In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty courts and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and features Ms. Rachel Varela, the Deputy Therapeutic Court Program Coordinator for the Alaska Court System, who oversees thirteen therapeutic court programs statewide.

Ms. Varela brings a unique combination of clinical and administrative experience to her role. Trained as a chemical dependency counselor, she first entered the justice field in 2019 as a project coordinator for the Anchorage Family Treatment Court. Her skill and dedication quickly led to increasing responsibilities, culminating in her appointment as Deputy Therapeutic Court Program Coordinator in 2021. Today, she manages statewide operations, policies, and budgets for a diverse system of courts that includes family, veterans, tribal healing, DUI/drug, and mental health dockets.

Ms. Varela described how Alaska’s therapeutic court system has grown from a handful of pilot programs into a coordinated network designed to improve access to treatment and rehabilitation. Her team provides administrative oversight, data collection, and program evaluation for all therapeutic courts, ensuring that each adheres to evidence-based practices and national standards. Alaska’s courts, she explained, operate within a unique geographic and cultural landscape, serving urban centers and remote rural areas alike. This requires constant innovation and flexibility to meet local needs while maintaining fidelity to best practices.

Training and professional development are central to Ms. Varela’s vision for Alaska’s courts. Working alongside her colleague Ms. Michelle Bartley, she is developing an annual, in-state conference dedicated to strengthening the skills of treatment court teams. The goal is to ensure every jurisdiction—from Anchorage to the smallest tribal community—has access to consistent, high-quality training. Ms. Varela and Ms. Bartley are also establishing a statewide steering committee, complete with specialized subcommittees for each court type, to enhance coordination and resource sharing.

To streamline participant entry into the system, they are designing a screening hub staffed with multiple intake professionals who can assess and refer individuals efficiently to the appropriate court program. Collaboration with AllRise will provide technical assistance to support these initiatives, further aligning Alaska’s therapeutic courts with national standards of excellence.

Funding, as in many states, remains a central concern. Ms. Varela outlined Alaska’s hybrid funding model, which combines state appropriations, federal grants, and resources from the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. The Trust plays a vital role in supporting participants with serious mental illness and substance use disorders, ensuring that services remain available even in remote areas. Ms. Varela credited former leaders Ms. Michelle Bartley and Ms. Claire Waddup for laying the groundwork for the state’s current success through their years of leadership and advocacy.

Among Alaska’s legislative milestones, Ms. Varela highlighted a 2016 reform allowing felony DUI participants to obtain limited driver’s licenses after completing court-ordered treatment. This policy, she explained, has improved rehabilitation outcomes by helping participants return to work, maintain family stability, and fully reintegrate into their communities.

Despite these advances, Alaska faces persistent challenges. In some regions, particularly Juneau, housing shortages affect both participants and staff. Ms. Varela described creative solutions, including temporary use of RVs and other innovative housing options, to keep programs operational. She noted that such adaptability is a defining feature of Alaska’s justice professionals, who routinely find ways to make limited resources stretch across vast distances.

Technology is proving to be a key ally in that effort. Ms. Varela emphasized how telehealth services, virtual hearings, and remote collaboration tools have transformed access to justice across the state. Her office is also developing a statewide screening tool to improve data consistency, accuracy, and evaluation. These technological advancements, she noted, not only improve efficiency but also reduce barriers to care for participants living hundreds of miles from the nearest courthouse.

Looking ahead, Ms. Varela envisions an Alaska therapeutic court system that is more integrated, data-driven, and accessible than ever before. With stronger infrastructure, enhanced training, and continued partnerships, she believes Alaska can build a model of justice that reflects both accountability and compassion.

We wish to thank Ms. Rachel Varela for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Advancing Therapeutic Courts Across Alaska with Ms. Rachel Varela appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks travels to London to explore how innovation is transforming the British justice system. The podcast features Phil Bowen, Director of the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI)—an independent charitable organization dedicated to improving the effectiveness, fairness, and accessibility of justice throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bowen begins by reflecting on his background in North London and his early career in public service. After studying history at St. Andrews University in Scotland, he entered the British Civil Service through the government’s fast-stream program, joining the Home Office. There, he contributed to criminal justice and counterterrorism policy in the years following the September 11 attacks and later served within the Ministry of Justice and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit.

