problem solving court

SEARCH NYCourts.gov

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS

The New York State Unified Court System serves the needs of approximately 19,750,000 people, the fourth-largest state population in the nation. Our 1,200 state judges, 2,400 town and village judges and 15,500 non-judicial employees work in over 300 state courts and 1,300 town and village courts spread throughout 62 counties in 13 judicial districts and hear 3,500,000 filings.

To meet the challenges of such a large system, more than two decades ago, the New York State Unified Court System began to establish problem-solving courts. These courts help judges and court staff to better respond to the needs of litigants and the community. Problem-solving courts look to the underlying issues that bring people into the court system, and employ innovative approaches to address those issues. Through intensive judicial monitoring, coordination with outside services, treatment where appropriate, the removal of barriers between courts and increased communication with stakeholders, these courts are able to change the way our system manages cases and responds to individuals, families and communities.

Problem-solving courts take different forms depending on the problems they are designed to address. Drug and mental health courts focus on treatment and rehabilitation. Community courts combine treatment, community responsibility, accountability, and support to both litigants and victims. Sex offense courts employ judicial monitoring and the use of mandated programs and probation to ensure compliance and facilitate access to services. Human trafficking courts center around victims and many cases are resolved without criminal charges. The Adolescent Diversion parts address the unique needs of adolescents in the criminal justice system.

The Unified Court System is committed to the administration of justice in the problem-solving courts, while enhancing public safety.

Chief of Policy and Planning

Contact Info

For further information on Problem-Solving Courts or if you would like to schedule a court visit, please contact the Division of Policy and Planning at [email protected]

Information

Justice Dashboard

• Publications

Explore Data of Countries

Find out how people in different countries around the world experience justice. What are the most serious problems people face? How are problems being resolved? Find out the answers to these and more.

• Burkina Faso
• General population
• IDPs and host communities
• The Netherlands

Solving & Preventing

Guidelines for Justice Problems

Justice Services

Innovation is needed in the justice sector. What services are solving justice problems of people? Find out more about data on justice innovations.

The Gamechangers

The 7 most promising categories of justice innovations, that have the potential to increase access to justice for millions of people around the world.

Justice Innovation Labs

Explore solutions developed using design thinking methods for the justice needs of people in the Netherlands, Nigeria, Uganda and more.

Creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework where innovations and new justice services develop

Rules of procedure, public-private partnerships, creative sourcing of justice services, and new sources of revenue and investments can help in creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework.  

Forming a committed coalition of leaders

A committed group of leaders can drive change and innovation in justice systems and support the creation of an enabling environment.

Find out how specific justice problems impact people, how their justice journeys look like, and more.

• Employment Justice
• Family Justice
• Land Justice
• Neighbour Justice
• Crime Justice
• Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Trend Report 2021 – Delivering Justice / Case Study: Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Author: Isabella Banks , Justice Sector Advisor

Introduction

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime (Wright, no date). “Generally, a problem-solving court involves a close collaboration between a judge and a community service team to develop a case plan and closely monitor a participant’s compliance, imposing proper sanctions when necessary” (Ibid).  In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. All 50 states have appointed a statewide drug court coordinator, and at least 13 have introduced the broader position of statewide problem-solving court coordinator (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

What does it mean for a court to be problem-solving?

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist across the US, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are focused on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime. This includes reducing recidivism as well as rehabilitating participants (with the exception of domestic violence courts, as elaborated below), victims and the broader community (Ibid. p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are also characterised by interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system. Dedicated staff who have been assigned to the problem-solving court work together to develop court policies and resolve individual cases in a relatively non-adversarial way. Ongoing collaboration between court staff and public agencies, service providers and clinical experts is also essential for providing appropriate treatment to problem-solving court participants (Ibid. p. 38). Because problem-solving courts aim to address the impact of crime on the community and increase public trust in justice, they also have frequent contact with community members and organisations and regularly solicit local input on their work (Ibid. p. 39).

Problem-solving courts aim to hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the broader community. For individuals with justice system involvement, this means holding them accountable for their criminal behaviour by promoting and monitoring their compliance with court mandates. In order to comply, problem-solving court participants must understand what is expected of them, regularly appear for status hearings, and have clear (extrinsic and intrinsic) incentives to complete their mandates. 

For service providers, this means providing services based on a coherent, specified and effective model, and accurately and regularly informing the court about participants’ progress. Problem-solving courts are also responsible for assessing the quality of service delivery and making sure models are adhered to (Ibid. p. 43-44). 

Lastly and perhaps most fundamentally, problem-solving courts must hold themselves to “the same high standards expected of participants and stakeholders” (Ibid. p. 44-45).  This means monitoring implementation and outcomes of their services using up-to-date data. 

What does problem-solving justice look like in practice?

Problem-solving justice comes in different forms. The original, best known, and most widespread problem-solving court model is the drug court. The first drug was created in 1989, after a judge in Miami Dade county became frustrated seeing the same drug cases cycling through her court and began experimenting with putting defendants into treatment (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). This approach (elaborated in the sections that follow) gradually gained traction, and there are now over 3,000 drug courts across the US (Strong and Kyckelhahn 2016).

This proliferation of drug courts helped stimulate the emergence of three other well-known problem-solving court models: mental health, domestic violence and community courts (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.). Mental health courts are similar to drug courts in that they focus on rehabilitation, but different in that they aim for the improved social functioning and stability of their participants rather than complete abstinence (Ibid. p. 51). Domestic violence courts are unique in that they do not universally embrace participant treatment and rehabilitation as an important goal. Instead, many – thought not all – are primarily focused on victim support and safety and participant accountability and deterrence (Ibid. p. 52). 

Community courts “seek to address crime, public safety, and quality of life problems at the neighbourhood level. Unlike other problem-solving courts…community courts do not specialise in one particular problem. Rather, the goal of community courts is to address the multiple problems and needs that contribute to social disorganisation in a designated geographical area. For this reason, community courts vary widely in response to varying local needs, conditions, and priorities” (Lee et al. 2013). There are now over 70 community courts in operation around the world (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Some are based in traditional courthouses, while others work out of storefronts, libraries or former schools. Though they typically focus on criminal offences, some community courts extend their jurisdiction to non-criminal matters to meet specific needs of the communities they serve as well (Ibid. p. 1.). Regardless of location and jurisdiction, all community courts take a proactive approach to community safety and experiment with different ways of providing appropriate services and sanctions (Wright n.d.).

Other less common problem-solving models include veterans courts, homeless courts, reentry courts, trafficking courts, fathering courts, and truancy courts (Ibid). 

The principles and practices of problem-solving justice can also be applied within non-specialised courts that already exist. In a 2000 resolution that was later reaffirmed in 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators advocated for, “Encourag[ing], where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem-solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law” (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 3). Key features of a problem-solving approach to justice – which will be elaborated in the sections that follow – include: individualised screening and problem assessment; individualised treatment and service mandate; direct engagement of the participant; a focus on outcomes; and system change (Ibid. p. iv).

Problems and impacts

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts measured and mapped the following as a first step towards people-centred justice.

• The most prevalent justice problems within the population served
• The justice problems with greatest impact on the population served
• The justice problems that are most difficult to resolve and therefore tend to remain ongoing
• The groups most vulnerable to (systemic and daily) injustices within the population served

As their name suggests, problem-solving courts emerged to address the most prevalent, impactful, and difficult to resolve justice problems within the populations they serve. The first drug (and Drinking While Driving or DWI) courts were created as a response to the increase in individuals with substance use disorders in the criminal justice system and their levels of recidivism. Similarly, mental health courts “seek to address the growing number of [individuals with mental health needs] that have entered the criminal justice system” (Wright n.d.). As one interviewee put it, “The biggest mental health provider [in Los Angeles] is the county jail” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Drug and mental health problems are among the most common issues faced by individuals responsible for both minor and more serious crime. These issues are difficult to resolve because judges – who have historically had little understanding of treatment and addiction – are inclined to hand down harsh sentences when defendants relapse or fail to complete their court mandate (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020). This trend was particularly acute in the 1980s, when the war on drugs resulted in draconian sentencing laws that reduced judicial discretion (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In order to understand and meet the needs of their unique populations, problem-solving courts track measures of problem prevalence and severity. As noted in the first section, early and individualised screening and problem assessment is a key feature of problem-solving justice. The purpose of such screenings is to “understand the full nature of the [participant’s] situation and the underlying issues that led to justice involvement.” 

For drug courts, relevant measures of problem severity may include: drug of choice; years of drug use; age of first use; criminal history; and treatment history (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 50). Mental health courts typically assess the nature and severity of their participants’ underlying mental health issues, and may also look at participant stability (in terms of health care, housing, compliance with prescribed medications, and hospitalisations) (Ibid. p. 51). 

Domestic violence courts and community courts are somewhat unique in that the primary population they serve include victims and members of the community as well as individuals with justice system involvement. Domestic violence courts focus on assessing the needs of victims of domestic violence in order to connect them with safety planning and other individualised services. Likewise, in addition to identifying the problems that impact individual participants, community courts focus on assessing the problems that impact the underserved (and also often disserved) neighbourhoods where they work. These should be identified through outreach in the relevant community but often include concentrations of lower level crimes – such as vandalism, shoplifting, and prostitution – as well as distrust of traditional justice actors (Ibid. p. 55-56).

Now that technical assistance is broadly available for problem-solving courts across the US, individualised screening and problem assessment has become increasingly data-driven and informed by validated needs assessment tools (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Over the years, problem-solving courts have also become more adept at identifying groups within the populations they serve that are particularly vulnerable to injustice. The advancement of brain science, for example, has influenced many problem-solving courts to treat participants under 25 differently and give them an opportunity to age out of crime. Young people transitioning out of foster care are particularly vulnerable to justice involvement given their sudden lack of family support. Trafficked individuals, who used to be treated as criminals, are now widely recognised as victims (Ibid). Specialised problem-solving courts, diversion programs, and training initiatives have emerged to understand the unique needs and vulnerabilities of this population (Wright n.d.).

Problem-solving courts have also become more aware of racial inequities in the populations selected to receive treatment (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Drug court participants in particular are often disproportionately white, with racial breakdowns that do not mirror the racial breakdowns of those arrested. This is largely a result of eligibility requirements tied to federal drug court funding, which has historically restricted individuals with violent criminal histories from participating. Drug courts have also been accused of cherry-picking participants who were most likely to be successful to improve their numbers and receive more funding. Both of these phenomena have had the effect of excluding disproportionate numbers of people of colour from drug treatment (Ibid). In addition to taking steps to mitigate these inequities, drug courts have increasingly come to recognise that cherry-picking low-risk cases reduces their effectiveness overall (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Defining + Monitoring Outcomes

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts researched and identified the outcomes that people in the target population expect from justice processes.

In 1993, the first community court was set up in the Midtown neighbourhood of New York City (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Inspired by the Midtown model, the Red Hook Community Justice Center was established in a particularly disadvantaged area of Brooklyn seven years later. Like the Midtown Court, the goal of the Red Hook Community Justice Center was “to replace short-term jail sentences with community restitution assignments and mandated participation in social services” (Taylor 2016). 

In the planning stages however, residents of Red Hook were not happy to learn that a new court was being introduced in their community. Though sustained community outreach, Red Hook court staff were able to change these negative perceptions and convince residents they wanted to do something different. They began by asking the community what outcomes were most important to them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).  

This early engagement helped the Red Hook planners realise that tracking outcomes related to people’s presence in the court would not be enough to assess the court’s impact in the community. They would also need to look at outcomes that were meaningful to residents, asking questions like: How can we disrupt crime hot spots? How safe does the community feel? Do residents feel safe walking to the park, or the train? At what times? (Ibid).

Although the Red Hook community court model has since been replicated in different parts of the world, the experiences of two of these international courts illustrate that identifying the outcomes that community members expect from justice processes can sometimes be a challenge.

In 2005, England opened its first community court: the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre (NLCJC). A 2011 evaluation of the NLCJC acknowledged its innovative approach and “potentially transformative effect on criminal justice” but also noted:

How and why the Centre needs to connect with the public it is charged with serving remains one of the most complex and enduring concerns for staff...how consistently and how effectively the ‘community’ was contributing to the workings of the Centre provided a constant source of uncertainty” (Mair and Millings 2011).

After eight years of operation, the NLCJC was closed in 2013. Observers have since noted that a lack of grassroots community engagement in the planning and operation of the NLCJC was among the primary reasons that it ultimately failed to take hold (Murray and Blagg 2018; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020). 

One year after the NLCJC opened in England, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) was piloted in the Collingwood neighbourhood of Melbourne, Australia. At the time, Collingwood had the highest crime rate in Melbourne, high rates of inequality, and a high concentration of services. This combination made it an ideal location for Australia’s first community court. 

Modelled on the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn and spearheaded by the State Attorney General at the time, Rob Hulls, the NJC pilot was focused on improving the community’s relationship with the justice system through local, therapeutic and procedural justice. Like Red Hook, it was designed based on evidence and an analysis of gaps in existing justice services. Despite shifting political winds –  including “tough-on-crime” rhetoric on the one hand and complaints of more favourable “postcode justice” available only for the NJC’s participants on the other – the NJC managed to secure ongoing state government support (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

Unlike the NLCJC, the NJC remains in operation today. The procedurally just design of the NJC building and approach of its magistrate, David Fanning, have earned the court significant credibility and legitimacy in the Collingwood community (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018; J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). Community and client engagement have continued to be a key feature of the NJC’s work, helping to reduce recidivism and increase compliance with community-based court orders (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018) .

In spite of its success, some observers note that the NJC’s outreach efforts have not gone as far as they could have. Early consultations with a group of community stakeholders regarding the design and governance of the NJC were discontinued in the Centre’s later years. Although the reason for this is unclear and may well have been legitimate, the result was that key representatives of the community lost direct and regular access to NJC leadership over time (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

These examples illustrate that even under the umbrella of a one-stop-shop community court, identifying expected justice outcomes in the community as a first step towards problem-solving justice – and continuing to do so even after the court is well-established – is not a given. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the approach of the particular court and its efforts to create a reciprocal and collaborative relationship with the surrounding community.

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts determined whether existing justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Problem-solving courts generally – and community courts and drug courts in particular – are created with the explicit intention to address gaps in existing justice processes. 

Community courts are typically established in communities that have been historically underserved and disproportionately incarcerated to provide a more holistic response to crime and increase trust in the justice system. 

In the early days of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the community’s deep distrust of law enforcement emerged as a key challenge for the Center’s work. Red Hook staff approached this challenge by inviting police officers into the court and showing them the data they had collected on the justice outcomes that residents were experiencing. They helped the officers understand that by not addressing the root causes of crime in the Red Hook community, they were delaying crime rather than stopping it (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Over time, the court’s relationship with law enforcement has improved. In 2016, the Justice Center launched its “Bridging the Gap” initiative, which creates a safe space for young people and police officers to get to know each other and discuss difficult topics that offer the chance to explore the other’s perspective (Red Hook Justice News 2016; Sara Matusek 2017).

Similarly, the proliferation of drug courts across the country was a response to high rates of recidivism among individuals with substance use disorders, which persisted in spite of tough-on-crime sentencing practices. During the so-called “war on drugs” in the mid-1980s, judges across the country gradually began to realise that handing down increasingly long sentences to people with substance use disorders was not working. 

One such person was the late Honourable Peggy Hora, a California Superior Court judge responsible for criminal arraignments. Like other judges repeatedly confronted with defendants grappling with substance use disorders in the 1980s and 90s, Judge Hora initially felt that incarceration was the only tool available to her. Not much research had been done on incarceration at the time, so its detrimental effects were not yet widely known (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Determined to understand why the defendants that came before her seemed to be willing to risk everything to access drugs – even their freedom and the right to see their children – Judge Hora took a class on chemical dependency. This experience brought her to the realisation that “everything they were doing was wrong.” She quickly built relationships with people at the National Institute on Drug Abuse and began engaging with drug treatment research at a national level (Ibid). 

Judge Hora eventually went on to establish and preside over the nation’s second drug court in Alameda County, California. After learning more about procedural justice and seeing evidence that early drug courts worked and saved money in the long run, she helped promote the model across the country and around the world (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts created a system for monitoring whether new, people-centered justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Outcomes monitoring is an essential component of problem-solving justice. As Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel, and Adam Manksy of the Center for Court Innovation set out in their 2010 report on universal performance indicators for problem-solving courts:

It is perhaps their focus on the outcomes generated after a case has been disposed that most distinguishes problem-solving courts from conventional courts. Like all courts, problem-solving courts seek to uphold the due process rights of litigants and to operate efficiently, but their outcome orientation demands that they seek to address the underlying issues that precipitate justice involvement (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 1.).

Measuring and monitoring people-centred outcomes was also key to problem-solving courts’ early success. Because the problem-solving approach was so different from the status quo, showing evidence that it worked was necessary for building political and financial support. This meant clearly articulating the goals of problem-solving courts and finding ways to measure progress towards them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

In their report, What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Porter, Rempel, and Mansky identify universal indicators for each of the three organising principles of problem-solving courts. They include: (under problem-solving) individualised justice and substantive education for court staff; (under collaboration) links with community-based agencies and court presence in community; and (under accountability) compliance reviews, early coordination of information, and court data systems (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 57).  Many of these problem-solving principles and practices can be (and are) applied and monitored in traditional courts. 

To ensure delivery of individualised justice for example, any court staff can engage the individuals appearing before it by making eye contact, addressing them clearly and directly, and asking if they have any questions about the charges or their mandate (Ibid). This kind of engagement can “radically change the experience of litigants, victims, and families” and “improve the chance of compliance and litigant perceptions of court fairness” (Ibid). Similarly, any court can prioritise and track its use of alternative sanctions – such as community service or drug treatment – and its efforts to link individuals to existing services in the community (Ibid).

The extent to which a particular (problem-solving or traditional) court monitors progress towards these people-centred outcomes depends on its ability to track compliance and behaviour change among participants. This can be achieved through regular compliance reviews, which provide “an ongoing opportunity for the court to communicate with [participants] and respond to their concerns and circumstances” (Ibid. p. 60-61). Investing in electronic data systems that track and coordinate information also makes it easier for a court to monitor its overall impact on case outcomes and improve the quality of its mandates (Ibid).

