Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Co Occurring Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County court officials propose co‑occurring disorders court and seek midyear funds to expand pretrial services
Summary
Superior Court and collaborative courts officials told the Public Protection Committee a co‑occurring disorders court could treat people with both mental‑health and substance‑use disorders and shorten jail stays; the court requested $755,700 in midyear funding and $1.9 million ongoing to expand pretrial services.
Judicial and court officials described plans to expand Alameda County’s collaborative courts to include a co‑occurring disorders court and requested midyear funding to expand pretrial services so people needing treatment can be identified and referred earlier in the process.
Charles Smiley, supervising judge for collaborative courts, framed collaborative courts as problem‑solving dockets that combine intensive judicial supervision with rehabilitative services. He emphasized that treatment courts require close monitoring and regular judicial contact to support participants’ progress.
Assistant District Attorney Moss (Moss) Morimoto said existing drug courts and behavioral health courts often address only one primary disorder and recommended a co‑occurring court to treat dual‑diagnosis defendants simultaneously. Clinical director Danielle Geary (Telecare) described individualized treatment plans and routine medication oversight as core elements.
Gavin O’Neil (collaborative courts manager) and others connected the co‑occurring court framework to the Reimagine Adult Justice recommendations, highlighting equity goals and data tracking. O’Neil cited county figures showing African American adult males make up about 10% of the county population but account for roughly 43% of felony arrests, framing the court’s equity rationale.
Corey Jacobs, who oversees pretrial services for the Alameda Superior Court, requested midyear funding of $755,700 for an initial phase to add treatment managers and community case managers, and asked that the county budget an ongoing $1.9 million for the program in the next fiscal year. Jacobs said the second phase of pretrial expansion would allow clinicians to assess people while in custody and expedite referrals to collaborative courts, community treatment, or housing supports, reducing time in custody and improving service matching.
Public commenters generally supported the goal of diverting people to treatment but cautioned that collaborative courts succeed only when all parties cooperate. Community speakers urged clearer operational commitments, broader inclusion of the public defender and housing partners, and steps to ensure the district attorney’s office and other stakeholders follow through so new funding yields intended results.
No formal vote was taken on the funding request during the committee meeting; the court said it had submitted a written request and the chair said the committee would consider the request as part of budget and implementation planning.