A defining period in his career came with a yearlong secondment in New York City to the Center for Court Innovation, now the Center for Justice Innovation. During that time, he conducted research on the growth of problem-solving courts across the United States and worked as a resource coordinator in the Bronx Criminal Court. Observing first-hand how American problem-solving courts combined accountability, treatment, and community engagement, he says, deeply influenced his later work in British justice reform.

Upon returning to London, Mr. Bowen helped establish the Centre for Justice Innovation, inspired by the New York model but designed specifically for the British context. Early funders, he explains, wanted a British-led and British-funded organization governed under UK law, while maintaining collaboration with its U.S. counterpart. Today, the Centre operates as an independent charity with more than twenty staff, supported by charitable foundations and selected government contracts.

Mr. Bowen describes the Centre’s mission as strengthening “the middle bit” of the justice system—the processes that connect policing, courts, and communities. Rather than focusing on enforcement or imprisonment, the Centre works to improve how justice institutions operate and interact. Its goal, he notes, is to bridge the gap between sound policy ideas and effective implementation, helping agencies apply evidence-based practices that make justice work better in daily life.

One major area of CJI’s work is out-of-court resolutions, which divert individuals accused of lower-level offenses away from formal prosecution. Mr. Bowen explains that these programs now account for a growing share of criminal justice outcomes in the United Kingdom. The Centre has helped create national standards for diversion and supports police and youth justice services in applying them consistently. Research confirms, he adds, that limiting formal system contact for low-risk individuals—particularly young people—reduces reoffending and improves long-term outcomes.

Another key focus is smarter sentencing, ensuring that imprisonment is used only when necessary and that community-based sanctions are credible and effective. Mr. Bowen highlights CJI’s research on criminal fines, noting that while fines are the most common sentence in the UK, many go unpaid. The Centre is studying whether nonpayment reflects inability or ineffective assessment of means and how courts can calibrate fines more fairly. He also discusses the expansion of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts and the development of problem-solving courts for women, which offer structured, judicially supervised alternatives to short-term custody.

CJI also advances procedural fairness—the principle that how justice is delivered matters as much as the outcome. Mr. Bowen observes that too many participants leave court unsure of what occurred or why. Promoting transparency, understanding, and respectful treatment, he argues, enhances both compliance and legitimacy. He further notes that remote hearings, now common since the pandemic, require new strategies to ensure fairness and dignity for all parties.

The discussion turns to the Common Ground Justice Project, a new initiative designed to move beyond polarized debates about being “tough” or “soft” on crime. Mr. Bowen describes it as an effort to identify shared priorities among the public and policymakers. Early findings show that most citizens value accountability and rehabilitation and support evidence-based approaches that promote safety and reduce reoffending.

Looking ahead, Mr. Bowen identifies several challenges for reform: overcrowded prisons, limited community resources, and political rhetoric that favors punishment over effectiveness. He calls for a renewed evidence-based discussion of drug policy and greater attention to domestic and sexual abuse cases that require specialized courts and integrated social responses.

Despite these obstacles, Mr. Bowen points to significant progress. National standards for diversion have been adopted, family treatment courts expanded, and court-based advice services now help defendants access debt and housing support. These innovations, he notes, are increasingly cited in national reviews and government policy reports.

As the discussion concludes, Mr. Bowen reflects that meaningful reform seldom arises from sweeping legislation. It comes from consistent collaboration among practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who turn evidence into practice. The Centre for Justice Innovation, he affirms, will continue to serve as a bridge between research and reality—advancing justice through innovation, partnership, and fairness.

We thank Phil Bowen for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks.

The post The Centre for Justice Innovation: Building a Smarter and Fairer Justice System with Phil Bowen appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty courts and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and features Ms. Rachael Mark, a Treatment Court Analyst with the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD), who supports more than seventy treatment courts across the state.

