Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Community Court Therapeutic Court topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Spokane Municipal Court outlines community court model, case management expansion and drug‑court planning

3192762 · May 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Court staff described Community Court’s harm‑reduction approach, new case‑management services, an on‑site medication-assisted treatment partnership and funding constraints that limit sustained housing support. Municipal Court said it is preparing but not yet launching a federally funded drug court that was awarded nearly $1 million.

Sarah Thompson, the municipal court coordinator for Community Court, told the Public Safety and Community Health Committee on May 5 that Spokane’s Community Court operates on a harm‑reduction model focused on reducing law‑enforcement contact and connecting participants to services rather than abstinence‑only approaches.

Thompson said Community Court was established in 2013 in partnership with the Center for Justice Innovation (CJI) and has held mentor‑court status since 2018. She described recent program changes: a case‑management team added in 2024 and an on‑site medication‑assisted‑treatment (MAT) partnership introduced in 2025 with consistent-care providers that allow immediate assessment and linkage to withdrawal management, inpatient programs and injectable psychotropic treatment when clinically indicated.

How community court works

Thompson described a voluntary intake process. Participants first meet with a public defender, complete a Criminal Court Assessment Tool (CCAT) to identify risk and needs, and sign a stipulated order of continuance with program conditions approved by Judge Mary Logan, a founding member of Community Court. Participants appear weekly and meet with case management and on‑site providers to work through housing, substance‑use and employment goals; they also perform community service hours as part of program requirements.

Thompson: funding cuts reduced housing support

Thompson told the committee Community Court had previously been able to fund transitional housing for up to three months by paying moving costs (she cited a typical moving cost of about $425) and first‑month/monthly rents (an example monthly rent cited was about $700). She said recent cuts to the Administrative Office of the Courts funding have reduced that support to one month, which staff and members said has weakened the program’s ability to attract sustained engagement. "Because of the cuts ... we are only able to go to 1 [month]," Thompson said.

Drug court planning and sustainability concerns

Court staff told the committee the city has been awarded nearly $1 million in federal funding to stand up a drug court; a core planning group that includes prosecutors and public defenders is meeting to design the program. Court leaders stressed they will consult the council and administration before launching grant‑funded programs that lack a clear long‑term sustainability plan. "We were have been awarded, just short of a million dollars by the feds to start a drug court," said a court representative involved in grant planning, adding the court will meet with council and the administration to address downstream sustainability before standing the program up.

Service-provider partnerships and on‑site capacity

Thompson said Community Court averages about 13 community partners weekly and provides on‑site SUD assessments, referrals to inpatient care, transportation help including bus passes, assistance obtaining IDs and birth certificates, and limited moving assistance for housing transitions. She said the program also supports non‑criminal community members who use the provider room and the case‑management office, noting 240 community members had accessed services through Community Court year‑to‑date.

What comes next

Court staff will return to the committee on June 2 with metrics and outcomes. Court leaders urged council and the administration to consider sustainability plans for any grant‑funded courts and to align contracting and provider capacity with case‑management needs. The committee did not record formal votes on court funding during the session.

Ending

Council members emphasized the need for sustainability planning and coordination with city contracts and community providers before expanding therapeutic court capacity.