Successful outcomes monitoring also depends crucially on a court’s ability to develop strong relationships with researchers. Without this, early problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center would not have been able to, for example, quantify the impact of a 7-day jail stay in terms of budget, jail population, and bookings per month. Strong research partnerships also made it possible to compare successful and unsuccessful court participants, which was necessary to assess and improve the quality of the court’s services (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Outcomes monitoring at the Red Hook Community Justice Center was not without its challenges, however. Because most people who come before the court are charged with less serious crimes, their treatment mandates are relatively short. The short amount of time the Red Hook staff and service providers have to work with these participants means that outcomes related to individual progress are not likely to show a full picture of the court’s impact. The Red Hook Community Justice Center addressed this by also measuring outcomes related to the court’s impact on the community. What was the effect on social cohesion and stability when someone’s brother, father, or son was allowed to remain in the community instead of being incarcerated? (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Another challenge faced by community courts broadly is that traditional outcomes monitoring systems are not well-equipped to acknowledge the reality that everything is connected. Where does one draw the line between service providers and justice providers? If a restorative justice process facilitated under the supervision of the court fails to reconcile the parties in conflict but has a positive impact on the lives of the support people who participate, should it be considered a success or failure? 

A former Red Hook staff member involved in the court’s peacemaking initiative shared a story of a young, devout woman with a new boyfriend who mistreated her and who her children strongly disliked. When she tried to throw him out, the boyfriend would use her Christian values against her and convince her to let him stay. Eventually, he punched someone and was arrested on assault charges. His case was referred to a restorative justice circle for resolution. In the circle, the boyfriend was very aggressive and as a result, his case was sent back to court. The woman and her children asked if they could continue meeting in circle without him because they found it helpful (Ibid).

After a series of circle sessions together, the woman came to realise that her abusive boyfriend was using drugs and found the courage to kick him out. In his absence, the woman and her children were able to reconcile and reunite. The woman returned to school and her oldest son found a job. The criminal case that started the process was ultimately unresolved, but from a more holistic and common sense perspective the impact of the circles on the family was positive (Ibid). How should success be measured in this case? This is a challenge that community courts attempting to measure and monitor people-centred justice regularly face.

Evidence-Based Solutions

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts introduced interventions that are evidence-based and consistently deliver the justice outcomes that people in the target population look for.

Problem-solving courts have introduced a number of interventions that have proven to deliver people-centred outcomes for the communities they serve. Although different interventions work for different populations, direct engagement with participants and the delivery of individualised treatments are two key elements of the problem-solving orientation that all problem-solving courts share (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 29-30). 

As described in the previous section, direct engagement means that the judge speaks to participants directly and becomes actively engaged in producing positive change in their lives (Ibid. p. 30-31). This effort to ensure that participants feel heard, respected and experience the process as fair is supported by research on procedural justice. 

Individualised treatment means that the interventions delivered are tailored to the specific problems of each participant. This requires that the court offer “a continuum of treatment modalities and services to respond to the variety and degrees of need that participants present.” This service plan must be revisited by the court on a regular basis and adjusted depending on the participant’s reported progress (Ibid. p. 29-30).

Despite this shared approach to justice delivery, different problem-solving courts have identified different types of treatments and ways of monitoring whether they work that are unique to the populations they serve.

Community courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center, for example, generally work with the residents in their neighbourhood to find out what is important to them rather than imposing a predetermined set of solutions. 

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne did this through a unique problem-solving process that took place outside of the courtroom and which participants could opt into voluntarily. In a confidential, facilitated discussion based on restorative and therapeutic justice principles, participants were given an opportunity to share their perspective on the problems they were facing and empowered to become collaborators in their own rehabilitation. Important takeaways from this process would be reported back to the court’s magistrate so he could help them move forward – for example by changing their methadone (1) dose or changing the number of treatments they received per week. The collaborative nature of the sessions helped ensure that the treatment plans mandated by the court were realistic for participants. Though the content of these sessions was unpredictable and varied, the co-design process remained constant (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020; Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018).

With that said, certain interventions have proven to consistently improve outcomes for communities, victims, and individuals with justice system involvement when applied to low-level cases. These include: using (validated) screening and assessment tools (2); monitoring and enforcing court orders (3); using rewards and sanctions; promoting information technology (4); enhancing procedural justice (5); expanding sentencing options (to include community service and shorter interventions that incorporate individualised treatment); and engaging the community (6).

In 2009, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center to assess whether it was achieving its goals to reduce crime and improve quality of life in the Red Hook neighbourhood through these interventions (Lee et al. 2013, p. 2.). The evaluation found that:

The Justice Center [had] been implemented largely in accordance with its program theory and project plan. The Justice Center secured the resources and staff needed to support its reliance on alternative sanctions, including an in-house clinic and arrangements for drug and other treatment services to be provided by local treatment providers...The Justice Center’s multi-jurisdictional nature, as well as many of its youth and community programs, evolved in direct response to concerns articulated in focus groups during the planning process, reflecting a stated intention to learn of and implement community priorities (Ibid. p. 4).

Using a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the evaluation also concluded that Red Hook had successfully: changed sentencing practices in a way that minimised incarceration and motivated compliance; provided flexible and individualised drug treatment; sustainably reduced rates of misdemeanour recidivism among young people and adults; and reduced arrests in the community. 

In spite of the robust evidence supporting their approach, many community courts experience resistance to their efforts to help participants address underlying issues of substance use and mental disorders through treatment. As Brett Taylor, a Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice and former defence attorney at the Red Hook explains:

Some critics of community courts say that [this] is not the job of courts and should be handled by other entities. In a perfect world, I would agree. However, in the reality of the world today, people with social service needs continue to end up in the courts. Court systems across the country have realised that if defendants with social service needs are not given treatment options, those defendants will be stuck in the revolving door of justice and continue to clog the court system....Although it may not comport with the vision of success that many defence attorneys had upon entering this work, I can tell you that nothing beats seeing a sober, healthy person approach you on the street and hearing, ‘Thank you for helping me get my life back on track’ (Taylor 2016, p. 25).

In contrast to the broad and community-based approach to treatment taken by community courts, drug courts focus specifically on providing drug treatment. In the words of Judge Peggy Hora, drug treatment is “painful and difficult.” Because of this, drug courts start with external changes as their goal, but ultimately aim for internal change. This means appropriately matching participants with evidence-based treatment and using neutral language that assists, supports, and encourages participants along the way. Because relapse is such a common feature of recovery, drug courts focus on keeping people in appropriate treatment as long as necessary for them to eventually graduate from the program (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Drug court treatments have become increasingly evidence-based since the 1990s due to a growing movement toward performance measurement in the non-profit sector:

The emergence of drug courts as a reform of courts’ traditional practice of treating drug-addicted offenders in a strictly criminal fashion coincided with renewed interest in performance measurement for public organisations. The argument for measuring the performance of drug courts is compelling because they are a recent reform that must compete with existing priorities of the judicial system for a limited amount of resources. This makes it incumbent upon drug courts to demonstrate that the limited resources provided to them are used efficiently and that this expenditure of resources produces the desired outcomes in participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 1).

This movement was further strengthened by the development of a cutting edge performance measurement methodology known as the “balanced scorecard.” Created for the business sector, the balanced scorecard method aims to go beyond traditional measures of success and get a more balanced picture of performance by incorporating multiple perspectives. This method was adapted to create CourTools, a set of ten performance measures designed to evaluate a small set of key functions of trial courts (Ibid. p. 2). 

Because “the nature of addiction and the realities of substance use treatment require extended times to disposition for drug court participants,” many of the performance measures developed for conventional trial courts (such as reduced time to disposition) are not directly applicable to drug courts. However, the increased application of performance measurement to courts and the creation of CourTools in particular helped make way for the development of the first set of nationally recommended performance measures for Adult Drug Courts in 2004 (Ibid. p. 4).

Developed by a leading group of scholars and researchers brought together by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and published for the first time in 2006, these included four key measures of drug court performance: retention; sobriety, in-program recidivism; and units of service (Ibid. p. 5).

Retention refers to the amount of time drug court participants remain in treatment. “Longer retention not only indicates success in treatment but also predicts future success in the form of lower post treatment drug use and re-offending”  (Ibid. p. 5). Sobriety – both during and after treatment –  is another important goal of drug courts. “As the participant proceeds through the program, a trend of decreasing frequency of failed [drug] tests should occur. Research has shown that increasing amounts of time between relapses is associated with continued reductions in [drug] use” (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5). In-program recidivism is the rate at which drug court participants are re-arrested during the course of their participation. This is expected to be lowered through a combination of “judicial supervision, treatment, and rewards and sanctions” unique to drug courts (Ibid. p.5; US Government and Accountability Office, 2005). Finally, units of service refers to the dosages in which drug court treatment services – including, but not limited to substance use treatment – are delivered. These are usually measured in terms of days or sessions of service provided (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5).

Since their development, these four measures of drug court performance have been actively promoted by leading technical assistance providers like the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (Ibid. p. 6). They have since been adopted and adapted by a number of states across the US. The NCSC facilitates this process, but decisions about what specifically to measure are made by the advisory committee convened by the state-level agency responsible for drug courts (Ibid). Additional performance measures used by some states relate to, for example: accountability, social functioning, processing, interaction with other agencies, compliance with quality standards, and  juvenile drug court measures, family drug court measures, and domestic violence drug court measures (Ibid. p. 10).

In 2007, the NCSC surveyed statewide drug court coordinators from across the country about their use of state-level performance measurement systems (SPMS). Out of 45 states that completed the surveys, 58% were using a SPMS in their drug courts. Most of these were adult drug courts (Ibid. p. 14). Although the frequency with which these states reported performance measurement data varied from quarterly to annually, the majority did provide data to a central agency (Ibid. p. 15). 

The development and widespread use of SPMS have helped drug courts deliver treatments that are increasingly evidence-based in the sense of consistently delivering the outcomes that their participants need. However, the NCSC survey found that the state-level performance measures used were not entirely balanced in that they typically focused more on the effectiveness of drug courts than their efficiency, productivity, or procedural satisfaction (Ibid. p. 20). The NCSC therefore recommended that a more balanced, national and uniform set of drug court performance measures be developed to measure performance more holistically and facilitate comparisons of performance across states (Ibid. p. 18).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts used outcome-based monitoring (discussed in the previous section) to continuously improve these interventions and replace interventions that have proven ineffective?

Because of their problem-solving orientation and focus on outcomes, problem-solving courts are by their nature adaptive and capable of developing new treatment modalities to meet different kinds of needs. As Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving at the Center for Court Innovation put it, “the problem-solving court environment creates a space in which there is more room for creativity. If you were to redesign the justice system now, there wouldn’t be only courts you could go to, there would be different justice mechanisms and modalities available to treat different levels of issues. Perhaps that is why new modalities develop within problem-solving courts” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

A clear example of this creative and outcomes-based approach to improvement was the way the problem-solving dialogue process developed at the Neighbourhood Justice Center (NJC) was adapted over time to meet changing demands in the community. As Jay Jordens, a Neighbourhood Justice Office at the NJC who introduced the process explains: “different problems would arise that would demand a re-design of the court’s approach” (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

For example, the NJC began to notice that people responsible for family violence were participating in problem-solving dialogues without sharing this part of their history. In response, the NJC developed a tailored problem-solving process for people who were respondents to a family violence order in which this part of their past would be addressed from the start. The NJC also began facilitating support meetings for victims of family violence, including for example parents who were being mistreated by their children. The process was designed to solicit feedback about the new approach after victims had tried it. Eventually, it earned the support of the police in the community because it consistently delivered outcomes for a unique population (Ibid).

A second adaptation of the problem-solving process at the NJC was made when court staff noticed that many young people were opting out. Many of the court-involved young people in the Collingwood community were refugees from South Sudan who were experiencing the effects of intergenerational trauma. Realising that the process as it was originally imagined was too interrogative for this population, the NJC began holding circles with the young person, their mother, and one or two support workers. A facilitator would begin by asking humanising questions of everyone in the circle. Although the young person would often pass when it was their turn to speak, participating in the circle gave them an opportunity to listen, relax, and improve their relationships with the adults sitting in the circle with them. These problem-solving circles were designed to prioritise safety concerns and would often result in an agreement among the participants to get external support and/or attend family therapy.

Jay Jordens notes that such adaptations were possible in spite of, not because of, an operational framework of specialisation within the court that made collaboration a choice rather than an expectation among Centre staff. “We aren’t there yet where these processes are intuitive,” he explained, “we still need to actively facilitate them” (Ibid).

Because of their systematic approach to outcomes monitoring and performance measurement, drug courts have made a number of improvements to the treatment they provide as well. First and foremost, they have learned to avoid net widening: “the process of administrative or practical changes that result in a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system” (Leone n.d.).

Specifically, drug courts have learned that putting the wrong people in the wrong places results in bad outcomes. An example of this is cherry picking the easiest cases for drug treatment: a common practice among drug courts in the early years of their development that later proved to be harmful. Evidence has shown that drug courts are most effective when they focus on treating high-risk, high-needs participants who are most likely to reoffend (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Cherry picking low-risk cases in order to inflate measures of success means putting them in more intensive treatment than they need and failing to appropriately match treatments with risk. Over time, this entraps people in the criminal justice system unnecessarily and reduces drug courts’ potential to meaningfully reduce crime (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Cherry picking low-risk cases for drug treatment has also resulted in racially biased outcomes. Because of the ways racial bias is embedded in the American criminal justice system, young white defendants have historically been more likely to be assessed as low-risk and eligible for specialised treatment than participants of colour. Participants of colour who were selected for drug court programming also tended to flunk out or leave voluntarily at higher rates than white participants.

In response to these trends, drug courts developed a toolkit on equity and inclusivity to examine the data and understand why this was happening. They introduced HEAT (Habilitation Empowerment Accountability Therapy), a new drug treatment modality geared towards young black men which was recently evaluated with very positive results. They have also worked harder generally to ensure that treatments are culturally appropriate for the different populations they serve.

Drug courts have also become more sophisticated at treating different kinds of drug addiction. The Matrix Model, for example, was developed to engage a particularly difficult population – stimulant (methamphetamine and cocaine) users – in treatment. Previously considered “untreatable” by many drug courts, stimulant users treated using the Matrix Model have shown statistically significant reductions in drug and alcohol use, risky sexual behaviors associated with HIV transmission, and improved psychological well-being in a number of studies (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020; National Institute of Drug Abuse 2020).

Drug court judges who once took a “blaming and shaming” approach have shifted towards a more people-centred one, as evidenced by changes in the language used to describe participants. In response to research in the medical sector demonstrating that people who are described as addicts receive lower quality care and fewer prescriptions, drug courts have increasingly replaced the term “addiction” with “substance use disorder” (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In line with this shift, attitudes towards medically assisted drug treatment have also changed dramatically over the years. Whereas most drug courts previously did not allow the use of methadone in treatment, the field has now clearly adopted medically assisted treatment after finding that it was consistent with improved graduation rates, among other outcomes. Though not universally accepted, it is now considered a best practice supported by decades of research (Ibid).

On a more systematic level, a 2007 analysis of performance measurement data collected by the state of Wyoming provides an example of how drug courts have started to use this data to improve the quality of their treatments and overall impact. Based on results related to the key measures of drug court performance introduced in the previous section – retention, sobriety, in-program recidivism and units of service – the NCSC made a number of programmatic recommendations for drug courts across the state. First, they suggested that drug courts aim to support participants’ education and employment-related needs, as both attainment of a diploma and employment at admission to treatment were associated with increased graduation rates. They also recommended that additional resources be made available for young participants of colour, who were found to have higher rates of positive drug tests and recidivism than young white participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 17).

Innovations + Delivery Models

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts scaled their people-centered service delivery model to deliver justice outcomes for a larger population.

Many problem-solving courts across the US continue to start in the way the first problem-solving courts did: with judges deciding to do things differently. With that said, the proliferation of problem-solving courts across the country can be traced to three primary factors: science and research; technical assistance; and changes in legal education.

Research has helped bring problem-solving courts to scale by showing that the problem-solving approach to justice, if properly implemented, can be effective. Research on procedural justice and advancements in understanding of the science of addiction have been particularly important in this respect. Increased awareness of major studies in these areas have helped the field shift towards evidence-based working and helped legal professionals learn from past mistakes. More and more judges realise that relapse is part of recovery, and that mandated treatment within a drug court structure delivers positive outcomes for participants (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Once a number of problem-solving courts had been established around the country, technical assistance providers emerged to help them take a data-driven approach. This means working with communities to look at the numbers and identify the biggest crime problems they are struggling with and introducing a problem-solving court that is responsive to those issues. It also means using screening and needs assessment tools to make informed sentencing decisions and match participants to appropriate treatments. Technical assistance has helped problem-solving courts increase their impact and effectiveness and over time deliver outcomes for larger populations (Ibid).

As problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center have become better known, law students and young legal professionals have become more aware of and enthusiastic about problem-solving justice as an alternative to adversarial ways of working (Ibid). This represents a significant shift from the early days of problem-solving courts, when judges and lawyers alike were reluctant to embrace non-conventional conceptions of their roles as legal professionals. Prosecutors called problem-solving courts “hug-a-thug” programs. Defence attorneys resisted the idea of a court being a cure-all for their clients. Judges insisted that they “weren’t social workers” and shouldn’t be doing this kind of work (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Service providers were concerned too: they feared that involving the justice system in treatment would ruin their client relationships.

Over time, judges have come to see that their roles could expand without violating something sacrosanct about being a judge. In 2000, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators adopted a resolution supporting the use of therapeutic justice principles. Since then, experience presiding over a drug court has come to be seen as a positive in judicial elections (Ibid).

Despite early concerns that problem-solving courts were “soft on crime,” prosecutors and defense attorneys have largely come on board as well. Research has demonstrated that when problem-solving courts acknowledge their gaps in knowledge and defer to service providers for clinical expertise, they can be successful in supporting treatment. As a result of advances in research, the emergence of problem-solving technical assistance, and important cultural shifts, drug and mental health courts are now widely recognised as appropriate and welcome additions to the field (Ibid). This acceptance has facilitated their spread nationally and as far as Australia and New Zealand.

Court numbers are not the only relevant measure for evaluating the extent to which problem-solving courts have successfully scaled, however. In addition to horizontal scaling of courts across the country, vertical integration of problem-solving principles and practices within particular jurisdictions is an important indicator of problem-solving courts’ spread and influence (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As explained in the introduction, the principles and practices of problem-solving justice can be and are increasingly applied by traditional justice actors and in existing, non-specialised courts. Police departments across the country are learning that they can divert defendants to treatment from the get-go, without necessarily waiting for a case to be processed through the courts (Ibid). A prominent example of police-led diversion is LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) in Seattle, “a collaborative community safety effort that offers law enforcement a credible alternative to booking people into jail for criminal activity that stems from unmet behavioural needs or poverty” (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, n.d.). The Seattle LEAD model was externally evaluated and found to deliver a range of positive outcomes for individuals with justice system involvement and the community (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-a). The model has been replicated successfully and is now operating in over thirty-nine counties in the US (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-b).