Ms. Mark has dedicated more than two decades to advancing problem-solving courts and improving justice outcomes in Oregon. After earning degrees in Spanish and criminal justice, she began her career with the Washington County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court as a case aide. That position introduced her to the collaborative model of treatment courts and the importance of combining accountability with compassion. Over sixteen years, she advanced to program coordinator, gaining extensive experience in case management, judicial collaboration, and community partnerships. Today, as a Treatment Court Analyst for OJD, Ms. Mark leads statewide efforts to strengthen treatment courts through training, evaluation, and data-driven support. Her work focuses on helping court teams implement best practices, sustain evidence-based programs, and promote systemic improvement across Oregon.

Ms. Mark described the structure and purpose of Oregon’s treatment court network, explaining that her team provides training, technical assistance, and program evaluations for more than seventy courts, ensuring that each operates in accordance with national standards. She works closely with the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to coordinate legislative efforts and measure program outcomes. One of her key initiatives has been the rebuilding of the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Training Curriculum, which integrates current research with practical application. Ms. Mark emphasized that the ultimate goal of every training is to ensure that “what we teach translates into what happens in the courtroom.” By maintaining a strong connection between research and implementation, Oregon continues to enhance the quality, consistency, and integrity of its treatment courts.

Ms. Mark outlined a range of training opportunities available to Oregon’s treatment court teams, including coordinator summits, judicial training programs, and a unique incentive camp designed to deepen understanding of behavior-based incentives and sanctions. These programs provide practitioners with the tools to apply the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and to maintain fidelity to established best practices. She also discussed Oregon’s ongoing commitment to improving data collection and program evaluation, noting that reliable data enables courts to measure outcomes accurately and advocate more effectively for sustainable funding. The Oregon Judicial Department remains the primary funding source for treatment courts in the state, though additional resources are drawn from various agencies and grants.

During the conversation, Ms. Mark compared Oregon’s funding structure with those in other states. She noted particular interest in Texas’s liquor tax funding model, which dedicates a portion of mixed beverage tax revenue to specialty courts, providing a stable and predictable source of support. Ms. Mark indicated that she intends to research whether a similar approach could be adopted in Oregon to strengthen long-term funding for treatment court operations statewide.

The discussion also explored innovative directions for Oregon’s treatment court system. Ms. Mark described the hub-and-spoke model currently in development, designed to link local programs with regional resources and ensure consistent training and technical support for smaller jurisdictions. She expressed particular interest in Michigan’s regional veterans treatment court system, which could serve as a model for Oregon’s efforts to expand access and coordination. Ms. Mark emphasized that while sound policy and reliable funding are essential, the success of treatment courts ultimately depends on the dedication of their professionals. “It’s the people on the ground, the coordinators, the judges, the treatment providers, who make this work,” she stated. “Our role is to give them the tools and the support to continue doing it well.”

Throughout the conversation, Ms. Mark emphasized the importance of continuous professional development, strong partnerships, and innovation in sustaining effective treatment courts. Oregon’s programs continue to evolve through data-driven strategies, interagency collaboration, and a shared commitment to improving lives through accountability and rehabilitation. By combining her extensive experience as a local court coordinator with her current leadership role at the statewide level, Ms. Rachael Mark exemplifies how dedication, expertise, and innovation can strengthen treatment court systems and enhance justice outcomes across an entire state.

We wish to thank Ms. Rachael Mark for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode

The post Building Better Treatment Courts in Oregon with Ms. Rachael Mark appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty court associations and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and we are interviewing Ms. Amber Gregory, the Executive Director (ED) for the Texas Association of Specialty Courts.  

Ms. Gregory is not only the ED for the Texas Association, she is also the Director of the Specialty Court Resource Center at Sam Houston State University. In her dual role, Ms. Gregory provides leadership to both the statewide association of professionals working in specialty courts and to the Resource Center that offers training, technical assistance, and program evaluations across the state. Together, these positions allow her to support judges, coordinators, and treatment court staff in strengthening their programs and ensuring they operate in line with best practice standards.

