Resource Coordination in Problem Solving Courts of the Los Angeles County Superior Court

by Grant N. Marshall, Nadine Rayburn, Terry L. Schell

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

The purposes of this report are twofold: (1) to characterize the ways in which treatment resources are coordinated for offenders within the problem solving courts of the Los Angeles Superior Court system; and (2) to examine the views of various stakeholders within the court system regarding problem solving courts, with particular emphasis on the resource coordination process. Of particular interest are issues such as whether stakeholders regard alternative courts as providing equitable sanctions vis-à-vis traditional courts, whether services-based programs are perceived to work better to prevent recidivism than more traditional sanctions, and the degree to which stakeholders believe that various problems exist with provision of services in these courts.

This report was supported by a contract from the Los Angeles Superior Court Office of Organizational Development and Education. The research was conducted by RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.