Problem-Solving Courts Problem-solving courts were identified by state chief justices and court administrators in a 2006 National Center for State Courts survey as one of the two most effective supervision programs available in their states; mental health and substance abuse programs are the other.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/principles-of-sentencing-and-corrections-policy.aspx
The responsibilities ofprobation officers include: ■ Screening most cases to determineif informal or formal processing iswarranted (although prosecutorsare increasingly making intake/petition decisions). ■ Making detention decisions (ap-proximately 20 percent of juvenilesare detained pending adjudication).
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/177611.pdf
In addition to thetraditional judicial capacity, thejuvenile court judge has the authorityto affect case processing long beforeand after a formal adjudication hear-ing. In many jurisdictions, the juvenilecourt judge is the direct administratorof the juvenile probation departmentand/or court staff.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/177611.pdf
It is the intent of NCSL and this work group that the Principles and examples presented here will help guide and inform many aspects of state sentencing and corrections policy now and well into the future.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/principles-of-sentencing-and-corrections-policy.aspx
Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy. State legislatures set both the tone and the framework for sentencing and corrections policies. Today, they face the challenge of considering strategies that both manage state spending and protect the public.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/principles-of-sentencing-and-corrections-policy.aspx
Effective diversion programshold offenders accountable for theoffenses committed, take steps torepair the damage caused by theiractions, and provide swift and certainconsequences.The Thurston County, WA, Prosecut-ing Attorney’s Office implemented a“fast track” diversion program in1995.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/177611.pdf
The NCSL Criminal Justice Program assembled the Sentencing and Corrections Work Group in 2010. The bipartisan, 18-member group includes officers of NCSL’s Law and Criminal Justice Committee and other legislators who are recognized as leaders on these issues.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/principles-of-sentencing-and-corrections-policy.aspx
Pennsylvania Progress 4(3).Torbet, P.M. 1996. Juvenile Probation:The Workhorse of the Juvenile JusticeSystem. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.Torbet, P.M., Gable, R., Hurst, H.,Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., andThomas, D. 1996.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/177611.pdf
State legislatures set both the tone and the framework for sentencing and corrections policies. The principles identified and described below resulted from the bipartisan NCSL work group and are not aligned with any particular opinion or approach.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/principles-of-sentencing-and-corrections-policy.aspx
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/177611.pdf
most effective method for improving court procedures?
Mental health and substance abuse programs are the most effective method for improving court procedures. The most effective method for improving court procedures are mental health and substance abuse programs.