Back to top


This website provides access to hundreds of youth court websites. Peer, Student, Youth, and Teen Courts are listed by state. It is an excellent resource if you are looking for other juvenile courts to contact for information related to courts your own agency may be thinking of developing.

Local Youth Justice Websites: Peer Court, Student Court, Youth Court, Teen Court Cover

The opportunity for diverting offenders with mental illness and substance abuse disorders from the criminal justice system when they have their first appearance in a municipal court is explained. Sections of this publication include: introduction; Sequential Intercept Model (SIM); municipal courts—definition and caseloads; municipal courts as a venue for diversion of people with mental and substance use disorders; challenges to the use of municipal courts for diversion—case volume, time constraints and lack of leverage, and the mature of municipal courts; what the essential elements for effective diversion are—identification and screening, court-based clinician as the boundary spanner-linkage component, recovery-based engagement strategies, and proportional response; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Midtown Community Court in New York City; a municipal court achieving effective diversion—Misdemeanor Arraignment Diversion Project in New York City; and summary. "Municipal courts that implement these four essential elements—Identification and Screening, Court-Based Clinician, Recovery-Based Engagement, and Proportional Response—are in the position to minimize the criminal justice system involvement and reduce unnecessary incarceration of people with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders as well as facilitate engagement or re-engagement in mental health and substance use disorder services" (p. 12).

Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System cover

Following a review of the available research regarding pretrial risk assessment instruments being used in other jurisdictions, the Committee decided that "it would be preferable to develop a customized pretrial risk instrument that incorporated all of the positive attributes of these risk instruments but had the advantage of being tested and normed on defendants being released in Nevada" (Final Report, p. 1). This collection of documents explains how the Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment (NPR) was developed. Access is provided to: Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment (NPR)--Draft; NPRA Validation Report and Final NPRA Tool [Development of the Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment System Final Report]; and Volume One, Two, and Three containing background reports and information about other types of risk assessments used in the United States. Documents are organized into the following areas: Volume One--The Need for Reform of Pretrial Release, Validated Pretrial Risk Tools, and Pretrial Risk Tools Overviews and Validation Studies; Volume Two—Risk and Needs Tools, Pretrial Reform Collateral Issues, and Pretrial Standards and Implementation Guidelines; and Volume Three—Pretrial Standards and Implementation Guidelines

Nevada Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (NPR) Documents cover

"Practitioners use risk assessment information to inform decisions at various points in the criminal justice system. The Primer is written for judges, policy makers, and other practitioners interested in the use of RNA [risk and needs assessment] information at sentencing for the purpose of informing community corrections related decisions regarding management and reduction of offender recidivism risk. It focuses on RNA instruments designed specifically to inform these community corrections-related decisions" (p. 2). This publication explains: what risk and needs assessment instruments are, and reasons for using them; examples of six risk and needs assessment instruments and how they differ; what the qualities of good risk and needs assessment instruments are; the practices which support sound implementation of risk and needs assessment instruments; and the practical considerations in selecting and using risk and needs assessment instruments. An appendix provides profiles of risk and needs assessment instruments.

Offender Risk & Needs Assessment Instruments: A Primer for Courts cover

This report “[p]resents findings on general trends in pretrial detention and misconduct in the federal district courts between fiscal years 1995 and 2010. The report highlights trends in the number of defendants released and detained pretrial and examines the changing composition of defendants with federal pretrial dispositions, including the increase in defendants charged with immigration violations and the growth of defendants with serious criminal backgrounds. It examines the relationships between pretrial detention and the type of charge and the criminal history of the defendant. In addition, the report includes trends on the rates of pretrial misconduct, including technical violations, missed court appearances, and re-arrests for new offenses between 1995 and 2010” (p. 1).