Ms. Gregory began by explaining the structure of the Specialty Court Resource Center. The center, funded by the Governor’s Office, is designed to be a hub for training and technical assistance. One of its most important functions is conducting peer reviews of existing specialty courts. These reviews help ensure that programs are adhering to nationally recognized standards and allow for constructive feedback to improve operations. By grounding its work in research and collaboration, the center plays a critical role in enhancing the quality of treatment courts across Texas.

Alongside her work at the Resource Center, Ms. Gregory tells us that she is the Executive Director of the Texas Association of Specialty Courts. The association provides a professional home for individuals working in or supporting these courts. Its mission is to promote the effectiveness of specialty courts through education, training, and collaboration. Ms. Gregory emphasized the strong relationship between the association and Sam Houston State University. Meetings and retreats often take place on campus, which provides members with access to university resources and a supportive environment for professional development.

Ms Gregory explains that membership in the Texas Association of Specialty Courts is open to individuals who complete an application and pay a modest annual fee. At present, the cost is $40, though Ms. Gregory noted that it may increase to $50 in the near future. Many members choose to renew their memberships during the annual conference. 

Planning for the annual conference is one of the association’s major undertakings. Attendance has grown significantly over the years, reaching 550 participants in recent years. The conference brings together judges, coordinators, probation officers, treatment providers, and other professionals to share knowledge and best practices. Ms. Gregory tells us that the 2026 conference will be held in Dallas at the Hilton Anatole Hotel in March. She explained that planning begins well in advance to secure quality speakers, design relevant curricula, and ensure the event continues to provide value to participants.

Ms. Gregory also reflected on some of the key milestones and challenges specialty courts in Texas have faced. A major accomplishment came in 2019, with the passage of the mixed beverage tax, which directed additional funding toward specialty courts. This dedicated revenue stream has allowed for greater program stability and expansion. At the same time, challenges remain, particularly in the area of data collection and evaluation. Ms. Gregory pointed out that while many programs operate effectively, the absence of consistent statewide data makes it difficult to demonstrate outcomes in a systematic way. Encouragingly, Texas has approved funding for a new case management system that will provide courts with the tools to track performance and outcomes more effectively.

The conversation also explored Ms. Gregory’s personal journey into leadership. Having originally been involved with the association, she later transitioned to managing the Resource Center in Huntsville. She described the ways in which the two positions overlap and complement one another. As Executive Director, she provides vision and support to the association’s members. As Director of the Resource Center, she applies that vision by conducting assessments, leading peer reviews, and developing training curricula. She explained that she particularly enjoys the opportunity to work directly with courts during assessments, as these experiences inform the training and technical assistance provided at the annual conference.

Throughout the discussion, Ms. Gregory emphasized the importance of continuous training and the willingness of specialty courts to adapt and evolve. Specialty courts, by design, are collaborative and innovative institutions. Maintaining their effectiveness requires ongoing professional development and a commitment to evidence-based practices. By bridging her roles at both the association and the Resource Center, Ms. Gregory ensures that Texas courts remain at the forefront of innovation and quality improvement.

We wish to thank Amber Gregory for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Amber Gregory on Texas Specialty Courts and Leadership appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series about the role of State Treatment Court Coordinators. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

In this episode, we interview Dawn Huddleston, the Specialty Court Program Manager for the State of Kansas, who brings over two decades of experience in the justice system. She tells how her career began in a therapeutic unit at a correctional facility, where she discovered her passion for helping individuals struggling with substance use disorders. That experience inspired her to take her first treatment court position in 2007 as a juvenile drug court officer. Over the years, Ms. Huddleston advanced through multiple roles, including special program supervisor and adult drug court coordinator. In 2023, she was appointed as the State Treatment Court Coordinator, responsible for guiding and supporting Kansas’ network of specialty courts.

During the discussion, Ms. Huddleston describes how her role involves statewide program management, providing training, and delivering technical assistance to courts throughout Kansas. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining fidelity to evidence-based treatment court models and highlights motivational interviewing as a crucial skill for court teams. She also shares efforts underway to create an annual statewide training conference to strengthen education and collaboration across Kansas specialty courts. This new conference is envisioned as a cornerstone for continuous learning, and Ms. Huddleston expresses interest in partnerships with organizations such as All Rise to further expand training opportunities for treatment court professionals.