Cases that do reach court are also increasingly diverted outside of it. Prosecutors and judges who are not operating within a problem-solving court can nevertheless apply problem-solving principles by linking defendants to services and making use of alternative sentences in lieu of jail time. This “problem-solving orientation” has allowed problem-solving justice to be applied in more instances and settings without necessarily setting up new problem-solving courts. One indication that problem-solving courts have already scaled “horizontally” in the US – and that this “vertical” scaling is the latest trend – is the fact that the US government’s drug courts funding solicitation in 2020 no longer includes a category for the creation of a new drug court (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Evidence of this trend towards vertical scaling can be found as far away as Australia. As a specific alternative to horizontal replication, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) has developed resources to support judges at the Melbourne Magistrates Court to adopt a problem-solving approach to their work. Over time, this court has become a “laboratory of experimentation” for problem-solving principles and practices as well as other complementary technologies (i.e. therapeutic or procedural justice approaches)  that need to be tested before broader roll-out. In a similar vein, New York City’s courts have carried the innovative principles and practices of community courts into centralised courthouses in Brooklyn and the Bronx rather than creating more Red Hooks (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts funded their service delivery model in a sustainable way?

Drug courts have been successful in obtaining large and sustainable streams of federal funding due to the strong research partnerships they developed from the start. Early data collection and evaluation persuaded funders that the problem-solving approach would deliver positive outcomes and save money by reducing incarceration costs. The fact that Florida Attorney General  Janet Reno – who set up the nation’s first drug court in 1989 – worked with Assistant Public Defender Hugh Rodham (7) in Miami Dade County also helped make drug courts a success and capture the attention of the federal government early on.

Importantly, federal funding for drug courts was often conditional upon their participation in rigorous evaluations. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the drug court model in a way that may not have been possible had the drug courts had to fund the research themselves, and justified their continued funding (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). In recent years, states and counties have become a significant source of funding for drug courts as well  (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Although the federal government has also helped fund other types of problem-solving courts, drug courts are by far the most sustainably funded. Only recently has the government made it possible for community courts to apply for direct funding, or indirect funding as subgrantees of the Center for Court Innovation. The long-term funding for many community courts is provided by local municipalities (Ibid). Funding community courts is a unique challenge because in addition to standard line items like project director and case worker salaries, they must find a way to cover less conventional expenses support for community volunteers and circle participants (often in the form of food, which the government is not willing to fund) (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Direct federal funding for other kinds of problem-solving courts is very limited. What funding has been made available to them has gone primarily towards research and the establishment of state-level coordinators and problem-solving court infrastructure. This has helped to increase awareness of the problem-solving principles and practices at the state level and encouraged their application in different areas (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Private foundations have supported various aspects of problem-solving justice initiatives in certain parts of the country, but have not yet committed to doing so in a sustained way (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts leveraged the following sustainable financing strategies: public-private partnerships and smart (user) contributions?

Community courts in New York – including the Red Hook Community Justice Center and the Midtown Community Court – have benefitted from public-private partnerships to the extent that their planning and operations have been led by the Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership between the New York court system and an NGO. Over the years, these courts have also partnered with local “business improvement districts” to supervise community service mandates and offer employment opportunities to program graduates (Ibid).

Some treatment courts do also charge a nominal participant fee, which can range from $5-$20 per week (Wallace 2019). These user contributions can be used for grant matching, among other things. Charging people for their participation in problem-solving programming is generally not regarded as good practice, however (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

More broadly, problem-solving courts and community courts in particular can be said to be financially sustainable in that they often save taxpayer money (Wallace 2019). Although it takes time to realise the benefits of the upfront costs of creating and running a drug court for example, research has demonstrated that once established, the associated cost savings range from more than $4,000-$12,000 per participant (Office of National Drug Court Policy 2011). The Red Hook Community Justice Center alone was estimated to have saved local taxpayers $15 million per year (primarily) in victimisation costs that were avoided as a result of reduced recidivism (Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo 2018). The cost savings associated with problem-solving courts have helped them to continue to be competitive applicants for federal, state and local, and sometimes private grant funding over the years and in spite of changing political winds (Wallace 2019).

• Enabling environment

How and to what extent have regulatory and financial systems created/enabled by the government supported problem-solving courts and made it possible for this service/activity to scale?

Most if not all states in the US have allowed drug courts to become part of state legislation, which makes possible their continued operation (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

How and to what extent have the outcomes-based, people-centered services delivered by problem-solving courts been allowed to become the default procedure?

Problem-solving courts have not been allowed to become the default procedure in that adversarial courts and procedures remain the standard way of responding to crime in the US. In the words of Judge Hora, “There is no question that the number of people served is growing, but this remains only a drop in the bucket. For every person served there are 6-7 who aren’t” (Ibid). However, the expanding presence of problem-solving courts has helped the justice sector shift away from the excessively punitive state sentencing laws and tough-on-crime rhetoric of the late 1980s towards a more restorative and evidence-based way of working (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Problem-solving courts have enabled cultural change by demonstrating to lawyers and judges that defendants do better when they are able to access treatment, while at the same time allowing these traditional legal players to act as intermediaries and retain a gatekeeping role. As discussed in previous sections, police, prosecutors, and judges alike have grown increasingly comfortable with diverting cases from the adversarial track to community-based treatment (Ibid).

It is a paradox that the US has developed and spread the problem-solving courts model as the country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Former Senior Advisor of Training and Technical Assistance at the Center for Court Innovation, Julius Lang, speculates that this punitive backdrop is what has allowed alternatives to incarceration to flourish in the US and become so highly developed. At the same time, countries with lower baseline penalties that have set up problem-solving courts, such as Canada and Australia, have developed creative means of engaging defendants who need treatment since there is less of a threat of incarceration (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts stimulated (or benefitted from) investment into justice research and development?

Problem-solving courts have both stimulated and benefited from investment into justice research and development. As discussed in the previous sections, the success of problem-solving courts in the US can be attributed in large part to their strong research partnerships. 

From the start, “problem-solving courts always took responsibility for their own research and their own outcomes” (Ibid). Problem-solving justice initiatives run by the Center for Court Innovation, for example, always worked directly with researchers. This produced a huge amount of evaluation literature, which was important for securing the buy-in and funding necessary to continue operating (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020). 

The fact that federal funding has incentivised high-quality evaluations has also gone a long way to build a foundation of evidence demonstrating drug courts’ effectiveness (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Leadership + Pathways

How and to what extent have justice sector leaders’ skills and collaborations enabled/hindered problem-solving courts to increase access to justice by delivering the outcomes people need at scale.

Strong leadership has been essential to problem-solving courts’ ability to deliver the treatment outcomes people need at scale. Without the leadership of visionary judges and other leaders aiming to do things differently, they would never have come into existence in the first place. 

Because of the tendency to maintain the status quo, individual problem-solving courts also rarely get off the ground without a strong champion. The reason for this can be traced to problem-solving principles and practices themselves: the goal is not to force people to change, but to make them change because they want to. In the same way, effective leaders can persuade system actors that problem-solving justice is the way to achieve common goals (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Community courts in particular require strong leadership. This can sometimes pose problems for the courts’ long-term stability. For example, a community court in North Liverpool was championed by prominent national politicians. Their leadership was important for the court’s establishment and initial funding, but changes in national leadership and the lack of local support were major factors in the court’s ultimate closure (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As mentioned above, community courts may struggle when their early champions move on. To avoid this and prepare for the eventual departure of the personalities who are driving change, it is important to put the courts’ internal ways of working into writing. As previously discussed, it is also necessary to obtain evidence that the court’s approach works, as this is a more important driver of funding than good leadership in the long-run (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Mid-level leadership within problem-solving courts also matters. Since staff are often employed and supervised by various partner agencies – rather than the director of the project as a whole – it is particularly important that they be selected with care, trained in the project’s mission, policies and practices, and incentivised to work as part of a single team (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/benefited from new high-level strategies or pathways towards people-centred justice in the US?

High-level strategies at the state level and in the form of technical assistance have benefitted problem-solving courts significantly by facilitating their replication. This is particularly true of drug courts, for which state-wide coordination mechanisms were set up at an early stage.

Recognising that substance use disorder was a major problem, and persuaded by the same research as federal legislators, state officials began to set up mechanisms that would allow them to receive federal drug court funding. This also allowed them to strategise about which counties would most benefit from drug courts (or other problem-solving courts), and which standards to impose. 

Together, state-wide coordination mechanisms created an infrastructure for the improvement and replication of drug courts nationwide, and made it easier to apply problem-solving practices and principles in new settings. Whereas trainings on brain science and what’s working in treatment used to be reserved for drug court judges, there are now few states that do not include them in judicial training for all new judges. The same can be said for trainings for prosecutors, defence attorneys, and service providers (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

The emergence of technical assistance providers specialising in problem-solving justice such as the Center for Court Innovation, Justice System Partners, the National Center for State Courts, and the Justice Management Institute have also helped problem-solving courts to coordinate and replicate in strategic ways. By developing listservs and organising conferences, these organisations have enabled people in various problem-solving courts to support each other across state and international lines. Over time, these efforts have created shared principles and legitimacy around the movement for problem-solving justice (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/played a role in a broader paradigm shift towards people-centered justice?

As mentioned in the introduction, a fifth key feature of the problem-solving orientation is system change. By educating justice system stakeholders about the nature of behavioural problems that often underlie crime and aiming to reach the maximum number of cases within a given jurisdiction, problem-solving courts seek to make broader impact within the justice system and community (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 32-33).

Since the first drug court was set up in 1989, legal professionals have become increasingly aware that many people with social problems end up in the justice system: a system that was never intended to address those problems. Problem-solving courts have contributed to a broader paradigm shift towards people-centred justice to the extent that they have helped these professionals:

• Acknowledge this issue;
• Recognise that lawyers are not equipped to deal with this issue (American law schools do not prepare them to);
• Connect with service providers in the community;
• Leverage the coercive power of the justice system in a positive way;
• Encourage success in treatment programs using procedural justice.

By taking a collaborative approach to decision-making, delivering individualised justice for each participant while at the same time holding them accountable, educating staff, engaging the broader community, and working to produce better outcomes for people, problem-solving courts have demonstrated what people-centred criminal justice can look like in the US and around the world.

View additional information

(1) Methadone is a synthetic opioid used to treat opioid dependence. Taking a daily dose of methadone in the form of a liquid or pill helps to reduce the cravings and withdrawal symptoms of opioid dependent individuals.

(2) “A screening tool is a set of questions designed to evaluate an offender’s risks and needs fairly quickly…An assessment tool is a more thorough set of questions administered before an offender is matched to a particular course of treatment or service.” Taylor 2016, p. 7.

(3) “The main monitoring tool community courts use is compliance hearings, in which participants are periodically required to return to court to provide updates on their compliance.” Taylor, 2016, p. 9.

(4) “Community courts have promoted the use of technology to improve decision-making. Technology planners created a special information system for the Midtown Community Court to make it easy for the judge and court staff to track defendants…Information that’s reliable, relevant, and up-to-date is essential for judges to make the wisest decisions they can.” Taylor 2016, p. 12-13.

(5) In community courts, “judges often speak directly to the offender, asking questions, offering advice, issuing reprimands, and doling out encouragement. This reflects an approach known as procedural justice…Its key components, according to Yale Professor Tom Tyler, are voice, respect, trust/neutrality, and understanding.” Taylor 2016, p. 15.

(6) “Community courts emphasize working collaboratively with the community, arguing that the justice system is stronger, fairer, and more effective when the community is invested in what happens inside the courthouse.” Taylor 2016, p. 22.

(7) Hugh Rodham was the brother of Hillary Clinton, who would become the First Lady a few years later.

View References

Amanda Cissner and Michael Rempel. (2005).  The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond ‘Do They Work?’ , Center for Court Innovation.

Brett Taylor. (2016). Lessons from Community Courts: Strategies on Criminal Justice Reform from a Defense Attorney . Center for Court Innovation, p. 3.

Cheryl Wright, (n.d.). Tackling Problem-Solving Issues Across the Country . National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Cynthia Lee, Fred Cheesman, David Rottman, Rachael Swaner, Suvi Lambson, Michael Rempel and Ric Curtis. (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center . National Center for State Courts, Center for Court Innovation, p.1.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Four) . Justice Speakers Institute.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part One) . Justice Speakers Institute.  

Dawn Marie Rubio, Fred Cheesman and William Federspiel. (2008). Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art . National Center for State Courts, Volume 6, p. 1.

George Mair and Matthew Millings. (2011). Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre . Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review, 27(4).

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 5, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 14, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Jay Jordens, Education Program Manager – Therapeutic Justice, Judicial College of Victoria, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Judge Peggy Hora, President, Justice Speakers Institute, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Julius Lang, Senior Advisor, Training and Technical Assistance, Center for Court Innovation, October 28, 2020.

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) , King County.

LEAD National Support Bureau, (n.d.). Evaluations . 

LEAD National Support Bureau. (n.d.). LEAD: Advancing Criminal Justice Reform in 2020 .

Mark Halsey and Melissa de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review 27 (4). 

Matthew Leone, Net widening , Encyclopaedia of Crime and Punishment, SAGE Reference.

National Institute of Drug Abuse (2020). The Matrix Model (Stimulants) , Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide

Office of National Drug Court Policy. (2011). Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice .

Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel and Adam Mansky. (2010). What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice . Center for Court Innovation, p. 1

Red Hook Justice News. (2016).  Bridging the Gap: Youth, Community and Police . 

Sarah Matusek. (2017). Justice Center celebrates Bridging the Gap birthday . The Red Hook Star Revue. 

Sarah Murray and Harry Blagg. (2018). Reconceptualising Community Justice Centre Evaluations – Lessons from the North Liverpool Experience . Griffith Law Review 27 (2).

Suzanne Strong and Tracey Kyckelhahn. (2016).  Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 . Bureau of Justice Statistics.

US Government and Accountability Office, 2005.

Table of Contents

• Case Studies:
• Casas De Justicia Colombia
• Local Council Courts in Uganda
• LegalZoom in the US
• The Justice Dialogue
• Methodology

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law Tel: +31 70 762 0700 E-mail: [email protected]

• Solving & preventing
• Justice services
• Data by country

Privacy Overview

Problem-Solving Courts/Specialty Courts

Know the warning signs.

Learn the common signs of mental illness in adults and adolescents.

Mental health conditions

Learn more about common mental health conditions that affect millions.

Find Your Local NAMI

Call the NAMI Helpline at

800-950-6264

Or text "HelpLine" to 62640

Where We Stand:

NAMI believes in minimizing justice-system response to people with mental illness, while ensuring that any interactions preserve health, well-being and dignity. NAMI supports the use of problem-solving courts as part of a broad strategy to reduce incarceration and promote diversion from further involvement in the criminal justice system for people with mental illness.

Why We Care:

People with mental illness and substance use disorders (SUDs) are overrepresented in our nation’s jails and prisons. An estimated 44% of people in jails and 37% of people in prisons have a mental illness, and an estimated 65% of people in prisons have an underlying SUD. In the veterans’ community, 55% of the nearly 50,000 veterans incarcerated in local jails report experiencing a mental illness.

Mental illness is not a crime, but untreated symptoms and limited access to care lead many to involvement with the criminal justice system. Many of these individuals are held for committing non-violent, minor offenses and misdemeanors resulting from the symptoms of untreated illness (disorderly conduct, loitering, trespassing, disturbing the peace) or for offenses like shoplifting and petty theft.

Problem-solving courts (also known as specialty courts) are specialized dockets within the criminal justice system that seek to address underlying mental health or SUD that contribute to the commission of certain criminal offenses in many cases, often providing treatment rather than punishment. The most common types of problem-solving courts are drug treatment, mental health and veterans treatment courts, although there are other specialty court dockets that may vary by state or county. Through these problem-solving courts, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, mental health providers and community partners collaborate to provide treatment in the community as an alternative to being charged and possibly convicted of a criminal offense that could result in incarceration.

As of 2020, there are an estimated 477 adult mental health courts and 56 juvenile mental health courts , along with approximately 3,500 drug treatment courts and 461 veterans treatment courts in the U.S. Most programs are only for those who face misdemeanor or nonviolent felony charges, but more recently, jurisdictions have explored courts for additional charges.

Problem-solving courts can be life changing for people with mental illness or SUDs who become involved in the criminal justice system. Veterans courts and drug courts show similar outcomes for participants. Mental health courts have been associated with reduced recidivism and incarceration, and can even improve mental health outcomes. There is some evidence that including case management and connection to services, such as housing and employment, increase the likelihood of success for participants of specialty courts.

How We Talk About It:

• People with mental illness and substance use disorders (SUDs) deserve help, not handcuffs. Yet, people with mental illness and SUDs are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
• About 2 in 5 people who are incarcerated have a history of mental illness, resulting in jails and prisons becoming unintended mental health facilities where they are often limited access to effective treatment.
• NAMI is opposed to the continued criminalization of people with mental illness and believes that communities should invest in evidence-based solutions that help people with mental illness get on a path of recovery.
• Specialty courts, like mental health treatment courts and veterans courts, are an evidence-based tool that can reduce the number of people with mental illness in our nation’s jails and prisons and focus on treatment instead of punishment.
• As with all mental health treatment, specialty courts should work to engage the individual in their treatment so that it leads to long-term recovery beyond the period that the court is involved.
• Funding and other resources should be available to support the operations of specialty court programs, especially services and supports like housing and employment programs, that are central to these courts successfully helping individuals.
• NAMI believes that public policies should focus on investments in early intervention, comprehensive community mental health services, robust crisis response systems and justice diversion strategies to decriminalize people with mental illness and connect people to care.
• Specialty courts are an important tool in helping people with mental illness while focusing on their health and preserving their dignity. Communities should invest in these courts to better meet the needs of people with mental illness.

What We’ve Done:

• NAMI supports the Stepping Up Initiative which works with counties and other stakeholders to reduce the number of people with mental illness in jails.
• NAMI letter to House and Senate leadership advocating for the reauthorization of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA), which funds mental health courts.
• NAMI letter to the House and Senate Appropriations leadership advocating for increased funding for MIOTCRA.

Print this Page

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication

Criminology

• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Problem-Solving Courts

Introduction, general overviews.

