IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ORDER RE-ESTABLISHING THE § CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL § OF THE JUDICIARY § Before STRINE, Chief Justice.

ORDER On the 19th day of August, 2015: WHEREAS, few matters of public policy are more important to Delawareans than the

penalties and rehabilitation opportunities that defendants who commit crimes

receive; WHEREAS, it is impossible as a matter of fiscal reality and our society’s values to

address the public’s need for safety solely by means of lengthy sentences of

incarceration; WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to attempt to afford

prisoners an opportunity to address substance abuse, mental health,

educational, and vocational problems that may have contributed to their

criminal behavior; WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to use limited resources

wisely, and to attempt to allocate rehabilitation resources rationally and

equitably, based on sound criteria; WHEREAS, many offenders receive sentences that permit them to live in the

community, and there are only limited resources available to the Bureau of

Community Corrections of the Department of Correction (i.e., “Probation and

Parole”) to provide supervision and services to these offenders in order to

protect the public and attempt to help these offenders avoid committing other

crimes; WHEREAS, to best protect the public and to reduce recidivism, scarce supervision

resources must also be deployed rationally and equitably, based on sound

criteria relating to the dangerousness of the offender to the public; WHEREAS, the Judiciary has an important role in determining the allocation of

limited rehabilitation and supervision resources, and should do its best to help

important state and community partners do their jobs effectively and

efficiently; WHEREAS, in cooperation with these partners, the Judiciary has initiated a variety of

innovative approaches to criminal cases, which attempt to address some of the

fundamental issues that contribute to criminal behavior; WHEREAS, to that end, the Judiciary has implemented innovations in “problem-

solving” approaches to dealing with offenders with substance abuse problems,

offenders with mental health problems, offenders who are military veterans,

and offenders who were impressed into criminal conduct by sexual

victimization; WHEREAS, these innovations in problem-solving courts have now gone on for

several years, there is valuable experience from them, and it is timely to

consider their effectiveness and which of them are worth bringing to full scale;

2

to develop consistent, predictable, and measurable statewide standards

governing their operation; and to ensure that problem-solving courts function

in a manner that respects the needs of key agency partners, such as Probation

and Parole, and that uses limited supervision and rehabilitation resources

prudently; WHEREAS, these problem-solving courts should genuinely be courts, in the sense

that they are an integral part of the courts of Delaware and operate on sensible

and effective standards that do not vary depending on the judge handling the

matter or the county in which the matter is handled; WHEREAS, because the problem-solving courts address classes of offenders with

similar needs for supervision and rehabilitation regardless of the particular

court – be it the Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas, by way of

example – our State should endeavor to implement the best approach to, for

example, a “mental health” court, without regard to court jurisdictional lines; WHEREAS, the utility of collaborating within the Judiciary and with key partners to

make the problem-solving courts more effective is merely one illustration of

the benefits that could flow from more collaboration on key criminal justice

policies within the Judiciary itself; WHEREAS, this collaboration within the Judiciary and with key partners is also

necessary because of the effect these innovative problem-solving efforts have

on the resources and time key agency partners have to devote to helping

3

supervise and rehabilitate other criminal defendants, and on the Judiciary’s

own resolution of criminal matters not assigned to the problem-solving courts; WHEREAS, the ability to collaborate on these issues is complicated by the

proliferation of criminal justice bodies charged with overlapping responsibility

to address criminal justice issues (see Exhibit A); WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies makes it difficult for the Judiciary and

other Branches to staff them appropriately and to use limited time to address

key criminal justice issues effectively; WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies also complicates the ability of

appointed members of the Judiciary to consult with their judicial colleagues

and to speak for the Judiciary as a whole when they serve on these bodies; WHEREAS, this lack of coordination can cause the simultaneous employment of

different approaches to the same criminal justice policy problem, which may

result in similarly situated offenders receiving inequitably different treatment,

and inefficiencies for key agency partners whose budgets and staffs are

limited; WHEREAS, it is therefore timely to explore the implementation of measures to focus

criminal justice policymaking in a smaller set of key bodies, and to ensure that

the judicial representatives on those bodies are able to consult with their

colleagues and present input that reflects the best thinking of the Judiciary as a

whole;