Funding for specialty courts is always a significant challenge, and Ms. Huddleston outlines how Kansas has built a diverse funding model to sustain its programs. This includes federal grants, opioid settlement dollars, state grants, and, most recently, legislative appropriations dedicated to supporting treatment courts. Justice notes the innovative approaches taken in other states, such as Texas and Maryland, where programs are funded through a penny tax on alcohol sales. Ms. Huddleston shares her excitement about Kansas’ recent legislative success, particularly because it was achieved at a time when many other programs were experiencing budget reductions. She credits this accomplishment to the proven effectiveness of Kansas treatment courts and the collaborative work of her team.

The conversation also examines the evolution of Kansas’ treatment courts, which began as locally operated programs and are now transitioning toward a more unified statewide system. Ms. Huddleston describes this shift as critical to ensuring consistency, expanding access, and aligning with national best practices. She acknowledges several challenges, including the need for stronger infrastructure, improved data collection and reporting systems, and addressing gaps in treatment services, particularly in rural areas. However, she also sees opportunities in technology, telehealth, and virtual services to bridge those gaps and provide more equitable access to care.

Ms. Huddleston envisions a future for Kansas specialty courts where evidence-based practices are fully integrated, trauma-informed care is consistently applied, and statewide outcomes are measured and reported to demonstrate effectiveness. She emphasizes the importance of relationships, between state leaders, local courts, treatment providers, and national organizations, as essential to building and sustaining high-quality programs. Justice echoes these sentiments, noting that strong leadership and collaboration have always been central to the success of treatment courts nationwide.

We wish to thank Dawn Huddleston for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Kansas State Specialty Court Coordinator: Dawn Huddleston’s Vision appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

This episode of Justice Speaks continues our series featuring leaders who have made a significant impact on the justice system through treatment courts and community supervision. This episode is sponsored by OpAns

We are joined by the Honorable Alan Blankenship, a judge from Missouri, known for his extensive work in Missouri treatment courts, including adult drug courts, DWI courts, and veterans treatment courts. Judge Blankenship shares his professional journey from Certified Public Accountant to attorney and, ultimately, to a respected judicial leader. His experiences provide unique insights into the administrative and operational aspects of specialized courts.

Judge Blankenship’s engagement with treatment courts began in 2004 with the creation of an adult drug court in Stone County, Missouri. Inspired by successful examples from other jurisdictions, he became a strong advocate for specialized courts addressing substance use disorders. Over the years, his leadership expanded these efforts to include a DWI court in 2010 and a veterans treatment court in 2013, each designed to meet the distinct needs of participants while supporting rehabilitation and community safety.

Focusing specifically on veterans, Judge Blankenship highlights positive outcomes for participants and their families. These programs provide structured, evidence-based support tailored to veterans transitioning back into civilian life, emphasizing accountability and long-term success.

Missouri’s treatment court system receives an annual allocation of $11 million, overseen by a statutory commission on which Judge Blankenship serves. He discusses the importance of rigorous drug and alcohol testing, conducted an average of 2.5 times per week using randomized protocols, ensuring participant accountability and program integrity.

Judge Blankenship outlines the growth of Missouri treatment courts, which now include adult, sobriety, veterans, mental health, and family drug court models. He stresses the value of continuous professional training and adherence to evidence-based best practices, noting how Missouri has shifted from punitive approaches to more rehabilitative, data-driven strategies proven to improve outcomes.

Under Judge Blankenship’s leadership, his court has been designated a mentor court four times, hosting teams from multiple states eager to learn proven techniques and strategies. He emphasizes the importance of sustainability, highlighting his successful transition of leadership after two decades of service.

Looking ahead, Judge Blankenship anticipates further innovation driven by research, technology, and evidence-based methods. He notes that these approaches will continue to enhance effectiveness, ensure taxpayer value, and expand access to justice.

Reflecting on his career, Judge Blankenship credits Missouri treatment courts with shaping his perspective on substance dependency and justice reform. His message underscores the importance of collaboration, innovation, and data-driven decision-making to advance the future of treatment courts nationwide.