• Anthologies
• Reference Resources
• Transforming Behavior
• Public Defenders
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice
• Drug Courts
• Mental Health Courts
• Reentry Courts
• Domestic Violence Courts
• Family Courts
• Community Courts
• Practical Efficacy
• Race and Class Issues
• Social and Legal Critiques
• Challenging the Court-Centered Model
• The Problem of Net Widening
• Proposals for Reform
• Extension to Foreign Jurisdictions

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Communicating Scientific Findings in the Courtroom
• Community-Based Justice Systems
• Community-Based Substance Use Prevention
• Crime Control Policy
• Plea Bargaining
• Prosecution and Courts
• Sentencing Policy
• The Juvenile Justice System
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Education Programs in Prison
• Mixed Methods Research in Criminal Justice and Criminology
• Victim Impact Statements
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Problem-Solving Courts by Eric J. Miller LAST REVIEWED: 06 November 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 14 April 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0073

Problem-solving courts are a recent and increasingly widespread alternative to traditional models of case management in criminal and civil courts. Defying simple definition, such courts encompass a loosely related group of practice areas and styles. Courts range from those addressing criminal justice issues, such as drug courts, mental health courts, reentry courts, domestic violence courts, and juvenile courts, to those less directly connected with traditional criminal justice issues, including family courts, homelessness courts, and community courts, to name just a few. Most courts, however, share some distinctive common features: channeling offenders away from traditional forms of legal regulation or punishment, relying on a more or less lengthy program of supervision and intervention that utilizes the informal or institutional authority of the judge, and a robust toleration of relapse backed by a graduated series of sanctions directed at altering the participants’ problematic conduct. These courts work to stream participants out of the traditional legal system either at the front end, prior to judgment being entered, or at the back end, as a consequence of entry of judgment, but prior to sentencing or other case disposition. Many, but not all, of these courts subscribe to the practice of either therapeutic or restorative justice (or both).

The major texts listed here are mostly book-length treatments and articles that covering issues common to the problem-solving courts in general by focusing on discrete court styles. Nolan 2001 ; Hora, et al. 1999 ; and Mackinem and Higgins 2008 discuss drug courts, whereas Berman, et al. 2005 ; Casey and Rottman 2005 ; Thompson 2002 ; and Winick 2003 are principally interested in the neighborhood or quality-of-life courts. Furthermore, the authors provide variable depth of treatment, often determined by the type of analysis. Berman, et al. 2005 ; Hora, et al. 1999 ; and Winick 2003 have all played an active role in developing various aspects of problem-solving court practice: they tend to focus on descriptions of court operation and practical impact. Articles written by law professors, social scientists, or anthropologists, such as Thompson 2002 , Mackinem and Higgins 2008 , and Fagan and Malkin 2003 , tend to place problem-solving courts in a more theoretically oriented style of analysis, bringing to bear core legal values, or sociological or cultural critique.

Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice . New York: New Press.

Broad and accessible overview of problem-solving courts, and in particular those addressing quality-of-life issues, against the background of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Casey, Pamela M., and David B. Rottman. 2005. Problem-solving courts: Models and trends . Justice System Journal 26.1: 35–56.

Simple and effective overview of the key elements of different styles of problem-solving courts. Suitable for all levels of study

Fagan, Jeffrey, and Victoria Malkin. 2003. Theorizing community justice through community courts . Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 897–954.

Seminal examination of the manner in which community courts use the problem-solving method to generate public legitimacy for low-level criminal courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug-treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America . Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

One of the essential works on the drug court movement and the use of therapeutic justice in the courtroom. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

Mackinem, Mitchell B., and Paul Higgins. 2008. Drug court: Constructing the moral identity of drug offenders . Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

A thorough and informative study of all aspects of drug-court operation, paying particular attention to the perspective of drug court participants. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement . Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

The most important single work on drug courts, and a seminal study of the problem-solving movement from a sociological perspective. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Thompson, Anthony C. 2002. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

Discussing the emergence of the community court movement and the features it shares with other forms of problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Winick, Bruce J. 2003. Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts . Fordham Urban Law Journal 30.3: 1055–1103.

Seminal overview of problem-solving courts from the perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence, written by one of the founders of the therapeutic justice movement. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Criminology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Active Offender Research
• Adler, Freda
• Adversarial System of Justice
• Adverse Childhood Experiences
• Aging Prison Population, The
• Airport and Airline Security
• Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
• Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
• Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
• Animals, Crimes Against
• Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
• Bail and Pretrial Detention
• Batterer Intervention Programs
• Bentham, Jeremy
• Big Data and Communities and Crime
• Biosocial Criminology
• Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
• Blumstein, Alfred
• Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
• Burglary, Residential
• Bystander Intervention
• Capital Punishment
• Chambliss, William
• Chicago School of Criminology, The
• Child Maltreatment
• Chinese Triad Society
• Civil Protection Orders
• Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
• Collective Efficacy
• Commercial and Bank Robbery
• Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
• Community Change and Crime
• Community Corrections
• Community Disadvantage and Crime
• Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
• CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
• Confessions, False and Coerced
• Conservation Criminology
• Consumer Fraud
• Contextual Analysis of Crime
• Control Balance Theory
• Convict Criminology
• Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
• Corporate Crime
• Costs of Crime and Justice
• Courts, Drug
• Courts, Juvenile
• Courts, Mental Health
• Courts, Problem-Solving
• Crime and Justice in Latin America
• Crime, Campus
• Crime Control, Politics of
• Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
• Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
• Crime Prevention, Situational
• Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
• Crime Trends
• Crime Victims' Rights Movement
• Criminal Career Research
• Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
• Criminal Justice Data Sources
• Criminal Justice Ethics
• Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
• Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
• Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
• Criminal Records
• Criminal Retaliation
• Criminal Talk
• Criminology and Political Science
• Criminology of Genocide, The
• Critical Criminology
• Cross-National Crime
• Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
• Cultural Criminology
• Cultural Theories
• Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
• Cycle of Violence
• Deadly Force
• Defense Counsel
• Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
• Developmental and Life-Course Criminology
• Digital Piracy
• Driving and Traffic Offenses
• Drug Control
• Drug Trafficking, International
• Drugs and Crime
• Elder Abuse
• Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
• Employee Theft
• Environmental Crime and Justice
• Experimental Criminology
• Family Violence
• Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
• Felon Disenfranchisement
• Feminist Theories
• Feminist Victimization Theories
• Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
• Firearms and Violence
• Forensic Science
• For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
• Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
• Gender and Crime
• Gendered Crime Pathways
• General Opportunity Victimization Theories
• Genetics, Environment, and Crime
• Green Criminology
• Halfway Houses
• Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
• Hate Crime Legislation
• Healthcare Fraud
• Hirschi, Travis
• History of Crime in the United Kingdom
• History of Criminology
• Homelessness and Crime
• Homicide Victimization
• Honor Cultures and Violence
• Hot Spots Policing
• Human Rights
• Human Trafficking
• Identity Theft
• Immigration, Crime, and Justice
• Incarceration, Mass
• Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
• Income Tax Evasion
• Indigenous Criminology
• Institutional Anomie Theory
• Integrated Theory
• Intermediate Sanctions
• Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
• Interrogation
• Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
• Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
• Investigation, Criminal
• Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System, The
• Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
• Labeling Theory
• Labor Markets and Crime
• Land Use and Crime
• Lead and Crime
• LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
• LGBTQ People in Prison
• Life Without Parole Sentencing
• Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
• Lombroso, Cesare
• Longitudinal Research in Criminology
• Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
• Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
• Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
• Measuring Crime
• Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
• Mental Health and Crime
• Merton, Robert K.
• Meta-analysis in Criminology
• Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
• Migrant Detention and Incarceration
• Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
• Money Laundering
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Multi-Level Marketing Scams
• Murder, Serial
• Narrative Criminology
• National Deviancy Symposia, The
• Nature Versus Nurture
• Neighborhood Disorder
• Neutralization Theory
• New Penology, The
• Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
• Offense Specialization/Expertise
• Organized Crime
• Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
• Panel Methods in Criminology
• Peacemaking Criminology
• Peer Networks and Delinquency
• Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
• Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
• Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
• Phenomenological Theories of Crime
• Police Administration
• Police Cooperation, International
• Police Discretion
• Police Effectiveness
• Police History
• Police Militarization
• Police Misconduct
• Police, Race and the
• Police Use of Force
• Police, Violence against the
• Policing and Law Enforcement
• Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
• Policing, Broken Windows
• Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
• Policing Cybercrime
• Policing, Evidence-Based
• Policing, Intelligence-Led
• Policing, Privatization of
• Policing, Proactive
• Policing, School
• Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
• Policing, Third Party
• Polyvictimization
• Positivist Criminology
• Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
• Pretrial Diversion
• Prison Administration
• Prison Classification
• Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
• Prison Education Exchange Programs
• Prison Gangs and Subculture
• Prison History
• Prison Labor
• Prison Visitation
• Prisoner Reentry
• Prisons and Jails
• Prisons, HIV in
• Private Security
• Probation Revocation
• Procedural Justice
• Property Crime
• Prostitution
• Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
• Psychology and Crime
• Public Criminology
• Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
• Public Order Crimes
• Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
• Punishment Justification and Goals
• Qualitative Methods in Criminology
• Queer Criminology
• Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
• Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
• Racial Threat Hypothesis
• Racial Profiling
• Rape and Sexual Assault
• Rape, Fear of
• Rational Choice Theories
• Rehabilitation
• Religion and Crime
• Restorative Justice
• Risk Assessment
• Routine Activity Theories
• School Bullying
• School Crime and Violence
• School Safety, Security, and Discipline
• Search Warrants
• Seasonality and Crime
• Self-Control, The General Theory:
• Self-Report Crime Surveys
• Sentencing Enhancements
• Sentencing, Evidence-Based
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
• Sex Trafficking
• Sexual Revictimization
• Situational Action Theory
• Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
• Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
• Social Construction of Crime, The
• Social Control of Tobacco Use
• Social Control Theory
• Social Disorganization
• Social Ecology of Crime
• Social Learning Theory
• Social Networks
• Social Threat and Social Control
• Solitary Confinement
• South Africa, Crime and Justice in
• Sport Mega-Events Security
• Stalking and Harassment
• State Crime
• State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
• Strain Theories
• Street Code
• Street Robbery
• Substance Use and Abuse
• Surveillance, Public and Private
• Sutherland, Edwin H.
• Technology and the Criminal Justice System
• Technology, Criminal Use of
• Terrorism and Hate Crime
• Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
• Testimony, Eyewitness
• Trajectory Methods in Criminology
• Transnational Crime
• Truth-In-Sentencing
• Urban Politics and Crime
• US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
• Victimization, Adolescent
• Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
• Victimization Patterns and Trends
• Victimization, Repeat
• Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
• Victimless Crime
• Victim-Offender Overlap, The
• Violence Against Women
• Violence, Youth
• Violent Crime
• White-Collar Crime
• White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
• White-Collar Crime, Women and
• Wilson, James Q.
• Wolfgang, Marvin
• Women, Girls, and Reentry
• Wrongful Conviction
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

25 Rehabilitative Justice: Problem-Solving Courts

Shelby Arnold, Beck Institute

Alice Thornewill, Independent Practice

Kirk Heilbrun, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Drexel University

David DeMatteo, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Drexel University R. Kline School of Law, Drexel University

• Published: 23 February 2023
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reviews the context, history, and development of problem-solving courts. We describe common components, the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model and clinical interventions, the range of courts and their unique focus, along with the strengths and limitations of the problem-solving court model. We then review the research base for key types of problem-solving courts (e.g., drug courts and mental health courts), with a focus on meta-analytic research whenever possible and a discussion of methodological challenges and limitations of the literature. The chapter also highlights the ethical and legal considerations for problem-solving courts and outlines areas for future research and development.

The overrepresentation of individuals with behavioral health challenges in the criminal justice system is striking. An estimated 25–40 percent of individuals with mental health disorders will become involved with the criminal justice system at some point in their lives ( Hasselbrack, 2001 ), and a recent estimate found that approximately 1 million individuals with a major mental disorder are currently justice involved ( Peterson et al., 2014 ). These figures increase when substance abuse is taken into account, with more than 80 percent of criminal offenders presenting with a substance-related offense or a substance abuse problem ( DeMatteo et al., 2015 ).

Research indicates, however, that mental illness does not have a clear or direct relationship with criminal offending ( Andrews et al., 2006 ). Rather, offenders with mental illness may be more likely to recidivate based on factors such as insecure housing, lack of employment, ongoing substance abuse problems, and victimization ( Skeem et al., 2011 ). With regard to substance abuse, research shows that an estimated 95 percent of offenders relapse within three years of release from incarceration ( DeMatteo et al., 2015 ). These data are concerning given the high rates of recidivism among offenders with substance abuse problems, with some studies showing a 200–400 percent increase in reoffense risk for substance-using offenders ( Bennett et al., 2008 ). Research also shows that co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are related to even higher levels of recidivism and criminogenic risk (e.g., Balyakina et al., 2014 ).

This chapter focuses on problem-solving courts, a judicial intervention developed to address the high rates of offenders with behavioral health challenges. We begin by discussing common elements, strengths, and limitations across various types of problem-solving courts. We then review the research for key types of problem-solving courts, with a focus on meta-analytic research whenever possible and a discussion of methodological challenges and limitations of the literature. Finally, we discuss the ethical and legal considerations for problem-solving courts and areas for future research and development.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Alternatives to Standard Prosecution

The overrepresentation of mental health and substance use disorders in the criminal justice system can be usefully considered through the model of therapeutic jurisprudence, a rehabilitative legal approach that relies on behavioral science to increase the therapeutic impact of the legal system ( Winick, 2013 ; Wexler & Winick, 1996 ). Problem-solving justice represents an outgrowth of therapeutic jurisprudence and is guided by the following principles: (1) enhanced information to allow courts to make more informed decisions regarding rehabilitation; (2) increased community engagement, especially between justice-involved individuals and the public; (3) collaboration between legal partners and community stakeholders; (4) individualized approach to treatment and legal consequences; (5) increased accountability and monitoring for justice-involved individuals; and (6) ongoing research to evaluate effectiveness of problem-solving interventions and facilitate ongoing improvements (see Berman, 2009 ; Wolf, 2007 ).

Standard criminal justice processing for offenders with mental health or substance use challenges has not produced significant improvement in terms of drug abuse, mental health, or recidivism rates ( Heilbrun et al., 2012 ). Partly as a result, a paradigm shift toward a rehabilitative justice model has been taking place over the last two decades that has included the development of a variety of alternative methods to standard prosecution. These alternative methods typically consist of individualized interventions tailored to address the unique behavioral health needs and specific risk factors of certain offenders ( DeMatteo et al., 2013 ). This rehabilitative approach aims to identify and target the criminogenic and behavioral health needs of an offender, and as a result reduce the likelihood of future offending ( Skeem & Monahan, 2011 ).

History and Development of Problem-Solving Courts

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) were developed for offenders with mental health and substance use disorders. PSCs are an alternative to standard prosecution that focus on treating the psychological issues underlying criminal behavior. In 1989, the first PSC was established in Dade Country, Florida. This court, a drug court, targeted the revolving door of drug-related cases facing criminal courts in that county. Since then, there has been a proliferation of drugs courts across the country. As of 2016, there were more than 3,000 operational drugs courts in the United States serving more than 125,000 offenders each year ( Marlowe et al., 2016 ). These drug courts were unique from typical criminal courts in that they provided judicial oversight over treatment, mandatory drug testing, and rehabilitative treatment. On the heels of the rapid growth and success of drug courts came the development of several other types of PSCs, including mental health courts, veterans courts, DUI courts, family dependency courts, co-occurring disorder courts, reentry courts, gambling courts, community courts, truancy courts, and domestic violence courts.

Given the distinctive nature of PSCs, only certain offenders are eligible for participation; violent offenders or those with certain charges (e.g., sex offenses and arson) are typically precluded ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). However, there is substantial variability among PSCs in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria for participants. Some PSCs accept participants with certain types of felony charges whereas others only include those with misdemeanors ( Hiday & Ray, 2010 ). Some PSCs require participants to plead guilty as a condition of participation whereas others do not have any plea requirements ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). Mental health courts typically require that participants have a DSM-5 ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 5th edition) diagnosis, whereas participants in drugs courts typically need an established substance use history ( Wolff et al., 2011 ). Finally, PSC participants are typically required to agree to comply with prescribed treatment and heightened court supervision.

General Strengths and Limitations of Problem-Solving Courts

To better understand the nature of the specific types of PSCs (discussed later in this chapter), it is useful to describe the strengths and limitations of these courts. In terms of strengths, empirical evidence suggests that the PSC model is effective in addressing drug use, mental health symptoms, and recidivism. Moreover, these courts increase offender access to treatment and services, lead to better-informed judges and legal actors, and enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system ( Berman & Feinblatt, 2002 ). Moreover, the public appears to support the paradigm shift away from traditional punishment and toward a rehabilitative model. Criticisms include concerns about potential violations of the constitutional rights of participants, a lack of clarity on how to blend traditional roles of legal actors with the collaborative team approach, and potential judicial overreach ( Berman & Feinblatt, 2002 ).

Problem-Solving Court Stakeholders

Given the distinctive nature of PSCs, stakeholders, including the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, case managers, and community treatment providers, play unique roles. PSC judges work collaboratively with the legal actors and community providers to address the needs of participants, a major departure from the standard criminal court approach that involves imposing a punishment based almost entirely on the defendant’s charge (Wolf, 2007). While the judge takes a more active role, defense attorneys in PSCs typically take a less active role to allow the participant and judge to communicate and support the treatment recommendations of the PSC team ( Berman & Feinblatt, 2002 ). Prosecutors are also encouraged to relinquish the adversarial approach and work collaboratively with defense attorneys and the rest of the team ( Faraci, 2004 ). PSCs often include case managers to gather detailed information about the mental health and/or substance use issues of participants and help legal stakeholders make informed treatment decisions ( Wolf, 2007 ). Finally, active involvement of community treatment providers is essential to facilitate treatment referrals, educate legal actors, and provide services ( Wolf, 2007 ).

The Risk–Needs–Responsivity Model and Clinical Interventions

The aim of PSCs is to reduce recidivism by targeting behavioral health needs underlying criminal behavior, so it is important to understand the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model as a framework for evaluating criminogenic risk factors and addressing clinical needs ( Andrews et al., 1990 ). According to the risk principle, those with higher risk levels should receiver higher levels of intervention or treatment ( Andrews et al., 1990 ). The need principle posits that treatment should target an individual’s specific criminogenic risk factors, which may include antisocial personality patterns, criminal thinking, problematic peer relationships, substance abuse, poor family relationships, limited educational/vocational achievements, and lack of prosocial leisure activities ( Andrews et al., 2006 ). Finally, according to the responsivity principle, treatment should be evidence-based and individualized to meet the unique needs of each individual ( Andrews et al., 2006 ).

