17% among MRT-based programs, as compared to the6.5% average recidivism reductionrecently reported in a large study ofjuvenile drug court results.

Family Courts, WellnessCourts, & VeteransCourts

Data has also been publisheddetailing the effectiveness of MRTin Family Courts, Wellness Courts,and Veterans Courts across thecountry. For example, a FamilyCourt in Marin County, Oregonestablished to treat substance-abus-ing parents of young childrenrequires MRT for all participants.Within four years these clientsshowed a 13% rate of losing parent-ing rights, as compared to a controlgroup with a rate of 38%.

Wellness Courts are typically tar-geted to Native American groupsand operate under tribal governance.According to a study conducted onthe Anchorage, Alaska WellnessCourt, the re-arrest rate for MRT

participants for the most recent yearof the study was 20%, while amatched comparison group showeda re-arrest rate of 63%, more thanthree times higher. A further studyon the Spokane Tribe wellness courtshowed a re-arrest rate of 19%.

Veterans Courts are a relativelynew phenomenon in drug courtsand attempt to focus specializedprogramming to address the uniquecharacteristics of military veterans. A2014 study of efforts at reducingrecidivism in veterans, who becomeenmeshed in criminal justice, dis-covered that MRT is one of the mostfrequently employed methods beingutilized.

ConclusionWhile considerable attention has

been given to the variety of factorsinvolved with engaging and retain-ing clients in drug court programs,drug court treatment providers havegiven remarkably little attention tothe specific treatment methodolo-gies employed. The assumption bymany drug courts often appears tobe that all treatments are essentiallythe same. Specifically, cognitive pro-grams are often lumped together asbeing equal in research support andeffectiveness. An extensive review ofpublished recidivism outcome stud-ies reveals that MRT is a viable andeffective approach.

Gregory Little, Ed.D., and KennethRobinson, Ed.D. developed MoralReconation Therapy in 1985.

AD I N DEX COMPANY PAGE NO.

This advertisers index is provided as a serviceto our readers only. The publisher does not

assume liability for errors or omissions.

Alkermes......................................6Carter Goble Lee ......................11Computing System

Innovations ............................19CourtView..................................13Draeger Medical Systems .......33Extract Systems.........................23FTR Limited ................................5Garrett Metal Detectors...........14Infax .............................................2Journal Technologies ...............25Justice Systems .........................15Mentis Technology

Solutions, LLC..................InsertNational Center State Courts..27OraSure Technologies, Inc. .....39Rapid Financial Solutions........37Streetime...................................29StunCuff Enterprises, Inc.........20Telmate ......................................24Thermo Fisher Scientific..........35Thomson Reuters.....................48Tybera ........................................17Tyler Technologies....................47Xerox ..........................................21

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

AVERAGE REDUCTION IN RECIDIVISM

Juvenile Drug Courts with MRT

Programming

Other Juvenile Drug Courts

17%

6.5%

Continued from page 4