We thank Judge Alan Blankenship for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also extend our gratitude to OpAns for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Missouri Treatment Courts with Judge Alan Blankenship appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series about the role of State Treatment Court Coordinators. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

In this episode, we interview Erin Morgan, the Texas State Treatment Court Coordinator, who shares her professional journey and offers an insightful look into the evolving landscape of treatment courts in Texas. Originally interested in a career in marketing, Erin discovered her true passion in criminal justice, leading her into probation work. A significant turning point came in 2011 when she became involved in a DWI Court through a SAMHSA grant, sparking her deep commitment to the collaborative approach of treatment courts. Since then, Erin has actively contributed to her state association and has served on its board since 2015, demonstrating her ongoing dedication to advancing treatment court practices.

As the State Coordinator, Erin plays a crucial role in shaping data standards for Texas treatment courts. She explains that although many programs collect data, there is often a lack of tools for effective analysis, and some courts do not collect data at all. To address this, Erin has spent the past nine to ten months working on a Texas-specific standards document to establish best practices and consistent data collection methods. She draws valuable insights from other states like Colorado, Georgia, and Florida, which have developed strong data frameworks. Erin emphasizes that accurate, consistent data is essential for demonstrating program effectiveness and driving the broader treatment court movement forward.

Erin also discusses the funding mechanisms that sustain Texas treatment courts. She outlines a multifaceted system that includes local county funding, probation department budgets, nonprofit contributions, state grants, and federal support. A significant milestone came with the passage of the Ruben Reyes Act in 2021, which dedicated 1% of the state’s mixed beverage tax to specialty court funding. This legislative change increased annual funding from around $6-7 million to approximately $15 million, representing a major step forward in securing sustainable resources for treatment courts. Erin clarifies that while she provides operational guidance to the Governor’s office, the process of grant review and funding recommendations is managed by the Special Courts Advisory Council, ensuring a collaborative and well-informed approach to resource allocation.

A particularly exciting development is the recent funding secured for a statewide case management system for Texas specialty courts. Erin explains how this system will enable consistent collection and analysis of performance data, allowing courts to demonstrate outcomes more effectively and to inform decision-making at the state level. She candidly acknowledges the challenges posed by Texas’s vast geography, diverse demographics, and varying local resources. To promote accountability and ensure proper use of public funds, Erin advocates for implementing a certification or accreditation process for specialty courts.

Looking ahead, Erin envisions a future for Texas specialty courts characterized by consistent programmatic data, robust oversight frameworks, and improved statewide reporting capabilities. Her goal is to enhance court effectiveness, foster community support, and ensure that treatment courts continue to serve as vital, evidence-based alternatives within the justice system.

We wish to thank Erin Morgan for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Insights from Texas Treatment Court Coordinator Erin Morgan appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

This episode of Justice Speaks continues the series of interviews with individuals who impact the justice system by supervising individuals under community supervision in the form of probation or parole. This episode is sponsored by OpAns.

In this episode, we speak with the Honorable Judge Nancy Butts, who has served with distinction on the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania for nearly three decades. Her leadership in the development and expansion of treatment courts has helped shape a more effective justice system both within her jurisdiction and nationally.

Judge Butts begins by reflecting on her personal and professional journey. Initially aspiring to become a physician, she discovered along the way that her true passion was public service through the law. “I realized that what drew me to medicine—the opportunity to help people—was also at the heart of the justice system,” she explains. After completing degrees in psychology and theater, with a minor in German, she pursued paralegal training and ultimately attended California Western School of Law.

Her legal career began in public defense before she served as a law clerk and assistant district attorney. In 1995, she was elected to the bench. I’ve always believed that justice must be accessible and responsive to the individuals who stand before us, Judge Butts notes. That philosophy would guide her transformative work in problem-solving courts.

In 1998, she launched one of Pennsylvania’s earliest drug courts, a pioneering effort during a time when there were few national models or best practices to follow. There was no roadmap, we had to build everything from the ground up, she recalls. In 2004, she expanded this work by starting a juvenile drug court, a DWI drug court, then a mental health court and later supported the development of a veteran’s treatment court. These courts, she explains, are not about excusing conduct, but about addressing its root causes.