Several empirically-supported interventions may be used in PSCs. Cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) interventions focus on identifying and reframing distorted thoughts that may cause distressing emotions and in turn lead to problematic behavior ( Beck, 1976 ). In criminal justice settings, CBT interventions may help offenders identify and reframe criminal thinking, such as justification of offending behavior, blame displacement, entitlement, or irrational optimism ( Heilbrun et al., 2016 ; Lipsey et al., 2007 ). Such interventions also focus on skill developing, such as anger management, relapse prevention, and social skills training ( Lipsey et al., 2007 ). Examples of justice-specific CBT interventions include Thinking for a Change (Bush et al., 1997) and Reasoning and Rehabilitation (Ross et al., 1986) .

Problem-solving interventions are used to address poor problem-solving skills that may lead to risky behavior patterns such as drug use or aggression ( Heilbrun et al., 2016 ). These interventions focus on training based on cognitive problem-solving models (e.g., Spivack et al., 1976 ) and therapy using the social problem-solving framework (e.g., D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971 ) to help offenders recognize problematic thinking and develop skills to apply in challenging situations. Examples of specific problem-solving interventions include Think First ( McGuire & Hatcher, 2001 ) and Stop & Think ( McMurran et al., 2008 ). Given the relationship between substance use and risk, recommended substance use interventions include therapeutic communities, which incorporate intensive individual and group therapy focused on addiction and developing strategies to manage urges and triggers ( Inciardi et al., 2004 ), or twelve-step programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous) ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ).

Research Summary

The research base supporting the effectiveness of PSCs has grown considerably over the past twenty-five years, but it is not without its challenges and limitations. This section reviews the evidence for key types of PSCs, with a specific focus on large-scale, multisite, and meta-analytic research. Although there are more specific types of PSCs than those addressed below (e.g., gambling courts and gun courts), there was little to no available research on their effectiveness, so they are not included in the summary. We also discuss methodological considerations and shortcomings within the available literature.

Drug Courts

The research base on drug courts is the largest among PSCs and includes several large-scale or meta-analytic reviews. Unlike other types of PSCs, many of these studies also evaluate the impact of drug courts on target clinical outcomes (e.g., substance use and relapse). In general, research supports drug courts as an effective intervention for reducing substance use and recidivism.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on drug courts show generally positive outcomes (reduced recidivism) for drug court graduates despite some limitations in the data (e.g., Deschenes et al., 1995 ; Gottfredson et al., 2003 ). A fifteen-year follow-up study was recently published for the RCT conducted in Baltimore City’s Drug Treatment Court, and it found reduced rates of arrest, charges, and convictions for drug court participants, but no significant differences in length of time spent incarcerated ( Kearley & Gottfredson, 2020 ).

Summative research on drug courts began approximately ten years after their creation, and these early reports concluded they were successful at reducing recidivism (e.g., Belenko, 2001 ). Numerous studies on individual drug courts have been used as the basis for several key meta-analytic studies, most of which report positive outcomes for drug court graduates. A meta-analysis by Mitchell et al. (2012) included ninety-two evaluations of drug courts and found an average drop in recidivism from 50 percent to 38 percent at a three-year follow-up. Prior meta-analyses that included both experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations showed effect sizes representing an 8–26 percent decrease in recidivism, with most in the 8–14 percent range ( Drake et al., 2009 ; Lowenkamp et al., 2005 ; Shaffer, 2011 ; Wilson et al., 2006 ). Though positive outcomes are seen on a larger scale, individual studies show mixed results, with approximately 15 percent of drug courts showing no significant impact on recidivism ( Logan & Link, 2019 ). Further, a small percentage of programs (6 percent) have been associated with increases in recidivism ( Lowenkamp et al., 2005 ; Shaffer, 2006 ).

Mitchell et al. (2012) conducted the only meta-analysis that includes future substance use as an outcome. However, of the ninety-two studies included in this meta-analysis, only nine incorporated a measure of participants’ substance use in follow-up research and only four looked at adult drug courts ( Mitchell et al., 2012 ). Multisite studies show that drug court graduates experience overall reductions in substance use but not consistently to the extent of statistical significance (e.g., Green & Rempel, 2012 ; Rossman, Rempel, et al., 2011 ).

As noted above, recidivism outcomes are somewhat less promising. In a meta-analysis by Sevigny et al. (2013) , participants were less likely to be reincarcerated but did not show a reduction in the length of time spent incarcerated, suggesting the possibility that those who fail drug court programs face equally long, if not longer, sentences that offset the overall reduction in reincarceration rates. In a recent multisite national study of approximately 2,300 drug court participants, older age and employment emerged as protective factors against rearrests ( Wilson et al., 2018 ).

Some studies have also examined the impact of drug courts on additional social and economic outcomes. The Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) found that drug courts improve access to educational/vocational and treatment-related services for offenders, and that they positively affect family and other social relationships ( Green & Rempel, 2012 ; Rossman, Rempel, et al., 2011 ). Drug court participation does not appear to have a significant impact on housing, financial status, and mental health ( Rossman, Rempel, et al., 2011 ). Cost-benefit analyses show mixed results on whether drug courts save money for their respective communities ( Belenko et al., 2005 ; Bhati et al., 2008 ; Government Accountability Office, 2011 ).

In summary, the drug court literature is the most well developed of all problem-solving courts. Drug courts appear to be an effect intervention for reducing recidivism, while also improving substance use outcomes for participants. Though the research on additional outcomes (e.g., jail time, social service access, and cost-effectiveness) is mixed, these outcomes are less frequently evaluated and thus would be a useful area for the development of the research base.

Mental Health Courts

The research on mental health courts is notably limited compared to drug courts, especially considering their widespread proliferation. Although many single court studies have been published, very little aggregate research has been conducted. Meta-analyses have a limited sample size due to significant methodological flaws of the individual studies. (For a summary of single-court program evaluations and peer-reviewed articles, see DeMatteo et al., 2019 .)

The focus of meta-analyses and systematic reviews has been on mental health courts’ impact on recidivism. The first meta-analysis of mental health courts included eighteen studies and showed that mental health courts are moderately effective in reducing recidivism ( d = 0.54), but this study had notable limitations in inclusion criteria and statistical methods ( Sarteschi et al., 2011 ). A 2015 systematic review found that most studies (twelve of fifteen) reported significant recidivism reduction for participants ( Honegger, 2015 ). A 2018 meta-analysis (which included studies through 2015) analyzed seventeen studies and found a small effect of mental health court participation on recidivism reduction ( d = 0.20), but the methodological limitations of the individual studies should be considered when interpreting these results ( Lowder et al., 2018 ). An additional meta-analysis that included twenty-four studies supports the conclusion that mental health courts have a small effect on recidivism ( Arnold, 2019 ).

Mental health–related outcomes are a less common focus of research despite being a treatment goal of mental health courts. Less than half of the studies included in meta-analyses evaluated a mental health outcome in addition to a recidivism outcome ( Arnold, 2019 ; Honnegger, 2015). Though many single court studies included a measure of mental health, the heterogeneity of how this was operationally defined (e.g., well-established measures vs. locally developed symptom ratings, connection to treatment services, crisis service utilization, and hospitalization rates) makes it challenging to synthesize findings on a broad level (see DeMatteo et al., 2019 , for a summary).

Overall, the research on mental health courts shows a small to moderate impact on recidivism and suggests promise as an intervention. However, the research base has notable methodological flaws. All the meta-analyses discussed are limited by idiosyncrasies within the individual studies, suggesting that these courts are more challenging to research. Furthermore, the evidence that mental health courts have a positive impact on mental health–related outcomes is limited and mixed, highlighting a need for future research.

Veterans Treatment Courts

There is very little research on veterans treatment courts. There are fewer such courts—and they are relatively new. A survey of fourteen veterans treatment courts conducted just a few years after their inception revealed a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent, but the limited number of graduates across the courts ( N = 59) limits meaningful conclusions ( Holbrook & Anderson, 2011 ). A few single court and large-scale studies show promising reductions in recidivism, but they did not use a comparison group in their analyses and must be interpreted with caution ( Commaroto et al., 2011 ; Tsai et al., 2018 ). Veterans treatment courts show promise in reducing symptoms of substance abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ( Slattery et al., 2013 ; Tsai et al., 2018 ), but many studies of veterans treatment courts have significant methodological limitations (e.g., use of qualitative or anecdotal data, lack of or biased comparison groups; see Christy et al., 2012 ), and there is a great need for future research to better gauge their effectiveness.

Reentry Courts

Reentry court research is less developed than that of drug courts and mental health courts, with very few multisite or meta-analytic studies. The research focuses primarily on process evaluations or implementation lessons rather than outcomes (Lindquist et al., 2004 , 2013 ). Although some studies report reductions in recidivism rates for participants (e.g., Administrative Office of the Courts, 2012 ; Hamilton 2010 ; Spelman, 2003 ), some research shows poorer outcomes for reentry court participants (e.g., Severson et al., 2011 ; Wilson & Davis, 2006 ). One large-scale multisite study across sixteen reentry courts did not find any significant differences in recidivism between reentry court participants and nonparticipants (Lattimore & Visher, 2009 , 2014 ). However, researchers found improvements across other domains for reentry court participants, such as substance abuse, housing, and employment ( Lattimore & Visher, 2009 ). For a thorough discussion of model reentry courts and a summary of process evaluations, see DeMatteo et al., 2019 . Overall, researchers note that the support for reentry courts is promising, but not enough to draw robust conclusions about their effectiveness ( Lindquist et al., 2013 ; Marlowe et al., 2016 ).

Methodological Challenges

Research supporting PSCs has grown considerably in recent decades, but not all courts are as well studied as others and many evaluations have notable limitations that impact the ability to draw conclusions about effectiveness. Drug courts are well researched and well supported, but the expansion of mental health courts seems to have outpaced the research, though they show promise. There is a small body of research on other types of PSCs (e.g., reentry courts and veterans treatment courts), highlighting a great area of need within the field. PSC research is challenging due to logistical, ethical, and legal concerns, and this section discusses key limitations in the PSC literature.

One key limitation of PSC research is the lack of RCTs (DeMatteo et al., 2011 , 2019 ). True random selection and assignment in these settings is challenging and raises ethical and legal concerns about fair criminal justice processing ( Government Accountability Office, 2005 ). As a result, most PSC evaluations are quasi-experimental, focusing on participants in the court and a similar group of nonparticipants. Although quasi-experimental studies can provide important information, these studies must be interpreted with caution and do not permit defensible causal inferences ( Kazdin, 2017 ).

Within existing studies, sample-related issues also limit generalizability of findings. Many studies are comprised of relatively small samples. This limitation is seen among drug courts (e.g., Latimer et al., 2006 ), mental health courts (e.g., Arnold, 2019 ), reentry courts ( Listswan, 2008 ), and DUI courts ( Miller et al., 2015 ). Small sample size and high attrition rates also complicate the ability to conduct longitudinal research, highlighting an additional limitation of many studies. Further, samples included in PSC research often do not accurately represent the demographic characteristics in the criminal justice system. For example, researchers have observed an overrepresentation of White female participants in drug courts and mental health courts, suggesting that results from studies relying on these samples may not apply to the criminal justice population ( Hiday et al., 2005 ; Sarteschi et al., 2011 ).

Another important limitation of many PSC studies relates to comparison groups. Many published studies do not use a comparison group, and many of the studies that include comparison groups struggle to accurately match samples. Moreover, due to the lack of randomization, there may be unique differences between individuals who choose versus decline to participate in PSCs ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). Differences between groups may also be reflected in idiosyncratic inclusion criteria (e.g., some courts choose to accept only lower-risk offenders), which can skew or artificially inflate positive outcomes ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ).

Another issue frequently raised with PSC research is the process by which data are collected. Critics have suggested researchers rely on biased control groups, withhold data from participants who do not successfully complete court requirements, and overuse self-report measures ( Fischer, 2003 ; Rowland, 2016 ). Further, outcome variables between studies may appear to be similar but may involve differences in how the variables are measured. Also, although recidivism is an important outcome, some studies focus exclusively on recidivism to the exclusion of other important outcomes. Further, although PSCs include many similar elements, there are multiple models for each type of PSC, and the services offered vary based on the resources available in a given community, which impacts the ability to conduct meta-analyses. Finally, research is limited by funding and permissions; many evaluations have been conducted on government-funded courts using government funding, but conducting research on courts without such funding may be challenging.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

Given that PSCs represent a major component of the paradigm shift toward a rehabilitative model within the justice system, particular emphasis must be placed on the legal considerations that accompany these courts. Considerations in this domain include how specialty courts impact constitutional rights in pleadings and competency, the role of the judge and the defense attorney, and the implications for procedural justice.

Constitutional rights are particularly relevant in PSCs because participants are typically required to waive some of their constitutional rights to enter the court (e.g., Hoffman, 1999 ; Nolan, 2003 ). According to the First Amendment’s establishment clause, the state cannot coerce an individual to engage in a religious activity, 1 and several PSCs have been prohibited from requiring participants to engage in treatment programs with religious elements, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. 2 As such, a specialty court may only mandate treatment if participants are presented with a range of treatment programs that include secular options. 3 Specialty courts may ban participants from certain geographical locations or associating with certain people ( Meyer, 2011 ), but restrictions that are not reasonable or not narrowly prescribed may violate the Freedom of Speech and Association Clause of the First Amendment. 4 For instance, a geographical restriction requiring the defendant to avoid any place where alcohol was sold, provided, or consumed was found to be overly broad and thus in violation of the First Amendment by an Ohio appellate court. 5 An overly broad association restriction was identified by an Alaska appellate court when it overturned a requirement that a defendant be prohibited from engaging in any unsupervised interactions with his wife, who was an active drug user. 6

The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the state from performing searches without probable cause, has also been considered as it relates to PSCs. 7 For instance, the Supreme Court has found it constitutional for drug courts to require participants to waive their Fourth Amendment rights and undergo searches without probable cause as a condition of participating in the court ( Meyer, 2011 ). 8 In addition, courts have found it constitutional to search specialty court participants based on “reasonable suspicion” alone (rather than the stricter standard of probable cause) 9 and to protect public safety. 10 Some courts have found that specialty court participants who waive their Fourth Amendment rights may be searched even without any reason or suspicion of wrongdoing. 11 The Fourth Amendment also protects participants with regard to drug testing, as conditional drug testing must be reasonable and tailored to the participant. 12

Several concerns have arisen regarding the ability PSCs to adhere to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, which entitles all criminal defendants to equal treatment under the law and procedural protections. 13 These concerns include the nonadversarial method, potential paternalism of the judge, and increased oversight over participants’ behaviors ( Meyer, 2011 ).

The nonadversarial approach of PSCs emphasizes collaboration among the legal actors and stakeholders, which raises concerns regarding the defense attorney’s ability to be a zealous advocate, especially as it relates to plea bargaining or interacting with the judge ( Lane, 2002 ). A defense attorney who is collaborating with the prosecutor and the judge to determine the best court of action for the participant may risk losing vigor in exercising their duty to protect the best interests of the defendant.

Similarly, a PSC judge may struggle to adhere to their due process requirement to remain impartial, 14 as PSC judges are not only expected to have an active role in the proceedings,but to engage in informal communications with the PSC team and participant ( Meyer, 2011 ). Although this more involved role may lead to positive outcomes for participants, including individualized treatment plans, it also creates more opportunity for judicial bias and may cloud a judge’s ability to recognize when recusal is appropriate. Based on these considerations, some courts have held that a judge other than the PSC judge overseeing a participant’s case should oversee termination hearings, 15 while other courts have found no need for an alternate judge. 16

The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause requires that similarly situated individuals be treated equally under the law. 17 As such, this right may be at issue when only certain individuals are permitted to engage in a PSC program. For drug courts, most challenges on this basis have been rejected; courts have found it is permissible for drugs courts to only accept certain individuals on the basis that they have a legitimate government interest in doing so. 18 Similarly, the fact that PSCs are not available in all jurisdictions has not been deemed an equal protection violation. In several cases, the rationale for these findings is that a jurisdiction’s decision to not fund such a court can be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 19

Given the distinctive nature of PSCs, the role of procedural justice—defined as a defendant’s rights to be treated with respect, have their voice heard in court, and be approached with impartiality—is particularly important. Research demonstrates that PSC participants feel they are treated fairly and respectfully ( Dollar et al., 2018 ; Gottfredson et al., 2007 ; Poythress et al., 2002 ; Redlich & Han, 2014 ; Wales et al., 2010 ). Studies have shown that perceptions of procedural justice in mental health courts is related to improvement of mental health symptoms ( Kopelovich et al., 2013 ), improved coping skills ( Ray & Dollar, 2014 ), and increased compliance ( Redlich & Han, 2014 ). Research on procedural justice within drug courts has produced similar results ( Rossman, Rempel, et al., 2011 ). Notably, however, a recent study found that Black PSC participants perceived significantly less procedural justice than their White counterparts ( Atkin-Plunk et al., in press ).

Future Directions

As more jurisdictions develop PSCs, it is important to clarify best practices in establishing and running these courts. Jurisdictions seeking to establish specialty courts should (1) develop the court based on the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, (2) partner with providers who can administer evidence-based treatment, (3) design courts to meet the specific needs of a jurisdiction, and (4) clearly define the roles of stakeholders involved to effectively shift into a collaborative model.

Those working toward the establishment and expansion of PSCs should focus on incorporating components that have been supported by empirical evidence, specifically the evidence-based RNR model. The RNR model provides a valuable framework for identifying risks and needs and developing appropriate treatment to meet the individual needs of PSC participants ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). Specialty courts should consider using this model to streamline certain elements of PSCs, including establishing efficient processes, defining clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, selecting evidence-based treatments to be used, and identifying clear outcome measures for program evaluation ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ).

As noted above, a major concern in studying PSCs relates to the significant variability among these courts. Not only do the various types of specialty courts differ from one another (i.e., drug courts primarily target substance abuse while mental health courts primarily target psychological disorders), but there is substantial variability within each type of specialty court. Although PSCs broadly adhere to a nonadversarial approach and aim to provide enhanced supervision and treatment to participants, there is wide variability in terms of composition and size of the courts, methods of referrals, inclusion criteria for participation, level/types of community partnerships, use of sanctions/rewards, and levels of oversight/monitoring ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). It is important to recognize this variability and its impact on research and program evaluation.