› Pretrial Detention and Misconduct in Federal District Courts, 1995-2010 Cover

The identification of “federal criminal defendants who are most suited for pretrial release without jeopardizing the integrity of the judicial process or the safety of the community, in particular release predicated on participation in an alternatives to detention program” is investigated. Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; population description; research objective one -- pretrial risk classification; research objective two -- risk levels, release and detention rates, and pretrial failure rates; research objective three -- alternatives to detention, risk levels, and pretrial failure; research objective four -- efficacy of the alternatives to detention program; research objective five -- current risk assessment practices; and research objective six -- best practices for pretrial risk assessment and recommendations.

Pretrial Risk Assessment in the Federal Court for the Purpose of Expanding the Use of Alternatives to Detention Cover

This monograph presents a review of the literature and of national and state standards for prison suicide prevention, as well as national data on the incidence and rate of prison suicide, effective prevention programs, and discussion of liability issues. Topics also discussed include staff training, intake screening/assessment, housing, levels of supervision, intervention and administrative review. The document also examines the role of the courts in shaping prison suicide policy.

Prison Suicide: An Overview and Guide to Prevention Cover

Findings are reported for why 17-year-olds should be in juvenile court: their brain development, behavior, and the law; safety benefits; and economic benefits. An analysis is also presented regarding the impact of raising the age in Illinois: predicted effect; impact of raising the age for misdemeanors; eight steps for registering system responses to jurisdiction change—investigation and arrest, diversion programs and community-based services, prosecution/court proceedings/plea arrangement, detention, probation, sentencing, incarceration, and recordkeeping and expungement; and the broader themes of disproportionality and discretion, clear guidelines for implementation, and transfer and accountability. “To promote a juvenile justice system focused on public safety, youth rehabilitation, fairness, and ?scal responsibility, Illinois should immediately adopt legislation expanding the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds charged with felonies … It is counterproductive and cruel to impose the lifelong collateral consequences of felony convictions on minors who are likely to be rehabilitated. Illinois can achieve better long-term outcomes for 17-year-olds, public safety, and the state economy by expanding juvenile jurisdiction. In doing so, it is critical to ensure the juvenile justice system is robust, by adequately funding and supporting diversion, probation, and community-based services, as well as the public educational, health, and human service infrastructure upon which many at-risk youth must rely. E?orts at reducing the extent of youth contact with the juvenile justice system by focusing on front-end services are working; in order to be most e?ective, however, these services must be fully-funded, available, and extended through all developmentally-appropriate ages” (p. 60).

Raising the Age Cover

This review demonstrates the effectiveness of DWI Courts on DWI recidivism and general recidivism while they provide significant cost savings to taxpayers. Sections of this document cover: conclusions of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); effects on recidivism; duration of effects; motor vehicle crashes; cost-effectiveness; and concluding remarks of tangible and intangible benefits. "That DWI Courts reduce recidivism is no longer a matter of debate or conjecture. The most conservative estimate is that DWI Courts reduce DWI recidivism and general criminal recidivism approximately 12 percent better than other sentencing options, and the best DWI Courts are as much as 60 percent better. Contrary to assumptions, DWI Courts often do not cost more to administer than traditional probation because they shorten the time period required to supervise offenders and reduce overreliance on incarceration. Taking into account the cost benefits achieved from better outcomes, DWI Courts have saved local communities nearly $1,500 per participant within two years and more than $5,000 per graduate" (p. 6).

Research Update on DWI Courts Cover

"In the late 1990s, jail diversion programs, many especially geared toward those with mental health challenges, began to emerge around the country. New and modified diversion strategies have also been implemented in the last 15 years. These are highlighted and reviewed in the pages that follow. The Douglas County Correctional Facility shares the fate of many detention centers around the country … the literature review that follows is designed only to inform strategies that might result in more effective diversion of persons with mental illnesses and co-occurring disorders from the jail system" (p. 2). Recommendations are also given regarding the creation of a Mental Health Court and Crisis Center in Douglas County. Intercept points are community crisis centers, law enforcement, post-booking intercepts in jails and at initial hearings, and mental health courts. Reentry programs are not reviewed.

Review of the Literature on Jail Diversion Programs and Summary Recommendations for the Establishment of a Mental Health Court and Crisis Center within Douglas County, Kansas Cover


Subscribe to Courts