Judge Butts describes her extensive experience across a variety of dockets, including DUI, juvenile, mental health, and general criminal cases. Managing these complex responsibilities required both institutional leadership and personal resilience. I was fortunate to have a supportive team that ensured I could perform my duties while maintaining balance, she says.

Judge Butts tells about her view of the inherent challenges and extraordinary benefits of treatment courts. She emphasizes the necessity of trauma-informed care, active listening, and compassion. She say we must see the individual, not just the file. She advocates for expanding the role of certified recovery specialists and peer mentors within the treatment court framework, and while acknowledging the utility of technology, she underscores the irreplaceable value of face-to-face human interaction.

The greatest professional achievement of my career, Judge Butts reflects, has been creating a courtroom environment where individuals feel safe enough to believe in their own capacity for change. She adds that one of her core principles is to focus on the future, not merely adjudicate the past.

Judge Butts also speaks about the need for systems-level change. She urges a reconceptualization of recidivism, not simply as rearrest, but as a measure of long-term stability, wellness, and engagement with pro-social support systems. She advocates for the broader integration of treatment courts into statewide bail and sentencing strategies, calling them not an alternative, but a fundamental element of justice reform.

Her involvement in the national treatment court movement began at a 1998 conference in Miami. Though she stepped away for a period, she returned when asked to serve as President of a leading national organization. She points out that this work has made her a better judge, a better citizen, and a better human being. It has taught her to listen deeply, act deliberately, and never lose sight of the human being behind the case.

Finally, the episode explores probation’s role in the broader landscape of criminal justice reform. While acknowledging that parts of the system must evolve, Judge Butts defends the value of probation when it is done well, embracing community partnerships, accountability, and individualized support.

We wish to thank Judge Nancy Butts for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank OpAns for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Judge Nancy Butts on Treatment Courts, Reform, and Redemption appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series highlighting influential voices in the treatment court community. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

In this episode we interview Kamesha Falana, Human Health and Human Services Supervisor for Wake County, North Carolina, whose nearly 30-year career in the criminal justice system spans corrections, reentry, and treatment court operations. Ms. Falana shares her professional journey and offers insight into how the Wake County Recovery Court program supports individuals with substance use disorders through trauma-informed, evidence-based practices.

Ms. Falana starts by telling us how she began her career in North Carolina’s maximum-security prison system, working in a range of roles including officer, case manager, victim specialist, and parole case analyst. She explains how her passion for supporting justice-involved individuals led her to community-based work as an employment development specialist with Durham County’s reentry team. In 2011, when North Carolina cut state funding for treatment courts, Durham County preserved the position, allowing Ms. Falana to shift into the treatment court field. She later transitioned to Wake County, where she now supervises senior case managers, writes grants, manages the court’s budget, and ensures the implementation of best practices.

Ms. Falana then describes the funding structure that supports the Wake County Recovery Court. The program currently receives funding from a federal grant, Wake County, and also the Wake County ABC Board. Plans are underway for the County to take on permanent funding responsibility. She tells us that in addition to core operational funding, the court issues Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to contract with local treatment providers. This has enabled the program to maintain service continuity and ensure participants receive timely access to housing, Medicaid, food support, child care, and employment readiness programs.

She discusses how her court primarily serves adults with substance use disorders, and Ms. Falana emphasizes the importance of addressing co-occurring mental health disorders and trauma within that framework. She notes that treatment courts are far more effective than the traditional justice responses, especially when implemented with fidelity to best practices. Ms. Falana credits her team and the research developed about treatment courts for shaping the evolution of Wake County Recovery Court and strengthening participant outcomes.

Ms. Falana tells us how one of the most significant advancements in Wake County’s program has been the adoption of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) tool. She explains that this assessment framework helps the court identify and prioritize high-risk, high-need individuals—those who benefit most from the intensive structure of a treatment court. She also highlights the importance of keeping misdemeanor-level participants in county supervision rather than sending them to prison, and she celebrates the court’s collaborative work with Child Protective Services. She mentions that one notable initiative has been the Angel Tree program, which provides holiday gifts for the children of participants, helping to maintain family bonds during recovery.