4 WHEREAS, as with adult offenders, there are limited rehabilitation and supervisory

resources to address youth delinquency, so the Judiciary should make good

faith efforts to work with key partners to make sure these resources are

rationally allocated in an effort to provide juvenile offenders with effective

opportunities for rehabilitation and to protect the public; WHEREAS, to address all these issues, it is useful to involve judges from the key trial

courts with the front-line responsibility for criminal justice and to have them

play the leading role in addressing these issues; WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court established the Criminal Justice

Council of the Judiciary by Administrative Directive 186 to address the issues

set forth above; WHEREAS, Administrative Directive 186 was rescinded in connection with the

adoption of the consolidated Operating Procedures for the Delaware Judicial

Branch; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court wishes to re-establish the Criminal Justice Council of

the Judiciary. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DIRECTED, with the unanimous approval of the members of the Supreme Court under Delaware Constitution, Art. IV, 13(1), that:

1. The Criminal Justice Council of the Judiciary is hereby re-established.

2. The membership of the Council shall be as follows:

The Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr., Chairman

The Honorable Jan R. Jurden, Co-Chairwoman

5

The Honorable William L. Chapman, Jr.

The Honorable Kenneth S. Clark, Jr.

The Honorable Robert B. Coonin

The Honorable Carl C. Danberg

The Honorable Alicia B. Howard

The Honorable Vivian L. Medinilla

The Honorable Mardi F. Pyott

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli

The Honorable Paula T. Ryan

The Honorable Robert H. Surles

The Honorable Paul R. Wallace

The Honorable William L. Witham, Jr.

The Honorable Alan G. Davis 3. The initial mandate of the Council shall be as follows:

A. Problem-Solving Courts

i. To identify which of the so-called “problem-solving courts”

have demonstrated sufficient utility in terms of improving

public safety, the rehabilitation of offenders, and the efficiency

of the judicial system to warrant continuation;

ii. As to problem-solving courts that are continuing in operation,

to develop statewide standards, rules of procedure, and

outcome measures to govern their operation and measure their

performance. Such statewide standards shall ensure that the

problem-solving courts (e.g., Drug Courts, Mental Health

Courts, and Veterans’ Courts) operate based on the same

standards regardless of the county or court in which a case is

held, unless there are sound, articulated, and efficient reasons

6

for variation. These standards, rules of procedure, and outcome

measures shall be designed to enable any judge of a court, any

experienced practitioner, and key agency partners to understand

how matters in the problem-solving courts are to be handled

and what class of cases and offenders are eligible for inclusion; iii. In identifying and developing the standards for problem-

solving courts continuing in operation, the Council shall

examine empirical evidence not only from the various

approaches used by our courts to date, but also empirical

evidence and other research and scholarship from similar

efforts in other states; iv. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council shall

also seek input from other key partners to ensure that the

problem-solving courts operate in a manner that helps other

agency partners in doing their critical work efficiently. By way

of example, the Council shall consider how the courts should

schedule matters before the problem-solving courts in a manner

that is efficient for Probation and Parole and treatment

providers so that they can make the best use of their scarce

time; and v. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council shall

also consider, with input from agency partners, how to ensure

7

that the problem-solving courts do not inhibit Probation and

Parole’s ability to supervise other defendants effectively or

deny other defendants who need rehabilitation resources

equitable access. B. Overall Criminal Justice Coordination

i. The Council shall identify the most effective policy body in

which overall criminal justice policy should be addressed by

the Judiciary in cooperation with the other Branches;