Although there is a robust and broad evidence base supporting drugs courts, other specialty courts have not been researched to the same extent. As the number of these courts continue to grow, conducting more empirical research will be vital to their success. Specifically, mental health courts could benefit from more large-scale studies and meta-analyses of the current research base. In addition, research and program evaluation should be conducted on the many specialized PSCs that have been established in the last few decades, including reentry courts, veterans courts, domestic violence courts, and gun courts. Such research is essential to determining the effectiveness of these courts on recidivism reduction and improvement of clinical functioning, as well as facilitating future growth and dissemination of problem-solving justice ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ). Finally, perhaps the most important future consideration for PSCs has to do with their chronic underrepresentation of minority populations (see Marlowe et al., 2016 ). Given the rampant racial inequity currently permeating the criminal justice system, researching this underrepresentation and identifying means of combating it should be a top priority ( DeMatteo et al., 2019 ).

Administrative Office of the Courts. ( 2012 ). A preliminary look at California parolee reentry courts . http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCBriefParolee0612.pdf

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J. , & Hoge, R. D. ( 1990 ). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology.   Criminal Justice and Behavior , 17 (1), 19–52.

Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J. , & Wormith, J. S. ( 2006 ). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment.   Crime and Delinquency , 52 (1), 7–27.

Arnold, S. ( 2019 ). A meta-analysis of mental health courts: State of the research and recommendations . (Publication No. 13903275) [Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University]. Proquest Dissertations.

Atkin-Plunk, C. A. , Peck, J. H. , & Armstrong, G. S. ( in press ). Do race and ethnicity matter? An examination of racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of procedural justice and recidivism among problem-solving court clients.   Race and Justice .

Balyakina, E. , Mann, C. , Ellison, M. , Sivernell, R. , Fulda, K. G. , Sarai, S. K. , & Cardarelli, R. ( 2014 ). Risk of future offense among probationers with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders.   Community Mental Health Journal , 50 (3), 288–295.

Beck, A. T. ( 1976 ). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders . International Universities Press.

Belenko, S. ( 2001 ). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update . National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Belenko, S. , Patapis, N. , & French, M. T. ( 2005 ). Economic benefits of drug treatment: A critical review of the evidence for policy makers . Treatment Research Institute.

Bennett, T. , Holloway, K. , & Farrington, D. ( 2008 ). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis.   Aggression and Violent Behavior , 13 (2), 107–118.

Berman, G. ( 2009 ). Problem-solving justice and the moment of truth. In P. Higgins & M. B. Mackinem (Eds.), Problem-solving courts: Justice for the twenty-first century? (pp. 1–11). Praeger.

Berman, G. , & Feinblatt, J. ( 2002 ). Judges and problem-solving courts . http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/JudgesProblemSolvingCourts1.pdf .

Bhati, A. , Roman, J. K. , & Chalfin, A. ( 2008 ). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders . Urban Institute.

Bush, J. , Glick, B. , & Taymans, J. ( 1997 , revised 1998). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program . https://nicic.gov/t4c

Christy, A. , Clark, C. , Frei, A. , & Rynearson-Moody, S. ( 2012 ). Challenges of diverting veterans to trauma informed care: The heterogeneity of Intercept 2.   Criminal Justice and Behavior , 39 (4), 461–474.

Commaroto, L. , Jewell, T. , & Wilder, A. ( 2011 ). Rochester Veterans Court: An expanded service of the Rochester Drug Court: Evaluation summary report . Coordinated Care Services.

D’Zurilla, T. J. , & Goldfried, M. R. ( 1971 ). Problem solving and behavior modification.   Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 78 (1), 107–126.

DeMatteo, D. , Filone, S. , & Davis, J. ( 2015 ). Substance use and crime. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology – Vol. I: Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 325–349). American Psychological Association.

DeMatteo, D. , Filone, S. , & LaDuke, C. ( 2011 ). Methodological, ethical, and legal considerations in drug court research.   Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 29 (6), 806–820.

DeMatteo, D. , Heilbrun, K. , Thornewill, A. , & Arnold, S. ( 2019 ). Problem-solving courts and the criminal justice system . Oxford University Press.

DeMatteo, D. , LaDuke, C. , Locklair, B. R. , & Heilbrun, K. ( 2013 ). Community-based alternatives for justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness: Diversion, problem-solving courts, and reentry.   Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 (2), 64–71.

Deschenes, E. P. , Turner, S. , & Greenwood, P. W. ( 1995 ). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County’s drug court.   Justice System Journal , 18 (1), 55–73.

Dollar, C. B. , Ray, B. , Hudson, M. K. , & Hood, B. J. ( 2018 ). Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem‐solving court outcomes.   Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 36 (1), 32–45.

Drake, E. K. , Aos, S. , & Miller, M. G. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State.   Victims & Offenders , 4 (4), 170–196.

Faraci, S. M. ( 2004 ). Slip slidin’ away? Will our nation’s mental health court experiment diminish the rights of the mentally ill?   Quinnipiac Law Review , 22 , 811–848.

Fischer, B. ( 2003 ). Doing good with a vengeance: A critical assessment of the practices, effects, and implications of drug treatment courts in North America.   Criminology and Criminal Justice , 3 (3), 227–248.

Gottfredson, D. C. , Kearley, B. W. , Najaka, S. S. , & Rocha, C. M. ( 2007 ). How drug treatment courts work an analysis of mediators.   Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 44 (1), 3–35.

Gottfredson, D. C. , Najaka, S. S. , & Kearley, B. W. ( 2003 ). A randomized study of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from the two-year follow-up.   Criminology and Public Policy , 2 (2), 171–196.

Government Accountability Office. ( 2005 ). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes . GAO.

Government Accountability Office. ( 2011 ). Adult drug courts . GAO.

Green, M. , & Rempel, M. ( 2012 ). Beyond crime and drug use: Do adult drug courts produce other psychosocial benefits?   Journal of Drug Issues , 42 (2), 156–177.

Hamilton, Z. ( 2010 ). Do reentry courts reduce recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Reentry_Evaluation.pdf

Hasselbrack, A. M. ( 2001 ). Opting in to mental health courts.   Corrections Compendium , 26 (10), 4–25.

Heilbrun, K. , DeMatteo, D. , King, C. , Thornewill, A. , & Phillips, S. ( 2016 ). Risk-reducing interventions for justice-involved individuals: A critical review. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law , Volume 2 (pp. 271–304). Springer.

Heilbrun, K. , DeMatteo, D. , Yasuhara, K. , Brooks-Holliday, S. , Shah, S. , King, C. , DiCarlo, A.B. , Hamilton, D. , & Laduke, C. ( 2012 ). Community-based alternatives for justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness: Review of the relevant research.   Criminal Justice and Behavior , 39 (4), 351–419.

Hiday, V. A. , Moore, M. E. , Lamoureaux, M. , & de Magistris, J. ( 2005 , Spring/Summer). North Carolina’s mental health court.   Popular Government , 70 (3), 24–30.

Hiday, V. , & Ray, B. ( 2010 ). Arrests two years after exiting a well-established mental health court.   Psychiatric Services , 61 (5), 463–468.

Hoffman, M. B. ( 1999 ). Drug court scandal.   North Carolina Law Review , 78 , 1437–1532.

Holbrook, J. G. , & Anderson, S. ( 2011 ). Veterans courts: Early outcomes and key indicators for success.   Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, Series , 11 , 1–52.

Honegger, L. N. ( 2015 ). Does the evidence support the case for mental health courts? A review of the literature.   Law and Human Behavior , 39 (5), 478–488.

Inciardi, J. A. , Martin, S. S. , & Butzin, C. A. ( 2004 ). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison.   Crime and Delinquency , 50 (1), 88–107.

Kazdin, A. E. ( 2017 ). Research design in clinical psychology (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Kearley, B. , & Gottfredson, D. ( 2020 ). Long term effects of drug court participation: Evidence from a 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.   Journal of Experimental Criminology , 16 (1), 27–47.

Kopelovich, S. , Yanos, P. , Pratt, C. , & Koerner, J. ( 2013 ). Procedural justice in mental health courts: Judicial practices, participant perceptions, and outcomes related to mental health recovery.   International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 36 (2), 113–120.

Lane, E. ( 2002 ). Due process and problem-solving courts.   Fordham University Law Journal , 30 , 955–1026.

Latimer, J. , Morton-Bourgon, K. , & Chrétien, J. A. ( 2006 ). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? Department of Justice Canada.

Lattimore, P. K. , & Visher, C. A. (2009). The multisite evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis (Report No. NJC 230421). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230421.pdf

Lattimore, P. K. , & Visher, C. A. ( 2014 ). The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: Evidence from a multisite evaluation.   Evaluation Review , 37 (3–4), 274–313.

Lindquist, C. , Hardison, J. , & Lattimore, P. K. ( 2004 ). The reentry court initiative: Court-based strategies for managing released prisoners.   Justice Research and Policy , 6 (1), 97–118.

Lindquist, C. , Walters, J. , Rempel, M. , & Carey, S. ( 2013 ). The National Institute of Justice’s evaluation of second chance act adult reentry courts: Program characteristics and preliminary themes from year 1 (Report No. NJC 241400). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241400.pdf

Lipsey, M. W. , Landenberger, N. A. , & Wilson, S. J. ( 2007 ). Effects of cognitive-behavioralprograms for criminal offenders.   Campbell Systematic Reviews , 3 (1), 1–27.

Listswan, S. J. ( 2008 ). Reentry for serious and violent offenders: An analysis of program attrition.   Criminal Justice Policy Review , 20 (2), 154–169.

Logan, M. W. , & Link, N. W. ( 2019 ). Taking stock of drug courts: Do they work?   Victims & Offenders , 14 (3), 283–298.

Lowder, E. M. , Rade, C. B. , & Desmarais, S. L. ( 2018 ). Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: A meta-analysis.   Psychiatric Services , 69 (1), 15–22.

Lowenkamp, C. T. , Holsinger, A. M. , & Latessa, E. J. ( 2005 ). Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review.   Journal of Community Corrections , 15 (1), 5–11.

Marlowe, D. B. , Hardin, C. D. , & Fox, C. L. ( 2016 ). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving courts in the United States . National Drug Court Institute.

McGuire, M. , & Hatcher, R. ( 2001 ). Offence-focused problem solving: Preliminary evaluation of a cognitive skills program.   Criminal Justice and Behavior , 28 (5), 564–587.

McMurran, M. , Huband, N. , & Duggan, C. ( 2008 ). A comparison of treatment completers and non-completers of an in-patient treatment programme for male personality-disordered offenders.   Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , 81 (2), 193–198.

Meyer, W. G. ( 2011 ). Constitutional and legal issues in drug courts. In D. B. Marlowe & W. G. Meyer (Eds.), The drug court judicial benchbook (pp. 160–180). National Drug Court Institute.

Miller, P. G. , Curtis, A. , Sonderlund, A. , Day, A. , & Droste, N. ( 2015 ). Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.   American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse , 41 (1), 16–29.

Mitchell, O. , Wilson, D. B. , Eggers, A. , & MacKenzie, D. L. ( 2012 ). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and nontraditional drug courts.   Journal of Criminal Justice , 40 (1), 60–71.

Nolan Jr, J. L. ( 2003 ). Redefining criminal courts: Problem-solving and the meaning of justice.   American Criminal Law Review , 40 (4), 1541–1565.

Peterson, J. K. , Skeem, J. , Kennealy, P. , Bray, B. , & Zvonkovic, A. ( 2014 ). How often and how consistently do symptoms directly precede criminal behavior among offenders with mental illness?   Law and Human Behavior , 38 (5), 439–449.

Poythress, N. G. , Petrila, J. , McGaha, A. , & Boothroyd, R. A. ( 2002 ). Perceived coercion and procedural justice in the Broward mental health court.   International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 25 (5), 517–533.

Ray, B. , & Dollar, C. B. ( 2014 ). Exploring stigmatization and stigma management in mental health court: Assessing modified labeling theory in a new context.   Sociological Forum , 29 (3), 720–735.

Redlich, A. D. , & Han, W. ( 2014 ). Examining the links between therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health court completion.   Law and Human Behavior , 38 (2), 109–118.

Ross, R. R. , Fabiano, E. A. , & Ross, R. D. ( 1986 ). Reasoning and rehabilitation: A handbook for teaching cognitive skills . T3 Associates.

Rossman, S. B. , Rempel, M. , Roman, J. K. , Zweig, J. M. , Lindquist, C. H. , Green, M. , Downey, P. M. , Yahner, J. , Bhati, A. S. , & Farole, Jr., D. J. ( 2011 ). The Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Volume 4. The impact of drug courts . Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237112.pdf

Rowland, M. G. (2016, December). Assessing the case for the formal recognition and expansion of federal problem-solving courts.   Federal Probation , 80 (3), 2–14.

Sarteschi, C. M. , Vaughn, M. G. , & Kim, K. ( 2011 ). Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review.   Journal of Criminal Justice , 39 (1), 12–20.

Severson, M. E. , Bruns, K. , Veeh, C. , & Lee, J. ( 2011 ). Prisoner reentry programming: Who recidivates and when?   Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 50 (6), 327–348.

Sevigny, E. L. , Fuleihan, B. K. , & Ferdik, F. V. ( 2013 ). Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration? A meta-analysis.   Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 (6), 416–425.

Shaffer, D. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review . Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.

Shaffer, D. K. ( 2011 ). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review.   Justice Quarterly , 28 (3), 493–521.

Skeem, J. L. , Manchak, S. , & Peterson, J. K. ( 2011 ). Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness: Creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction.   Law and Human Behavior , 35 (2), 110–126.

Skeem, J. , & Monahan, J. ( 2011 ). Current directions in violence risk assessment.   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20 (1), 38–42.

Slattery M. , Dugger M. T. , Lamb T. A. , & Williams L. ( 2013 ). Catch, treat, and release: Veteran treatment courts address the challenges of returning home.   Substance Use and Misuse , 48 (10), 922–932.

Spelman, J. ( 2003 ). An initial comparison of graduates and terminated clients in America’s largest re-entry court.   Corrections Today , 65 , 74–77, 83.

Spivack, G. , Platt, J. J. , & Shure, M. B. ( 1976 ). The problem solving approach to adjustment . Jossey-Bass.

Tsai, J. , Finlay, A. , Flatley, B. , Kasprow, W. J. , & Clark, S. ( 2018 ). A national study of veterans treatment court participants: Who benefits and who recidivates.   Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 45 (2), 236–244.

Wales, H. , Hiday, V. , & Ray, B. ( 2010 ). Procedural justice and the mental health court judge’s role in reducing recidivism.   International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 33 (4), 265–271.

Wexler, D. B. , & Winick, B. J. ( 1996 ). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence . Carolina Academic Press.

Wilson, D. B. , Mitchell, O. , & MacKenzie, D. L. ( 2006 ). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.   Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2 (4), 459–487.

Wilson, J. , & Davis, R. ( 2006 ). Good intentions meet hard realities: An evaluation of the Project Greenlight reentry program.   Criminology and Public Policy , 5 (2), 303–308.

Wilson, J. L. , Bandyopadhyay, S. , Yang, H. , Cerulli, C. , & Morse, D. S. ( 2018 ). Identifying predictors of substance use and recidivism outcome trajectories among drug treatment court clients.   Criminal Justice and Behavior , 45 (4), 447–467.

Winick, B. J. ( 2013 ). Problem solving courts: Therapeutic jurisprudence in practice. In Wiener, R. L. , & Brank, E. M. (Eds.) Problem solving courts: Social science and legal perspectives (pp. 211–236). Springer.

Wolf, R. V. ( 2007 ). Principles of problem-solving justice . http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf .

Wolff, N. , Fabrikant, N. , & Belenko, S. ( 2011 ). Mental health courts and their selection processes: Modeling variation for consistency.   Law and Human Behavior , 35 (5), 402–412.

US Const. amend. I.

E.g., Griffin v. Coughlin, 673 N.E.2d 98 (N.Y. 1996); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 1996); Inouya v. Kemma, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007).

American United v. Prison Fellowship, 509 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2007); Destefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397 (2d Cir. 2001); O’Conner v. California, 855 F. Supp. 202 (C.D. Cal. 1994).

E.g., Andrews v. State, 623 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Wright, 739 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). For examples of cases where geographical restrictions were upheld, see Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989); State v. Morgan, 389 So. 2d 364 (La. 1980).

Dawson v. State, 894 P.2d 672 (Alaska Ct. App. 1995). For examples of cases where association restrictions were upheld, see 623 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005); People v. Jungers, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873 (Ct. App. 2005); People v. Forsythe, 43 P.3d 652 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

U.S. Const. amend. IV)

See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 888 (1987).

Payne v. State, 615 S.E. 2d 564 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005); State v. Patton, 119 P.3d 250 (Ore. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Kouba, 709 N.W. 2d 299 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006); State v. McAuliffe, 125 P.3d 276 (Wyo. 2005).

See Oliver v. United States, 682 A. 2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1996); State v. Ullring, 741 A.2d 1045, 1045 (Me. 1999); Steiner v. State, 763 N.E. 2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

U.S. Cont. amend. XIV.

Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).

E.g., State v. Belyea, No. 2009-038, 2010 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. May 20, 2010).

U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

E.g., Jim v. State, 911 So. 2d 658 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005); Evans v. State, 667 S.E.2d 183 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

State v. Harner, 103 P.3d 738 (Wash. 4002); Lomont v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Australian Courts pp 197–220 Cite as

Problem-Solving Courts

• Lacey Schaefer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2981-2542 3 &
• Caitlyn Egan 4  
• First Online: 11 January 2023

1825 Accesses

This chapter considers the catalyst for developing specialist problem-solving courts across Australia. It charts their emergence and assesses their evolution from tentative beginnings to the critically important role they play within the contemporary criminal justice system. Use of the term ‘problem-solving’ is, in itself, somewhat controversial, as these courts might be better considered as ‘problem-oriented’ to reflect that they cannot solve the causes of criminal behaviour. Australia has observed an ‘Americanisation’ of these specialty courts: this somewhat confused identity creates challenges and warrants change. It describes the potentially coercive nature of participation in problem-solving courts and the contentious sentencing practices that undergird them. There are multiple complexities and therefore challenges inherent in the contemporary operationalisation of problem-solving courts, including equity of access; resourcing issues; and case co-ordination hurdles. In order to ‘solve problems’ related to offending, problems must be better defined, access increased and solutions better resourced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2018). Interesting facts about Australia’s 25,000,000 population . Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf

AIJA (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration). (2017). Guide to judicial conduct (3rd ed.). Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Google Scholar  

ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission). (2010). Family violence—A national legal response . Australian Government.

Austin, J., Schiraldi, V., Western, B., & Dwivedi, A. (2019). Reconsidering the “violent offender.” Executive Session on the Future of Justice Policy.

Bartels, L. (2009). Challenges in mainstreaming specialty courts. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 383 , 1–6.

Berman, G., Adler, J., Barrett, J., & Penrose, K. (2021). What comes next? On the evolution of community courts. In P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 46–57). Routledge.

Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23 (2), 125–140.

