Problem-solving courts broadly popular, but how to expand them remains unclear
LINCOLN — A very small number of accused felons in Nebraska — just over 4% — have access to problem-solving court, which officials Tuesday touted as a more effective way to turn criminals’ lives around and a much less expensive alternative than jail .
But how to create these programs, which offer closely monitored treatment to military veterans and people battling substance abuse and mental illness, was unclear after a debate between state lawmakers and members of the judiciary.
Last year, about 1,100 people statewide were able to turn to problem-solving courts, accounting for 4.2% of people charged with felonies.
“There’s obviously some room for improvement,” Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Funke told members of the Legislative Judiciary Committee.
Nebraska’s first problem-solving court, a drug court, was established in Lancaster County in 1999.
Now, 32 such courts are scattered across the state, where a district judge seeks to transform the lives of “high-risk, high-need” offenders using tough love and closely monitored requirements like taking a job and staying drug-free.
Individuals charged with murder, kidnapping and sexual assault do not qualify for such courts, which have now been expanded to deal with young adults and those leaving prison or facing domestic violence charges.
Must cost less than prison
Funke said a new study found that the cost of having issues court-supervised is $5,387 a year and that the recidivism rate for those who complete the program is 19%.
That’s about a third or less of the cost of keeping a person in a state penitentiary, where the most recent recidivism rate — the percentage of inmates who return to prison within three years — was about 29.8%.
But, Funke said, running a problem-solving court takes time for district judges, who are already dealing with a heavy list of criminal and civil cases.
During the 2022 legislature, State Senator Steve Lathrop of Omaha, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, offered a possible solution: hearing officers or arbitrators instead of judges should handle most drug court duties.
The proposal was rejected by district judges and others involved in such courts, who argued that having a person with power, in a black robe, and with the authority to send someone to jail made all the difference.
Webb Bancroft, a Lancaster County public defender whose primary role is working with courts to solve problems, said offenders routinely say the most important factor in their success was the time they spent with a judge.
“They say it was the first time they were in a system where someone listened to them and cared about them,” Bancroft said.
Could double problem-solving courts
Funke said the capacity of problem-solving courts could be doubled if more time could be freed for district judges.
Ideas he presented during an interim hearing on the subject included:
- Increase in the number of district judges.
- Permit court “judges” to hear pretrial motions and other small matters as they do in federal courts.
- Appoint six to eight special judges who would deal exclusively with problem-solving courts.
- Provide incentives for more district judges to volunteer to run a drug court.
It is important to have a judge
Funke said there is no national research showing that a non-judge arbiter cannot run a drug court, but anecdotally, authorities in the field say that an authority figure — a judge — is essential.
He and others said there are other obstacles to expanding drug courts, including a shortage of mental health providers and a lack of funds to increase the number of prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers to staff such specialty courts.
According to Funke, research shows that problem-solving courts are most effective when an offender can be enrolled within 30 days of an arrest, a time when a person is more inclined to seek an alternative to prison.
To that end, he said, it might be worth creating the position of an “expeditor” — likely a probation officer — who could meet with people immediately after they’re arrested to assess whether they qualify for a problem-solving court.
Funke said the judiciary expects to finalize some recommendations on expanding such courts over the next few months and submit them to lawmakers.