ii. The Council shall identify means to consolidate, eliminate, or

revise the mandate of existing criminal justice policy bodies

that have overlapping or inconsistent mandates, and to engage

with the other Branches in a good faith effort to reduce the

number of related bodies and to focus policymaking in fewer

forums; and

iii. The Council shall also identify policies and procedures to

ensure that the Judiciary’s members on those bodies collaborate

with their judicial colleagues in advance of meetings of

whatever criminal justice bodies persist so as to ensure that the

Judicial Branch’s members on those bodies speak, to the extent

possible, for the Judiciary as a whole. C. Juvenile Justice

i. Problem-Solving Courts

8 a. The Council shall identify which of the problem-solving

courts used in the Juvenile Justice system have

demonstrated sufficient utility in terms of improving

public safety, the rehabilitation of delinquent youth, and

the efficiency of the judicial system to warrant

continuation; b. As to problem-solving courts that are continuing in

operation, to develop statewide standards, rules of

procedure, and outcome measures to govern their

operation and measure their performance. Such standards

shall ensure that problem-solving courts operate based on

the same standards regardless of the county in which a

case is held, unless there are sound, articulated, and

efficient reasons for variation; c. These standards, rules of procedure, and outcome

measures shall be designed to enable any judge of a court,

any experienced practitioner, and key agency partners to

understand how matters in the problem-solving courts are

to be handled and what class of cases and offenders are

eligible for inclusion; d. In identifying and developing the standards to govern any

courts that are continuing in operation, the Council shall

9

examine empirical evidence not only from the various

approaches used by our courts to date, but also empirical

evidence and other research and scholarship from similar

efforts in other states; and

e. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council

shall also seek input from other key partners to ensure that

the problem-solving courts operate in a manner that helps

other agency partners in doing their critical work

efficiently. By way of example, the Council shall

consider how the courts should schedule matters before

the problem-solving courts in a manner that is efficient for

the Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services (“YRS”)

and treatment providers so that they can make the best use

of their scarce time. ii. Judicial Branch Juvenile Justice Policy Coordination

a. The Council shall identify the most effective policy body

in which overall juvenile justice policy should be

addressed in cooperation with the other Branches;

b. The Council shall identify means to consolidate,

eliminate, or revise the mandate of existing juvenile

justice policy bodies that have overlapping or inconsistent

mandates, and to engage with the other Branches in a

10

good faith effort to reduce the number of related bodies

and to focus policymaking in fewer forums; and

c. The Council shall also identify policies and procedures to

ensure that the Judiciary’s members on those bodies

collaborate with their judicial colleagues in advance of

meetings of whatever juvenile justice bodies persist so as

to ensure that the Judicial Branch’s members on those

bodies speak, to the extent possible, for the Judiciary as a

whole.

iii. Cooperation With Youth Rehabilitation Services In Optimizing

The Allocation Of Placement Funds For Delinquent Youth

a. The Council shall engage with the YRS to identify means

to provide the Family Court and the YRS with better

empirical data regarding the comparative benefits and

costs of placements for delinquent youth for their use in

making placement decisions. The goal of the Council

shall be to better enable the Family Court and the YRS to

deploy the limited resources available for the placement

and supervision of delinquent youth in the manner most

likely to protect the public and to provide rehabilitation

opportunities for youth offenders. D. Work Time Line

11 i. The Council shall present its initial findings to the Chief Justice

and Presiding Judges, the Supreme Court, and the

Administrative Office of the Courts on or before June 15, 2015.

To the extent the Council identifies issues that require more

time for resolution, the Council shall specify the time frame

best suited for resolution of those remaining issues. Likewise,

if the Council identifies issues that should be addressed earlier

because of the State legislative or budget cycle, or for other

reasons, it may make such interim reports as it deems

advisable; ii. To facilitate the implementation of findings determined by the

Judiciary and other Branches to be worthy of adoption as

policy, the Council shall accompany its findings with

implementing draft rules of procedure, standards of operation,

administrative directives, and legislation; and iii. The Chief Justice may also refer other criminal justice issues to

the Council for consideration.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

12 cc: The Honorable Jack A. Markell State Court Administrator

The Honorable Randy J. Holland Court Administrators

The Honorable Karen L. Valihura Clerk of the Supreme Court

The Honorable James T. Vaughn, Jr. Counsel to the Governor

The Honorable Collins. J. Seitz, Jr. Chair Senate Judiciary Committee

Members of the Judicial Conference Chair House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Matthew Denn

The Honorable Brendan O’Neill

13