Measuring effectiveness of holistic defense: social service provision and justice system outcomes

Objective: to analyze the efficiency of a holistic defense model and to elaborate recommendations for improving its mechanism.

Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods: formal-logical and sociological.

Results: a holistic public defense model is more comprehensive than a traditional model of public defense representation. Holistic defense seeks to address extralegal needs that are a nexus to the criminal charge rather than focusing solely on addressing the current criminal charge of the individual. This model is a collaborative approach that has traditionally included social workers and civil legal workers in a team approach with a criminal lawyer. Prior research on holistic defense has demonstrated efficacy in addressing individuals’ social and legal needs thus reducing recidivism and justice system costs.

Scientific novelty: this research describes and evaluates a pilot project of a holistic defense model employed in Southwest Alaska and outlines similar models in use in other jurisdictions in the United States. This evaluation supports previous research that indicates the importance of addressing defendants’ extralegal needs in reducing recidivism and costs while improving individual case outcomes. The author also discusses the policy implications of the model and provides recommendations to enhance future evaluations of a holistic defense model.

Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to holistic defense.

1. AlaskaWeb. (2015). Bethel census area. http://www.alaskaweb.org/boros/bethel.html

2. Anderson, J., Buenaventura, M., & Heaton, P. (2019). The effects of holistic defense on criminal justice outcomes. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 819–893. https//www.jstor.org/stable/26799674

3. Boardman, J. D., Finch, B. K., Ellison, C. G., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. D. (2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 151–165. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3090175

4. Bost, H. W. (1932). Relationship between law and social work. In H. M. London (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual session of the North Carolina Bar Association (pp. 148–161). Edwards and Broughton Company.

5. Bradway, J. S. (1929). Law and social work: An introduction to the study of the legal-social field for social workers. University of Chicago Press.

6. Buchanan, S., & Nooe, R. (2017). Defining social work within holistic public defense: Challenges and implications for practice. Social Work, 62(4), 333–339. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48558922

7. Buchanan, S., & Orme, J. (2019). Impact of social work practice in public defense. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1480559

8. Clarke, C. (2001). Problem-solving defenders in the community: Expanding the conceptual and institutional boundaries of providing counsel to the poor. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14(2), 401–458.

9. Collins, R. E. (1932). Contribution of social work to parole preparation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 22(6), 864–872. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1136179

10. Comfort, M. (2016). A twenty-hour-a-day-job: The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 665(1), 63–79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24756090

11. Craige, H. B., & Saur, W. G. (1981). The contribution of social workers to legal services programs. Clearinghouse Review, 14, 1267–1274.

12. Davidson, K. M., Ostrom, B. J., & Kleiman, M. (2022). Client perspectives of holistic defense: Strengthening procedural justice through enhanced client trust. Justice System Journal, 43(1), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582

13. Deck, P. (2016). Ethics-Law and social work: Reconciling conflicting ethical obligations between two seemingly opposing disciplines to create a collaborative law practice. Western New England Law Review, 38(2), 261–283. http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss2/3

14. Denckla, D., & Berman, G. (2001). Rethinking the revolving door: A look at mental illnesses in the courts. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.innovatingjustice.org/sites/default/files/rethinkingtherevolvingdoor.pdf

15. Dobbie, W., Goldin, J., & Yang, C. S. (2018). The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. American Economic Review, 108(2), 201–240. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26527904

16. Duncan, D. T., & Kawachi, I. (2018). Neighborhoods and health (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

17. Erez, E., Kilchling, M., & Wemmers, J. (Eds.). (2011). Therapeutic jurisprudence and victim participation in justice. Carolina Academic Press.

18. Galowitz, P. (1999). Collaboration between lawyers and social workers: Re-examining the nature and potential of the relationship. Fordham Law Review, 67(5), 2121–2154. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol67/iss5/16

19. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/343191

20. Goldkamp, J. S. (1999). Challenges for research and innovation: When is a drug court not a drug court? In W. T. Clinton (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 166–177). Sage Publications.

21. Goldkamp, J. S., & Irons-Guynn, C. (2000). Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally ill in the criminal caseload: Mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage (NCJ182504). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182504.pdf

22. Harris, H. (2018). Adult Holistic Defense Case Management Program evaluation: Final report to the Arnold Foundation. https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IST-Workshop/Holistic-Defense-Pilot-Overview.pdf

23. Harris, H. (2020). Building holistic defense: The design and evaluation of a social work centric model of public defense. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 800–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420916228

24. Harris, H. M., & Harding, D. J. (2019). Racial inequality in the transition to adulthood after prison. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(1), 223–254. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/720082

25. Heaton, P., Mayson, S. G., & Stevenson, M. (2017). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stanford Law Review, 69(3), 711–794.

