LINCOLN — A very low number of accused felons in Nebraska — just over 4% — can access a problem-solving court, touted Tuesday by officials as a more effective way to turn lives of crime around and a much less costly alternative than prison.

But just how to create these programs that provide highly supervised treatment for military veterans and those battling substance abuse and mental illnesses was still unclear after a discussion between state lawmakers and members of the judicial branch.

Last year, about 1,100 individuals were able to get into problem-solving courts across the state, which is 4.2% of those charged with felonies.

“There’s obviously some huge room for improvement,” Nebraska Supreme Court Judge Jeffrey Funke told members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Nebraska’s first problem-solving court, a drug court, was established in Lancaster County in 1999.

Now 32 such courts are spread across the state in which a district judge, utilizing tough love and highly supervised requirements such as taking a job and remaining drug-free, seeks to turn around the lives of “high-risk, high-need” offenders.

Those facing charges of murder, kidnapping and sexual assault do not qualify for such courts, which now have expanded to deal with young adults and those exiting prison or facing domestic violence charges.

Funke said a new study found that the cost of problem-solving court supervision was $5,387 a year and that the recidivism rate for those completing the program was 19%.

That is about one-third the cost, or less, of housing someone in a state prison, where the most recent recidivism rate — the percentage of inmates returning to prison within three years — was about 29.8%.

But, Funke said, operating a problem-solving court takes time for district judges, who are already dealing with a heavy docket of criminal and civil cases.

During the 2022 legislative session, State Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, offered a possible solution: to allow hearing officers or referees, rather than judges, handle most of the drug court duties.

The proposal was opposed by district judges and others involved in such courts, who argued that having a person of power, in a black robe and with the authority to send someone to prison, makes all the difference.

Webb Bancroft, a public defender in Lancaster County whose primary job is working with problem-solving courts, said offenders regularly say that 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.

Funke said the capacity of problem-solving courts could be doubled if more time could be freed up for district judges.

Among the ideas he presented during an interim hearing on the subject were:

• Increase the number of district judges.
• Allow court “magistrates” to handle pre-trial motions and other minor proceedings, as is done in federal court.
• Appoint six to eight special judges that would handle problem-solving courts exclusively.
• Provide incentives for more district judges to volunteer to run a drug court.

Funke said there’s no national research that shows that a non-judge referee could not run a drug court, but anecdotally, authorities in the field say that a person in authority — a judge — is essential.

He and others said there are other barriers 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.

Funke said 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 apt to pursue an alternative to prison.

Toward that end, he said, it might be worth creating the position of “expeditor” — a probation officer, likely — who could meet with people just after their arrest to assess whether they qualify for a problem-solving court.

Funke said the judiciary expects to finalize some recommendations for expanding such courts in the next couple of months and bring them to the Legislature.

This story was originally published by Nebraska Examiner, an editorially independent newsroom providing a hard-hitting, daily flow of news. It is part of the national nonprofit States Newsroom. Find more at nebraskaexaminer.com.

Author Profile: Paul Hammel