Introduction to the Court

The Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, MN, serves Ramsey County (population 494,920 in 2005 1), home to the city of St. Paul— Minnesota’s state capitol and one of its Twin Cities. The court is a unified trial court with general jurisdiction to hear all types of civil and criminal cases. The Court has a total of 29 judges, 5 referees, and 2 magistrates. Judges can hear any criminal or civil matter brought before them, and are assigned to various calendars as determined by the Chief Judge who has authority to assign judges and referees. The main Courthouse is located in downtown St. Paul, MN, and a suburban court site is located in the city of Maplewood.

Nature of Challenges Facing the Court

During the establishment of an Adult Substance Abuse Court in Ramsey County, court personnel noted that many of the defendants participating in the specialty court had both substance abuse problems, as well as co-occurring mental illness. With funding from the State Justice Institute, a mental health screening tool was administered to all Substance Abuse Court defendants which confirmed the disproportionate prevalence of the co-occurring disorder of mental illness. An additional review of a sample of misdemeanor defendants also projected that over 600 persons charged with misdemeanors had been subject to civil commitment hearings at some time in the past. To address the issue of mental illness in the defendant population, the Second District Court in Ramsey County, MN established a Mental Health Steering Committee in 2001 which began the planning of a Mental Health Court (MHC) to address the needs of defendants with mental illness charged with misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors.

In a September 2004 application to participate in The Center for Court Solutions-Partner Court Initiative, the Second Judicial District Court indicated that it was seeking to:

• Enhance the court’s ability to identify and evaluate defendants with mental illness by:
• Providing more efficient access to appropriate mental health assessment and treatment services for mentally ill defendants; and
• Ensuring participants receive appropriate community based services;
• Improve public safety and address community livability concerns by:
• Holding participants accountable for their behavior; and
• Reducing recidivism of offenders with mental illness;
• Enhance collaboration between criminal justice agencies and the mental health system; and
• Create new strategies for community-based services for mentally ill offenders.

Strategy for Mobilizing a Change Effort

At the time that the Second Judicial District joined the Center for Court Solutions Partner Court Initiative, its Mental Health Court (MHC) had been in several stages of development over more than a year. A team led by the Chief Judge Gregg Johnson of the Second Judicial District and with participation from other judges, the county mental health clinic, the pre-trial services agency, the county department of human services, the department of community corrections, the mental health department, the prosecutor’s office, the public defender’s office, the court administrator’s office, the sheriff’s department and the police department had been working on developing and implementing a mental health court. A specialized docket had been created, a project coordinator and case manager designated, and a court team was meeting routinely to screen cases. Significant challenges were facing the court, and the Partner Court Initiative offered the opportunity for the MHC team to step back and reconsider its vision and mission, and develop a practical strategy to move forward. Some of the challenges included:

• The individuals being seen by the court were less embedded in the mental health treatment system than was anticipated, and were requiring more services from the court’s own mental health case manager than was anticipated;
• Staff turnover in the position of project coordinator and case manager had made continuity a challenge;
• There was some question as to whether a more appropriate screening protocol to help identify candidates for the court might be appropriate;
• Resources for conducting data collection and evaluation were lacking and continued funding for the coordinator and case manager positions was under discussion; and
• Although other “specialty courts” in the district were promising innovations, coordination among the courts was a challenge.

Accomplishments

As part of its participation in the Partner Court Initiative, the Mental Health Court Team engaged in a months-long effort to assess the MHC’s current practices, revisit its vision and mission within the District Court, consider performance measures, and secure input from the user community. A series of efforts to 1) gather data on clients in the court, 2) gain an understanding of evidence based practice with mentally ill offenders, 3) implement a new and more appropriate screening protocol, and 3) put in place staff resources and management information to support the court significantly strengthened the court and its operations.

The MHC Team then came together for a strategic planning retreat designed to:

• Provide an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the MHC Team to develop a common understanding of the current operations, staffing, policies, and resources involved in the court;
• Review and document the accomplishments of the court to date, and articulate key lessons that had been learned during the first year of operation;
• Revisit—and clarify—the court’s vision, mission, goals, and target population;
• Agree on specific objectives toward which the court wishes to work to realize its vision and mission; and
• Develop a specific implementation plan to guide the operations of the court and the team over the coming year.

By having a specialty docket with a limited number of judges involved, the mental health court personnel can become knowledgeable about mental illness, mental health treatment, the mental health recovery process and available services.  With this information MHC staff and judges are better able to create realistic individualized expectations of participants’ performance under the monitoring of the court.  Literature is starting to reflect that it is the individual attention and support both during the court sessions and during the monitoring that appears to engage and motivate mental health court participants.  

As a result of ongoing collaboration on the part of the court and its partners, its ongoing efforts and accomplishments include:

• Efforts underway to gain a consumer perspective by surveying mental health court participants, using protocols developed by national organizations working with mental health courts;
• Policies, procedures, and public information materials under development to institutionalize this court within the larger court structure;
• A collaborative team structure being put into place to guide the work of all four problem-solving courts now operating in the Second Judicial District. The purpose is to encourage a unified and more collaborative working relationship among the problem-solving courts, eliminate duplication, and use time wisely. The structure will have an Executive Coordinating Council for Problem-Solving Courts, a Steering Committee, and Operational teams—one for each court.
• Introduction of a Web-based database as part of a pilot e-Courts project with the Bureau of Governmental Research, that will generate reports and allow appropriate sharing of information—with safeguards and protocols built in for confidentiality. This thorough and comprehensive data base reduces the need for the MHC to develop its own system as the e-Courts system was developed from a previous court data management system, and is supported by significant resources and funding. The data base is compliant with HIPPA and CFR 42 regulations and has the ability to limit access to certain parties based on release of information forms. The data base gives the MHC the ability to generate reports and summary data.
• Ongoing training for members of the Mental Health Court team on a variety of topics related to mental illness and case management.

Lessons

The experience of Second Judicial District in Ramsey County suggests that:

• As courts are defining and addressing challenging problems, leadership from the bench is essential to success. In the Second Judicial District, the leadership and interest of the Chief Judge—and other judges whom he involved in the effort—was the factor that allowed the MHC to work through a series of challenges around funding and staffing. Not only is a judge the recognized leader of the court—and able to influence various types of support and resources—but also brings sufficient stature to any initiative to secure the interest and involvement of other key stakeholders from outside the court who will be essential to its success;
• A clear definition of desired outcomes, and securing the resources to adequately track and monitor progress is essential to understanding the effectiveness of innovations in the court, and is also essential to make the argument for resources. The analysis of the population moving through the court allowed the MHC Team to refocus and to secure needed resources to proceed; and
• It is essential for the courts to collaborate with other stakeholders, as so many of the challenges facing courts require services, expertise, and support that lies outside the courts themselves.

For further information about the Adult Drug Court of the Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, MN, please contact Brandi Coadi, Adult Mental Health Court Coordinator , 1700 Ramsey County Courthouse, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102 , Phone (651) 266-8104  

Fax: (651) 767-8982   brandi.coady@courts.state.mn.us

1 U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/27123.html