26. Hipp, J. R., Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48(4), 947–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00209.x

27. Karriker-Jaffe, K. J. (2011). Areas of disadvantage: A systematic review of effects of area-level socioeconomic status on substance use outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(1), 84–95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/?MC3057656/pdf/nihms209092.pdf

28. Kirk, D. S., & Wakefield, S. (2018). Collateral consequences of punishment: A critical review and path forward. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092045

29. Lee, C. G., Ostrom, G. J., & Kleiman, M. (2015). The measure of good lawyering: Evaluating holistic defense in practice. Albany Law Review, 78(3), 1215–1238.

30. Lepage, C. R. (2023). Measuring effectiveness of holistic defense: social service provision and justice system outcomes. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 24(1), 38–51.

31. Lepage, C. R., & May, J. D. (2017). The Anchorage, Alaska Municipal Pretrial Diversion Program: An initial assessment. Alaska Law Review, 34(1), 1–26.

32. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Extra Issue, 80 –94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626958

33. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage.

34. Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Morral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., Deschenes, E., & Iguchi, M. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 7 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260103100103

35. Massey, D. S., & Brodmann, S. (2014). Spheres of influence. Russell Sage Foundation.

36. Mitchell, D. (1997). The annihilation of space by law: The roots and implications of anti- homelessness laws in the United States. Antipode, 29(3), 303–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00048

37. Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the feared self: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(4), 1103–1156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20685067

38. Phillippi, S., Berman, J., Thomas, C., Beiter, K., & Test, A. (2022). Youth and parental perceptions of a holistic juvenile public defense model. Youth Justice, 22(2), 145 –165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420938138

39. Pinard, M., & Thompson, A. C. (2005). Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 30(4), 585–620.

40. Pound, R. (1927). Law and social work. Indiana Law Journal, 3(3), 183–195.

41. Poythress, N., Petrila, J., McHaha, A., & Boothroyd, R. (2002). Perceived coercion and procedural justice in the Broward mental health court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25(5), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00110-8

42. Pratt, V. (2017). How judges can show respect [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/victoria_pratt_how_judges_can_show_respect?language=en

43. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.

44. Steinberg, R. (2013). Heeding Gideon's call in the twenty-first century: Holistic defense and the new public defense paradigm. Washington and Lee Law Review, 70(2), 961–1047.

45. Steinberg, R., & Feige, D. (2002). Cultural revolution: Transforming the public defender's office (NCJ 193773). Executive Session on Public Defense, Harvard University. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-revolution-transformingpublic-defenders-office

46. The Bronx Defenders. (2015). Holistic defense, defined. https://www.bronxdefenders.org/holistic-defense/

47. Turner, S., Longshore, D., Wenzel, S., Fain, T., Morral, A., & Deschenes, E. (2001). A National Evaluation of 14 Drug Courts (DRU-2637-NIJ). RAND.

48. Turney, K., & Conner, E. (2019). Jail incarceration: A common and consequential form of criminal justice contact. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024601

49. Turney, K., & Harknett, K. (2010). Neighborhood disadvantage, residential stability, and perceptions of instrumental support among new mothers. Journal of Family Issues, 31(4), 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09347992

50. United States Census Bureau. (2021). Quick facts: Bethel census area. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bethelcensusareaalaska

51. Wald, M. S. (1972). The use of social workers in a public defender office: An evaluation of the offender rehabilitation project of the public defender office for Santa Clara County, California. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/70138NCJRS.pdf

52. Wexler, D. B. (1993). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the criminal courts. Williams and Mary Law Review, 35(1), 279–299.

53. Wiebe, R. P. (1996). The mental health implications of crime victims' rights. In B. D. Sales & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Law, mental health, and mental disorder (pp. 414–448). Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

54. Wilson, R. J. (2000). Improving criminal justice systems through expanded strategies and innovative collaborations: Report of the National Symposium on Indigent Defense (NCJ 181344). Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/181344NCJRS.pdf

55. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press. Winick, B. J. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-897L3.L184

56. Woods, R. A. (1905). Social work: A new profession. International Journal of Ethics, 16(1), 25– 29. https://doi.org/10.1086/inteiethi.16.L2376200