Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mason County Superior Court presents therapeutic courts: veterans, mental‑health, drug and family recovery programs
Summary
Court staff described four therapeutic court programs that combine treatment, supervision and frequent court review to reduce recidivism and reunify families. Presenters reviewed program structure, phase progression, graduation counts and anecdotal success stories from participants who completed programs and later joined court teams.
Julie Hansen, therapeutic court program manager for Mason County Superior Court, told the commissioners the courts are an evidence‑based approach that pairs judicial supervision with treatment and wraparound supports.
“These courts represent a transformative approach to justice, offering individuals and their families an opportunity to break free from the cycles of addiction, mental health challenges, and criminal behavior,” Julie Hansen said.
Nut graph: The court manager described four therapeutic programs — veterans court, mental‑health court, drug court and Family Recovery Court (FRC) — that provide structured phases of stabilization, clinical treatment and social habilitation, require frequent court reviews and random observed urinalysis, and that rely on a team approach including judges or commissioners, prosecutors, defense counsel, case managers and treatment providers.
Details and outcomes: Julie Hansen and court staff outlined the entry process for criminal therapeutic courts (guilty plea, prosecutor screening, team evaluation and judicial suitability decision) and noted that serious violent crimes and certain sex offenses are not eligible. Since inception the courts have reported the following completion totals in the presentation: - Veterans court (established 2016): 16 successful completions reported to date. - Drug court (established 02/2003): 126 successful completions reported to date. - Mental health court (established 2016): 27 graduations reported to date. - Family Recovery Court (established 2013): more than 10 successful family reunifications and graduations reported to date.
The programs use phase advancement to structure treatment (acute stabilization → clinical stabilization → pro‑social habilitation). Courts apply positive incentives for compliance (praise, symbolic coins, small gift cards, recognition in court) and graduated sanctions for noncompliance (increased supervision, essays, community service). Court staff said participants across programs have completed more than 3,600 community service hours with local agencies such as Kitten Rescue, Community Lifeline and Mason County Recovery Cafe.
First‑hand account: Susan Frasier, a court case manager who previously was a participant, gave a personal account of entering treatment after involvement with child protective services, becoming houseless, and later successfully completing Family Recovery Court. She described returning to school, employment with the public defender’s office, graduation from FRC in 02/2016 and later hiring by the court team. "I proudly graduated FRC in 02/2016 and I can say with confidence that I am stable, happy, responsible, and an accountable productive member of my community," Frasier said.
Costs and outcomes: The court presentation cited a 2022 Washington State Department of Corrections figure estimating incarceration costs at roughly $63,000 per person per year and said treatment courts save approximately $6,028 per participant by diverting people from incarceration and reducing recidivism. The court manager said overall recidivism for the four courts combined is about 38 percent and offered to break that number down by court on request.
Why it matters: The therapeutic court model seeks to reduce recidivism and the social and financial costs of repeated incarceration by treating behavioral health and substance‑use causes of criminal conduct. Family Recovery Court additionally focuses on reunifying children with parents by coordinating closely with the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). The court team emphasized that therapeutic responses seek to balance participant accountability with supports that address biopsychosocial needs.
Speakers listed - Julie Hansen — Therapeutic court program manager, Mason County Superior Court (government) - Susan Frasier — Therapeutic court case manager and former participant (government)
Ending: Court staff said they are available to answer follow‑up questions and to provide more granular recidivism data by program on request; commissioners thanked the team and recognized the programs’ role in public safety and family reunification.
