CACC – California Association of Collaborative Courts
Judicial Council of California
Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee
Mission of the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee
- Make recommendations to the Judicial Council on criteria for identifying and evaluating collaborative justice courts;
- Assess and measure the success and effectiveness of collaborative justice courts;
- Identify local best practices;
- Recommend minimum judicial education standards and educational activities;
- Advise the council of potential funding sources;
- Make recommendations on grant funding programs administered by the AOC; and
- Recommend appropriate outreach activities to support collaborative justice courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
CFCC works to improve the quality of justice for—as well as services to meet the diverse needs of—families, youth, children, and self-represented litigants in the California courts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC) is dedicated to improving the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. To that end, the division supports programs in collaborative justice, domestic violence, language access, mentally ill court users, representation, services to self-represented litigants, tribal projects, veterans’ courts, and other programs that improve practice in family and juvenile, as well as other case types.
CFCC advances judicial council objectives and works closely with council advisory groups to develop rules, forms, and standards; provide education events and resources; offer technical assistance, cost recovery, and service administration; seek and manage statewide grant funds; conduct business intelligence, performance measurement, and statistical analysis. CFCC disseminates information through websites, webinars, newsletters, and other media.
FACT SHEET March 2010
Changing Behavior: Incentives and Sanctions in Juvenile Dependency Drug Court
The California Supreme Court, in In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, declared that contempt of court and jail are not permissible sanctions in the context of juvenile dependency proceedings, ruling that the juvenile dependency court may not use incarceration or fines to enforce a reunification order. This fact sheet presents information on the sanctions and incentives that are still available to the court following Nolan W.
California Collaborative Justice Courts: Building a Problem-Solving Judiciary
INNOVATION IN CALIFORNIA
Judiciaries around the country are embracing a new way of business, one that emphasizes partnerships with stakeholders in and outside the courts, improved community access to the justice system, greater accountability for offenders and better community outcomes, such as increased safety and improved public confidence. This new way of doing business goes by various names. In many jurisdictions, it’s called “problem solving.” In California it goes by the name “collaborative justice.” Problem-solving courts (or collaborative justice courts) include
specialized drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, family treatment courts, DUI courts, mental health courts, peer/youth courts and homeless courts.
California Drug Court Cost Analysis Study
In 2000, the Judicial Council of California initiated a comprehensive study to examine the costs and benefits of its drug court programs and to identify cost-effective practices for such courts throughout the state. Adjudicating offenders in the nine drug courts chosen for the first phases of the study resulted in significant savings for the California criminal justice system.
While other studies have shown that drug courts have reduce drug use and criminal behavior, few of them have examined financial costs and benefits on a statewide level, until now.
Collaborative Justice in Conventional Courts: Opportunities and Barriers
In recent years an array of innovative courts has emerged throughout the country in an effort to address the underlying problems of defendants, victims, and communities. Since 1989, when the nation’s first drug court opened in Miami, Florida, a number of different models have arisen: drug courts, domestic violence courts, family treatment courts, juvenile drug courts, peer/youth courts, mental health courts, community courts, and homeless courts. Various names have been used to collectively describe these projects. In California they are known as collaborative justice courts; in New York they are called problem-solving courts.1 A number of unique elements characterize these innovative courts: a problem-solving focus, a team approach to decision making, integration of social services, judicial supervision of the treatment process, community outreach, direct interaction between defendants and the judge, and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside the courtroom.
California and New York, along with a number of other states, have successfully piloted and replicated drug courts and other collaborative court models. But it remains to be seen whether and how states can “go to scale”—not merely replicating more discrete courts but also disseminating some of their principles and practices broadly throughout conventional courts.