Article   Google Scholar  

Birdsey, E. M., & Smith, N. (2012). The domestic violence intervention court model: A follow-up study . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Blagg, H. (2008). Problem-orientated courts . Law Reform Commission of Western Australia .

Bond, C., Holder, R., Jeffries, S., & Fleming, C. (2017). Summary report: Evaluation of the specialist domestic and family violence court trial in Southport . Griffith Criminology Institute.

Bowen, P., & Whitehead, S. (2015). Problem-solving courts: An evidence review . Centre for Justice Innovation.

Bull, M. (2010). Punishment and sentencing: Risk, rehabilitation and restitution . Oxford University Press.

Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences . Sage.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections: Ten recommendations. Crime and Justice, 46 , 27–93.

Department of Social Services. (2020). Specialist DFV Court Model . https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/initiative/specialist-dfv-court-model/

Duffy, J. (2011). Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitution: If two is company, is three a crowd? Melbourne University Law Review, 35 (2), 394–425.

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. (n.d.). Adult drug court . https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/Adult-Drug-Court

Freeman, K. (2002). New South Wales drug court evaluation: Health, well-being and participant satisfaction . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Freiberg, A. (2001). Problem-oriented courts: Innovative solutions to intractable problems? Journal of Judicial Administration, 11 (8), 8–27.

Hall, W., & Lucke, J. (2010). Legally coerced treatment for drug using offenders: Ethical and policy issues . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Haskins, P. A. (2019). Problem-solving courts: Fighting crime by treating the offender. National Institute of Justice Journal, 281 , 70–79.

Indermaur, D., & Roberts, L. (2003). Drug courts in Australia: The first generation. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 15 (2), 136–154.

Jeffries, S. (2005). How justice “gets done”: Politics, managerialism, consumerism, and therapeutic jurisprudence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17 (2), 254–268.

Kornhauser, R. (2018). The effectiveness of Australia’s drug courts. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51 (1), 76–98.

Lim, L., & Day, A. (2013). Mental health diversion courts: Some directions for further development. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20 (1), 36–45.

Lim, L., & Day, A. (2016). Mental health diversion courts: A prospective study of reoffending and clinical outcomes of an Australian mental health court program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55 (4), 254–270.

Magistrates Court of Western Australia. (2021a). Start Court . https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/S/start_court.aspx

Magistrates Court of Western Australia. (2021b). Intellectual Disability Diversion Program Court . https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/I/intellectual_disability_diversion_program_court.aspx

McCoy, C., Heydebrand, W., & Mirchandani, R. (2015). The problem with problem-solving justice: Coercion vs. democratic deliberation. Restorative Justice , 3 (2), 159–187.

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2009). Legal accents, legal borrowing: The international problem-solving court movement . Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2011). The international problem-solving court movement: A comparative perspective. Monash University Law Review, 37 (1), 259–279.

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2012). Problem-solving courts: An international comparison. In J. Petersilia & K. R. Reitz (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 150–172). Oxford University Press.

Paparozzi, M. A., & Schlager, M. D. (2009). Reconciling what works and broken windows: The policy relevance of individual and social correlates to recidivism reduction. Victims & Offenders, 4 (4), 427–434.

Payne, J. (2006). Specialty courts: Current issues and future prospects . Australian Institute of Criminology.

Queensland Courts. (2019). Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/domestic-and-family-violence-court

Queensland Courts. (2020). About the Mental Health Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/mental-health-court/about-the-mental-health-court

Queensland Courts. (2021). Queensland Drug and Alcohol Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/drug-court

Schaefer, L., & Beriman, M. (2019). Problem-solving courts in Australia: A review of problems and solutions. Victims & Offenders, 14 (3), 344–359.

Stobbs, N. (2017). Therapeutic jurisprudence and due process—Consistent in principle and in practice. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26 (4), 248–264.

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Burton, A. L., Moon, M. M., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (2019). Prisons or problem-solving: Does the public support speciality courts? Victims & Offenders, 14 (3), 267–282.

Thomas, N. K., & Bull, M. (2013). Negotiating the challenges of coerced treatment: An exploratory study of community-based service providers in Queensland, Australia. Contemporary Drug Problems, 40 (4), 569–594.

Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence . Carolina Academic Press.

Legislation

Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) No 150.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Lacey Schaefer

Caitlyn Egan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lacey Schaefer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Federation University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia

Marg Camilleri

University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Alistair Harkness

Practitioner Perspective: A Reflection on Problem-Solving Courts in Australia

• Elizabeth Daniels 

Queensland Magistrates Court, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Elizabeth Daniels

I started my legal career in 2011 as a young general practice lawyer in rural Queensland, spending much of my time representing clients in Magistrates Courts for a variety of criminal proceedings. During that period, I did not devote much thought to the purpose of the justice system, nor did I readily recognise the system’s shortcomings when it came to interacting with those experiencing or exposed to domestic and family violence (DFV).

To me, courts were a place for justice, punishment and accountability for someone’s actions according to the law. Even with my narrow view of the function of the justice system, I still recall questionable practices, particularly in the domestic and family violence (DFV) jurisdiction, which did not serve the needs of those seeking protection. I regularly observed lawyers representing perpetrators enter courthouse saferooms and demand victims withdraw applications for protection orders or make submissions to the court that a domestic violence offence was ‘not overly serious’ and punishment ‘should be at the lower end of the sentencing regime’.

Throughout the second decade of the twenty-first century, we have seen significant government reform and a spotlight on solving the ‘problem’ of DFV, including the delivery of the ground-breaking report of the Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence (2015) Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland (NNNE Report) in February 2015. I am fortunate to say, through the introduction of specialist DFV courts, I have played an active role in one of the more significant justice system reforms in Queensland’s history.

Background and Challenges

In response to the recommendations from the NNNE Report, a trial of the Southport Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court (SDFVC) commenced in September 2015 and a report evaluating this court was released in 2022 (ARTD, 2022). The NNNE Report implored the Queensland Government to reform the justice system to ensure it better protected victims/survivors (and their children), achieved fair and protective outcomes and made perpetrators of violence accountable for their behaviour. Many reported to the Taskforce that the justice system (courts and police) only further victimised or marginalised victims. From inception, the implementation of a specialist court and the key outcomes it was to achieve had overarching support from government and non-government agencies alike; however, factors such as day-to-day operations, how we would achieve reform, and what would be the ‘measures of success’ remained key challenges.

From the outset, the SDFVC had a clear mandate: to create a justice system response where the safety of victims/survivors was paramount and perpetrator accountability was a key objective. The specialist court model differed from traditional courts as it became a place of engagement for people attending court and provided not only a legal response but encouraged ‘wrap-around’ DFV support for those who attended. The model required all stakeholders (government and non-government/legal and social work) to work together in a way and to a magnitude which was unprecedented. The concepts of integration, collaboration and co-ordination would become the cornerstones of the court’s operation.

A major challenge was ensuring that the model maintained the separation of powers of the court, preserved the functions of individual stakeholder roles (prosecutors, lawyers, DFV support services) and pursued reform. Despite the collaborative spirit being evidenced from the outset, it did not prevent issues arising which placed significant pressures on all to reflect and understand how their organisations internal operations, purpose and traditional functions may be contributing to the ongoing generation of barriers and marginalising or re-victimising those seeking protection/safety. This reflective practice was particularly challenging for government departments with deeply entrenched organisational cultures, which at the time were reported as not consistent with a ‘best practice’ response to DFV or the specialist court approach.

Some of the more significant challenges for practitioners involved in the implementation of SDFVCs have included:

an ‘open door policy’ and broad eligibility criteria for accessing the specialist court, leading to substantial increases in case numbers, workloads and file complexity (which contributed to staff burnout, placed pressure on resources, and impacted the ongoing sustainability of the model);

integrated methods of working for government and non-government agencies, including the need to proactively share information about parties attending the court to ensure the most appropriate orders were made (including the granting of protection orders) 1 ;

a lack of a common risk screening and assessment tool or any uniform terminology 2 ;

complexity and confusion, particularly for victims, in navigating the legal processes (combination/intersection of both civil and criminal proceedings in Queensland) and limited support available to assist; and

limited availability of specialist DFV support services to assist persons attending court (and for legal practitioners to refer clients to). The services available would eventually increase in functionality/scope and assist victims in drafting and filing protection order applications, conduct risk assessments and generate safety plans (including securing emergency accommodation), receive referrals to men’s support services and assist entry into behaviour change programmes. These support activities were identified by stakeholders as key engagement opportunities which if conducted at court and in a timely fashion, could assist in promoting the protection and safety of victims, increase engagement and potentially achieve perpetrator accountability.

Reforms and Solutions

In February 2017, Griffith University released its Evaluation of the Specialist DFV Court Trial in Southport , making several interim findings and key recommendations (Bond et al., 2017). The evaluation found the Southport SDFVC had made significant inroads toward achieving its desired objectives. Fundamentally the court had taken steps to increase engagement with parties and to create a safe place for victims to attend and seek protection, all the while providing ‘wrap-around’ support for both victims and perpetrators. Recommendations were made highlighting some of the areas for continued improvement, perhaps most significantly the need for increased perpetrator accountability and access to men’s behaviour change programmes, as well as consideration as to how the model might work in other locations in Queensland.

As a practitioner working across the model, I attribute the positive outcomes and the ‘specialist’ nature of the court to two key initiatives adopted by Southport (and replicated at subsequent specialist court locations). First, the implementation of the Operational Working Group (OWG)—a weekly stakeholder meeting with representatives from each agency and the dedicated DFV magistrates to openly discuss issues, challenges, failures or successes of how the model was operating and developing. 3 This was one of the key ‘problem-solving’ elements of the model. Second, the commitment to ‘continuous improvement’ and ‘innovation’—this was despite differences in opinion, ever changing court operations and ongoing pressures on stakeholders’ resources including funding, staffing, workloads and fluctuations in government agenda/reform momentum. The commitment and collaborative spirit displayed by those involved in the implementation, development and ongoing sustainability of SDFVCs is what has made it a true privilege to be a practitioner involved.

Sustainability of Problem-Solving Courts

Without the delivery of the second evaluation of the Southport SDFVC at the time of writing this reflection, it is difficult to comment on the sustainability of the model from an evidence-based perspective. As a practitioner involved in inception and ongoing implementation, some of the challenges for sustainability include:

ensuring models are properly resourced and are not ‘person-based’ or rely upon goodwill to function;

the ongoing need for clarity about the model and its core elements—as the SDFVC developed at a rapid pace and in an organic fashion, the model continued to evolve making it challenging to define and sustain over a longer period and across multiple locations;

the need for the model to reflect diversity, be accessible to people from all cultural backgrounds and diverse groups, and to be able to translate notions of ‘best practice DFV’ to courts across the state of Queensland (including regional areas/First Nations communities); and

clarity around the concept of ‘success’, particularly in relation to the goal of perpetrator accountability.

Upon reflection of my involvement in the implementation of specialist DFV courts in Queensland, it has been encouraging to see the justice system proactively and creatively adapt in its response to NNNE. From my perspective, it is important to continue reflecting on the model, both internally and externally through independent evaluations and reviews to improve. Building the OWG as a key function/component of the SDFVC was integral to the success of the model and in my view could be adapted to other problem-solving courts.

In my experience, the questionable practices observed during the start of my career are far less likely to be observed in the SDFVC—if they were, the OWG would certainly have something to say. Despite the significant reform to date, it remains imperative the justice system continues its journey to ensure courts are a place of safety for victims seeking protection and perpetrator accountability remains at the forefront of the response. It is these key objectives which must be achieved before the long-term objective of eliminating domestic and family violence can be realised.

This was in comparison with the traditional ‘siloed’ approach by agencies only submitting to the court ‘what they knew’. At the time of commencement of the SDFVCs, there were no uniform processes or platforms for sharing of information between agencies. The amendments to the Domestic & Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) introducing Part 5A regarding increased information sharing did not come into effect until 30 May 2017.

In 2017, the Queensland Government introduced the Common Risk and Safety Framework (CRASF). The framework was developed for use by government and non-government community service agencies. It articulates a shared understanding, language and common approach to recognising, assessing and responding to DFV risk and safety action planning, including common minimum standards and approaches for in an attempt to adopt a more uniformed approach.

Note that the OWG continues to date, albeit with less frequent meetings, but still as a key part of the model.

ARTD. (2022). The Southport Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court: Process Evaluation 2017–2020 . Department of Justice and Attorney-General. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/722674/southport-specialist-dfv-process-evaluation-2017-2020.pdf

Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence. (2015). Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland . Report provided to the Premier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Schaefer, L., Egan, C. (2022). Problem-Solving Courts. In: Camilleri, M., Harkness, A. (eds) Australian Courts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19063-6_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19063-6_9

Published : 11 January 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19062-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19063-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Problem-Solving Justice

Problem-solving courts, such as drug and mental health courts, make use of innovative strategies to address the underlying conditions that bring people into contact with the legal system. Through judicial monitoring, partnership with community-based services, increased communication with stakeholders, and treatment where appropriate, these courts change the way our system manages criminal cases and responds to individuals, families, and communities.

Embedded in centralized courthouses, programs like our Bronx Community Solutions, Brooklyn Justice Initiatives, and Newark Community Solutions each handle thousands of cases in a typical year, offering social services and community-based alternatives to jail and fines. Through our work implementing these ambitious projects, we offer a range of customized training and technical assistance plans and publications for jurisdictions interested in applying problem-solving justice principles in centralized courthouses.

Initiatives

Bronx Community Solutions

Bronx community solutions provides community-based alternatives to jail, restores community relationships, and helps participants avoid further criminal justice involvement..

Brooklyn Justice Initiatives

Brooklyn justice initiatives seeks to improve how the centralized criminal court in brooklyn responds to misdemeanor and felony cases..

Newark Community Solutions

Newark community solutions applies a problem-solving approach to low-level cases in newark, new jersey’s municipal courthouse..

Statewide Strategic Planning for Problem-Solving Courts

We provide thoughtful planning and coordination for problem-solving courts to ensure best practices and the best possible outcomes., publications & digital media, health, housing, and justice alliance.

As the COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations and institutions to shift to operating remotely, disparities driven by the digital divide became a shared problem across major cross-sector systems important to a community’s well-being. The Health, Housing, and Justice Alliance sought to eliminate inequities of fully virtual legal, healthcare, and social services through the creation of pop-up navigation centers and court hubs throughout Newark, New Jersey.

Changemakers in Action: Kristina Singleton

Kristina Singleton works on diverting people from court into supportive or educational programming. Among the programs she works with at the Midtown Community Court are Project Reset, which offers those charged with a low-level crime the chance to avoid court and a criminal record by completing community-based programming, and a recently launched youth gun-diversion program for young people who have been arrested on gun possession charges.

Fact Sheet: Manhattan Justice Opportunities

This fact sheet summarizes the mission and impact of Manhattan Justice Opportunities, a program of the Center for Justice Innovation, that helps build safer communities and a fairer justice system by providing social services and supportive resources as effective alternatives to the traditional responses to crime, empowering people to make positive changes in their lives.

A Focus on the People We Serve: Reflections from the State of the Judiciary

At this year's State of the Judiciary, Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson shared the podium with guest speakers who have seen firsthand what happens when courts treat people with care and compassion.

Midtown Community Court Celebrates 30 Years of Justice in NYC with Renaming to the “Midtown Community Justice Center”

This name change to Midtown Community Justice Center reflects the institution's holistic and community-based approach to delivering justice to New Yorkers.

Reimagining Justice in Midtown, 30 Years On

2023 marks the 30th anniversary of our Midtown Community Court, which started as an experiment in a new, more human approach to justice. Today, that approach hasn’t just survived: it has even outgrown the walls of the courthouse.

We work with reformers around the world.

Do you need help solving a problem, launching a new initiative or improving an old one?