Ms. Falana then notes that the addition of an in-house drug testing lab has improved accuracy and timeliness, supporting a more responsive court model. However, she also points out persistent challenges, such as a shortage of inpatient treatment options and transportation barriers. She calls for expanded training on emerging drug trends and behavioral health issues to better equip court teams with the tools they need.

Looking ahead, Ms. Falana envisions Wake County becoming a national mentor court. Her goals include strengthening medication-assisted treatment (MAT) access, reducing participant attrition, and expanding the program’s capacity to serve a growing population. She stresses the importance of continued innovation, community partnerships, and alignment with national standards to ensure that the program remains both effective and sustainable.

We thank Ms. Falana for sharing her personal, and professional, insights about her work and the Wake County Recovery Court.  We also extend our gratitude to Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

The post Kamesha Falana: Advancing Treatment Courts in Wake County appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series exploring the role of the State Treatment Court Coordinator. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Justice Speaks features Mr. Richard Gordon, the Statewide Treatment Court Coordinator for Iowa, who provides a comprehensive overview of the opportunities and persistent challenges facing Iowa’s treatment court system.

Mr. Gordon shares that he is originally from Southern Indiana but moved to Florida when his father accepted a new job there. He began his legal career as a defense attorney in Florida. Over time, his growing interest in collaborative justice and behavioral health interventions led him to transition into the treatment court field—a shift that ultimately shaped the direction of his career. After serving in Florida, Mr. Gordon became the Statewide Treatment Court Coordinator for Maine. He later relocated to Iowa, where he now serves as the sole statewide coordinator for treatment courts.

He outlines the structure of Iowa’s criminal treatment court system, which includes adult drug courts, mental health courts, juvenile drug courts, veterans’ treatment courts, and an impaired driving court. As the sole coordinator, funded through the state’s general fund, Mr. Gordon provides administrative oversight for each of these models. He notes that three adult drug courts have recently received impaired driving foundational training and are now working to implement impaired driving tracks—an important step in addressing the needs of specialized offender populations.

Mr. Gordon also addresses the critical issue of funding. He discusses a recently introduced licensing tax on tobacco shops and paraphernalia, which was originally projected to generate significant revenue to support treatment courts but has yielded far less than expected.

Despite these funding challenges, Mr. Gordon describes recent progress. The Iowa Supreme Court has adopted a formal application process for jurisdictions seeking to establish new treatment courts. He anticipates that at least three additional courts will launch in the coming year. Local stakeholders continue to drive innovation and program expansion, even in the absence of substantial state funding. Mr. Gordon emphasizes the need for a statewide convening and training initiative to foster continued education and collaboration, and he expresses interest in developing regional partnerships to enhance impact and efficiency.

He also highlights the importance of education and outreach to combat persistent misconceptions about treatment courts, noting that many remain unaware of their evidence-based success.

Mr. Gordon discusses the creation of the Iowa Treatment Court Association, a significant step toward unifying and supporting courts statewide. Through this organization, his office has been able to provide symbolic and functional items such as graduation coins, undated planners, wristbands, and flags for veterans’ treatment courts. He also underscores the value of adopting national best practices, particularly those promoted by All Rise, and notes the success of sending Iowa judges to national training events to further enhance their knowledge and application of treatment court principles.

Finally, Mr. Gordon acknowledges that access to treatment services in rural areas remains a notable challenge. He outlines plans for a pilot project focused on improving transportation options for court participants, recognizing that reliable access to treatment and court services is essential for long-term success. He also stresses the value of the mentor court model, citing the effectiveness of established courts such as the one in Jacksonville, Florida, which serve as national examples of innovation and fidelity to evidence-based practices.

We thank Mr. Gordon for sharing his unique experiences and for his commitment to advancing treatment courts and reshaping the criminal justice system in Iowa. We also extend our thanks to Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

The post Advancing Iowa’s Treatment Courts: Insights from the State Treatment Court Coordinator appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.