• Organization of the Circuit Court
• Office of Interpreter Services
• For Litigant Attorneys
• For People Without Lawyers
• Forms and Publications
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Locations and Contact Information
• Becoming A Certified Arbitrator
• Part 18 - Rules of the Circuit Court
• Contact Information
• Transcript Orders & Rates
• Court Statistics and Reports
• Accreditation
• Pretrial Services
• Pre-Sentence Investigations
• Public Information
• Employment Opportunities
• Internship Program
• Cognitive-Behavioral Programs
• Community Service Program
• Domestic Violence Program
• Driving Under The Influence-DUI
• Drug Treatment Court Program
• Family Violence Program
• GPS Supervision
• Sex Offender Program
• Supervision (Diversified Caseload)
• Community Services for Females
• Administrative Sanctions Program
• Employment / Internship Opportunities
• Administration
• Balance & Restorative Justice
• Programs and Services
• Detention Alternatives
• Expungements
• Publications
• Information for Law Enforcement on Bond Cards
• Petition For Authorization to Issue Bond Certifica
• Petition For Refund of Security Deposit
• Authorized Civil Sureties
• Petition For Authorization To Act As A Civil Suret
• Rules of the Court - Bonds, Surety
• Education Outreach
• Legal Extern Opportunity Program
• Prostitution Court PC 5/29/15
• City Club 5/7/15
• City Club 10/30/14
• About the JTDC
• Common Definitions and Terms
• Comprehensive Case Management
• Fiscal Year Approved Budgets
• History of JTDC
• Medical and Mental Health
• Performance Reports
• Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
• Programming
• Release Information
• Shakman Compliance
• Volunteer and Intern Programs
• Offices of the Presiding Judges
• Judges Information
• General Chancery Calendars
• Glossary of Key Terms
• For Attorneys
• For Homeowners Without Lawyers
• For Mediators
• Helpful Links
• Commercial Receiver Forms
• Foreclosure Courtroom Procedures
• Rules of the Court
• Court-Approved Mediation Training
• Child Care in the Courthouse
• Lactation Room
• Administrative Orders
• Change of Name Proceedings
• Civil Asset Forfeitures
• Emancipation of Minors
• Judges Calendars
• Mental Health Proceedings
• Parental Notification of Abortion Act
• Real Estate Tax Proceedings
• Accessibility
• Adult Probation
• Cell Phone/Electronic Device Ban
• Clerk of the Circuit Court
• Cook County Public Defender
• Cook County State's Attorney
• Court Reporters
• Courthouse Tours
• Courtroom Locations
• Expungements/Sealing Procedure
• Interpreters Office
• Jury Administration
• Lactation Rooms
• Law Library
• Social Service
• Assignment of Cases
• Child Care Resources
• Child Rep/Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)
• Children and Teens Speak
• Court Forms
• Daley Center Lactation Room
• DNA Testing Services
• Domestic Relations Personnel
• Early Resolution Program (ERP)
• Filing Domestic Relations Cases
• Incarcerated Litigants Call
• Judicial Externships
• Child Related Legal Issues
• Dissolution Related Legal Issues
• Orders of Protection
• Relevant Statutes
• Expanded Remote Facilitator Program
• Parent Education Programs
• Domestic Violence Courthouse
• Courtroom Information (Chicago)
• Court Locations
• Children's Advocacy Clinic
• Respondent Information Video
• Rules - Part 22 (Domestic Violence)
• Order of Protection Videos
• Trial Setting Call
• Motion Section
• Assignment Section
• Trial Section
• Commercial Calendar Section
• Tax & Misc. Remedies Section
• Individual General Calendars
• Asbestos Litigation
• Part 20 (Rules) Court-Annexed Civil Mediation
• Mediator List
• Mediation Process Overview
• Mediation Forms and Orders
• Sample Settlement Orders
• Sue/Defend as Indigent Person
• Adult Guardianship Estates
• Daley Center Tours
• Decedent Estates
• Elder Justice Center (EJC)
• Free Seminar Series (EJC)
• Helpful Resources
• Minor Guardianship Estates
• Office of the Public Guardian
• Organization
• Part 12. Rules of the Circuit Court
• Part 23. Rules of the Circuit Court
• Settlement Procedures
• Bail Hearings
• Benchmark Hearing Program
• Child Protection Mediation Program
• Child Protection Mediation Video
• General Administrative Orders
• Confidential Records Procedure
• Expungement Information
• Juvenile Justice Court Process
• Minor's Rights and Responsibilities
• Outlying Juvenile Justice Courts
• Purpose of Juvenile Justice Courts
• Juvenile Justice&Child Protection Resource Section
• Evictions (Forcible Entry & Detainer)
• Felony Preliminary Hearings
• Housing Section
• Jury Civil Section
• Mandatory Arbitration
• Marriage and Civil Union
• Misdemeanor Section
• Non-Jury Civil Section
• Post Judgment and Misc Remedies
• Pro Se Filing Desk
• Zoom Schedule
• Chicago Felony Courtrooms
• Civil Division Standing Orders
• Courtroom Information
• Expungements/Sealings
• Name Change
• Specialty Courts
• Traffic Safety School
• Court Interpreters
• Expungments
• Name Changes
• Parentage and Child Support
• Orders Of Protection
• Paternity Court
• Courtroom Schedules
• Minor Traffic Offenses
• Misdemeanor Traffic Offenses
• Your Rights (All Traffic Cases)
• Continuances
• DUI Arrests Before January 1 2009
• DUI Arrests on or after January 1 2009
• If Your Appearance Is Required
• Traffic Safety School Eligibility
• Payment Information
• Failure To Respond Or Appear
• Driver's License Sanctions
• Financial Responsibility 04 Suspension
• Financial Responsibility 05 Suspension
• Judgment Suspension 06 Suspension
• Failure to Appear 09 Suspension
• Auto Emission 18 Suspension
• Court Supervision
• Traffic Video
• Legal Court Holidays
• The Trial Process
• Local Agencies and Resources
• Drug Court Treatment Program
• Mental Health Court Program
• Veterans Treatment Court
• Problem-Solving Court Locations
• Program Materials
• Team Members
• Restorative Justice Community Courts
• 1st Municipal District - Chicago
• Criminal Division
• 2nd Municipal District - Skokie
• Domestic Relations Division
• Surety Section
• 3rd Municipal District - Rolling Meadows
• Domestic Violence Division
• 4th Municipal District - Maywood
• Juvenile Justice Division
• 5th Municipal District - Bridgeview
• Law Division
• Official Court Reporters
• 6th Municipal District - Markham
• Pretrial Division
• Chancery Division
• Probate Division
• Orders Search Results
• View General Order
• Child Protection Division
• Traffic Division
• County Division
• General Administrative Rules
• Introduction To Jury Service
• Juror Video
• Standby Juror Information
• Jury Duty Scams
• Jurors and Cell Phones
• Jury Service Survey
• Remote Juror Survey
• Apply for a Free Attorney
• Criminal In-Court Attorney Referral
• Electronic Filing (E-Filing)

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS

Problem-solving courts, also known as specialty or therapeutic courts, seek to help low-level criminal defendants suffering from an underlying mental health, social or substance abuse problem from becoming repeat offenders.  Problem-solving courts achieve this goal by providing treatment and intensive supervision.     

The Cook County Circuit Court has a countywide network of problem-solving courts that includes Drug Treatment Courts, Mental Health Treatment Courts, and Veterans’ Treatment Courts.

With varying target populations, all problem-solving courts seek to address the primary issues that contributed to the participant’s involvement in the judicial system. These issues are addressed with public safety in mind. 

In order for candidates to be eligible for the problem-solving court program, they must first meet certain legal and clinical criteria. Cook County problem-solving courts are designed primarily to assist people who have committed non-violent felony crimes. However, some problem-solving courts in the suburbs of Cook County accept misdemeanor cases. Problem-solving courts coordinate efforts between members of the court system and organizations outside of the court system in order to guarantee that participants receive sufficient counseling. Team members from the court system are: prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, social workers, clinical case managers, and other justice system affiliates.  Team members from organizations outside of the court system include: substance abuse and mental health treatment providers, community partners, and VA representatives. A judge assigned to each specific problem-solving court leads these teams.

The teams design and implement individualized treatment plans for participants, which include linkage to community-based services that offer intensive treatment, interventions, and supervision. Problem-solving court judges are personally involved in many aspects of this process including: team building, staff meetings and status hearings. Specific roles and responsibilities are explicitly assigned, but through a coordinated effort, a participant’s case and compliance with program rules are monitored.  All problem-solving courts create specific goals for participants in favor of their advancement toward program completion. Participants appear in court regularly for status hearings in order for the judges to ensure ongoing interaction between participants and court team members. Problem-solving courts have positively affected the lives of participants and people directly and indirectly connected to them. Among these positive affects is the significant reduction of incarceration costs and recidivism rates of problem-solving court participants.

For additional information, please contact:

Kelly Gallivan-Ilarraza Director of Problem-Solving Courts

Email:  [email protected] 

• Court Related Services
• Probation Departments
• Video and Photo Gallery
• Juvenile Temporary Detention Center
• Domestic Violence
• Child Protection
• Juvenile Justice
• First Municipal District-Chicago
• Second Municipal District-Skokie
• Third Municipal District-Rolling Meadows
• Fourth Municipal District-Maywood
• Fifth Municipal District-Bridgeview
• Sixth Municipal District-Markham

Privacy Policy         Disclaimer        Legal Holiday Schedule         Rules of the Court        Orders of the Court

Illinois Supreme Court

• Message from the Court Administrator and Chief Judge
• About the 10th Circuit
• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Administrative Orders
• Contact Information
• Court Announcements
• Courthouse Locations
• Forms and Checklists
• History of the 10th Judicial Circuit
• Hours of Operation and Holidays
• Media Information
• Certified Process Servers
• Latest News
• Professionalism Panel
• Volunteer Resources
• Court Holidays
• Lactation/Nursing Room
• Hardee County
• Highlands County
• Polk County
• Chief Judge
• Magistrates and Hearing Officers
• Barnews request form
• Legal Resources
• Ordering a Court Interpreter
• Ordering Transcripts
• Pro Bono Opportunities
• Submitting proposed orders to E-Filing Portal
• Quickparts & ePortal/ICMS Proposed Orders
• AO 1-61.0: Electronic Submissions
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
• Janet A. Essary Drug Court Lab
• Law Library

Problem Solving Court

• Self Help (Pro Se)
• Administrative Services
• Case Management
• Court Interpreters
• Court Reporting
• Court Technology
• Courthouse Security
• Early Childhood Courts
• Human Resources
• Service Provider List
• Phone Directory
• Find an Interpreter
• Mediation Services

Call the color line for daily colors: (863) 534-5828

2022 Polk County Problem Solving Courts Graduation Ceremony

Substance Use and Behavioral Health Specialty Programs

Modeled after nationally recognized drug courts, it offers a continuum of drug education and treatment alternatives. The court proceedings are unique in that they are non-adversial in nature with a dedicated Judge and multi-displinary team who oversees each participant’s progress and holds them accountable for their actions while receiving treatment. Problem Solving Court programs are court-supervised, comprehensive treatment courts for eligible non-violent defendants. The voluntary programs involve appearances before a PSC Judge, treatment and frequent, random testing for substance use. PSC exists to provide participants with the opportunity to become productive, substance free members of the community while increasing public safety and reducing crime in a cost effective manner. Treatment and case management services focuses on abstinence and stabilization through case management, individual and group counseling, support groups, decision making skills, peer and family relationships. Clients process the cause and effects of substance use and behavioral health concerns in their lives. Topics such as honesty, positive thinking, trust, acceptance, self-esteem, forgiveness and negative effects of using mind altering substances are discussed in the programs. Treatment and participation plans are individualized to client needs.

The Mission of the Polk County Drug Court is to provide all of its clients with high quality drug treatment services and care in accordance with the principles of best practice and due process and the philosophy of the Drug Court Model.

Vision and Focus

The vision of the Polk County Drug Court is to promote the wellness of our clients and improve their overall quality of life through insight, accountability and behavior change.

The Polk County Drug Court will provide strong intervention and treatment services for youth and adults thereby promoting client accountability, and improving public safety.

Program Description

The Problem Solving Court is a court-supervised, comprehensive treatment program for nonviolent defendants. This is a program which includes regular court appearances before a designated Problem Solving Court Judge, treatment which includes; drug testing, individual/group counseling, and regular attendance at support group meetings. The Problem Solving Court Program is a combined effort of the Recovery Support Services, State Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, Court Administration, the Department of Corrections, County Probation and Department of Juvenile Justice. Program participants will be assisted with obtaining education and skills assessments and will be provided referrals for vocational training, education and/or job placement services and other identified services. The program length, determined by each participant’s progress will be based upon specific program guidelines. However, you could be extended in the program in order to graduate or complete prior to program guidelines based upon progress in the program.Final determination of entry into the program shall ONLY be made by the Judge with recommendation form the State Attorney, defense counsel, probation and Problem Solving Court treatment team.

Phone: (863) 534 - 4503 Fax: (863) 534 - 7703

Director, Problem Solving Courts

Jonathan "Jay" Rolle [email protected]

Click here to read answers to our Frequently Asked Questions OR Click here to submit your own question to Problem Solving Court

Testimonials

Click here to read testimonials

• Adult Program English Spanish
• Behavioral Health Court English Spanish
• D.U.I. Program English Spanish
• PADC-Felony Program English Spanish
• Janet A. Essary Drug Court
• Juvenile Program English Spanish
• Young Adult Brochure English Spanish
• PADC-MM Brochure English Spanish
• Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory
• Veteran's Treatment Brochure English Spanish
• Adult & Juvenile Referral Form
• Behavioral Health Court Handbook
• Role of Veteran mentors
• How to be a mentor
• How to apply to be a Volunteer Veteran Mentor
• Problem Solving Court Handbook
• Veteran's Court Handbook
• Veterans Treatment Court Docket
• Behavioral Health Court Referral Form
• Lab Information
• Deaf and Hard of Hearing Policy (English)
• Deaf and Hard of Hearing Policy (Spanish)

You are here

Social media.

Google Translate

10th circuit twitter, website problems.

Click here to submit website issues or inquiries to our webmaster

Popular Links

• Accessibility (ADA)
• Courthouse Hours

United States Sentencing Commission

• Drug Conversion Calculator
• Drug Quantity Calculator
• Sentencing Table
• Tutorial Video
• Organizational Guidelines
• The Commission promulgates guidelines that judges consult when sentencing federal offenders. When the guidelines are amended, a subsequent Guidelines Manual is published.
• In this section, you will find the Commission’s comprehensive archive of yearly amendments and Guidelines Manuals dating back to 1987.
• By Geography
• By Guideline
• Prison Impact Reports
• Retroactivity Reports
• Compassionate Release
• Research Notes
• Tutorial Videos
• Reports At A Glance
• Reports To Congress
• Quick Facts
• List of Publications

RESEARCH & DATA MISSION

• The Commission collects, analyzes, and disseminates a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing practices.
• In this section, you will find a comprehensive collection of research and data reports published on sentencing issues and other areas of federal crime.
• Meetings & Hearings
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comment
• Amendments In Brief
• Data Briefings on Proposed Amendments
• The Commission establishes sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts. Each year, the Commission reviews and refines these policies in light of congressional action, decisions from courts of appeals, sentencing-related research, and input from the criminal justice community.
• In this section, you can follow the Commission’s work through the amendment cycle as priorities are set, research is performed, testimony is heard, and amendments are adopted.
• The Commission serves as an information resource for Congress, the executive branch, the courts, criminal justice practitioners, the academic community, and the public.
• In this section, you will find resources to assist you in understanding and applying the federal sentencing guidelines.
• Bureau of Prisons Issues
• Categorical Approach
• Criminal History
• Multiple Counts/Grouping
• Relevant Conduct
• See All Topics
• Decision Trees
• See All Product Types
• Training Sessions Archive
• Request Customized Training
• CLE Information
• Supreme Court Cases
• Case Law Update
• Problem-Solving Court Resources
• Glossary of Sentencing Terms
• HelpLine Question?
• Former Commissioners
• Organization
• Advisory Groups
• Press Releases
• Submissions & Speeches
• Commission Chats Podcast
• The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch that was created as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Attorney General, or the Attorney General’s designee, and the Chair of the U.S. Parole Commission serve as ex officio , nonvoting members of the Commission.
• In this section, learn about the Commission’s mission, structure, and ongoing work.
• Acquitted Conduct
• Alternatives to Incarceration
• Career Offenders
• First Step Act of 2018
• Mandatory Minimums
• Prison Issues
• Problem-Solving Courts
• Retroactivity
• Youthful Individuals

Commission Chats - Episode 16

Episode 16: problem solving courts miniseries, part seven - senior district judge reggie walton and the problem-solving court in the district of columbia.

(Published April 9, 2024)  This episode is the seventh in a miniseries featuring federal judges who lead problem-solving court programs in districts across the country, as they share insights and tips for program development.

In Part Seven, Judge Walton shares his experience leading the Reclaiming Our Lives reentry court program in the District of Columbia.

• Problem-Solving Court Resources
• Final 2023-2024 Priorities

State of the Judiciary 'plants seeds' for the future of South Dakota courts

PIERRE — Chief Justice Steven Jensen paid homage to the past work done by South Dakota’s court system to illustrate what work must continue within the judiciary branch to address problems society faces today.

“I believe the court system has a good and important story to tell,” he told the joint gathering of the House and the Senate on Wednesday morning as part of his State of the Judiciary address to begin the 99th Legislative session.

Jensen pointed to the work done more than a decade ago to create an electronic court filing system invaluable today for attorneys, judges and the public. In this vein, his speech noted the work done today in problem solving courts to the bolstering of indigent defense that will bring forth a better future for the state, the judiciary, counties and people affected by the courts every day.

Indigent defense work continues

Two years of work to reimagine what indigent defense can look like has continued, Jensen said, explaining a summer task force recommended the creation of a new office on the state level for public defenders and the creation of an indigent defense commission.

The proposed public defender's office, overseen by the commission, will focus on criminal case appeals as well as expanding felony trial work. The office will also offer extra training for attorneys who are providing court appointed defense services.

Jensen requested the Legislature set aside $1.4 million to seed the office and commission, along with seven employees. 

More: South Dakota task force recommends 3 ideas for statewide indigent legal services

The new office will help alleviate the financial burden South Dakota’s counties face annual as they continue to fund these services for those who can’t afford legal counsel. 

He said this initial expenditure by the state is estimated to reduce the financial burden on counties by $2.1 million and actually save approximately $600,000 in overall indigent defense costs across the state.

“This first step is a big one," Jensen said. "But the next step of the process will bring about the most broad improvements to a system that lacks much needed oversight."

Problem solving courts support long lasting change

South Dakota’s problem solving courts received due recognition in Jensen’s speech, as well as in Gov. Kristi Noem’s State of the State speech .

While Noem recognized Leta Wise Spirit on Tuesday, who had been credited with volunteer work and mentoring at her graduation of the Sixth Circuit Court problem solving court, Jensen told the stories of another three individuals who had successfully completed their courses.

More: Noem's Top 10 list for State of the State lists accomplishments but remains light on policy

The courts help people access drug and alcohol abuse treatment as well as set them up for success in the future in the workforce.

“These courts have the immediate impact of reducing costs and incarceration and increasing the likelihood of rehabilitation,” Jensen said, noting that of the 2,500 people served in the 17 problem solving courts, there has been a 60% success rate. “But their broader impact lies in the profound transformation of individuals and the positive influence on their families, employers, communities, and even the burden on taxpayers.”  

As the problem courts and other specialties continue to be successful, Jensen asked lawmakers to add an additional circuit court judge and deputy clerk in the Second Circuit Court, home to Minnehaha and Lincoln County.

Both counties have seen their population increase significantly and as a result court cases have increased.

“Second Circuit judges have also seen demands on their time [and] on cases that they hear,”he said.

‘Growth and Redemption’ for young adults

The work done by a task force, looking into barriers young adults between 18 and 25 face when they become involved with the criminal justice system, has provided new pilot programs across the state, Jensen said.

In Mitchell, young adults will be able to access life skills classes and mentoring. Pennington County also offers a diversion program that serves as “a model for other counties,” Jensen said. 

By providing diversion programs, creating opportunities for housing, education and employment, and finding support networks, Jensen said it shows not all hope is lost for young people when they make a serious mistake in life.

“I believe there are some tremendous opportunities to continue to improve our efforts at rehabilitating young adult offenders,” he said, “And doing so we contribute to a society that values the potential for growth and redemption for individuals who truly wish to change.”

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NIJ FY24 Field-Initiated Action Research Partnerships

Download PDF, 386.62 KB

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks research partnership proposals that meet the needs and missions of local justice and service provider entities — including police, corrections, courts, victim services, forensic science service providers, and community safety and adult and juvenile justice entities — and the communities they serve. These partnerships should apply a data-driven, problem-solving approach to challenges prioritized by agency partners; identify actionable and measurable responses; implement changes; and employ an action research evaluation approach to assessing the impact of interventions on desired outcomes that emphasizes scientific rigor and meaningful stakeholder engagement. These partnerships should also focus on developing the entity’s capacity to adopt data-driven, problem-solving approaches to sustain effective practices and ongoing improvement in relevant safety and justice outcomes.

Similar Opportunities

• NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on 911, Alternative Hotlines, and Alternative Responder Models
• NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation of Services for Victims of Crime
• NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on Hate Crimes