Roles & decision making processes within JSTEPS' problem-solving court environments

Abstract

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are not one-size-fits-all. Rather, EBPs operate differently depending upon context. Within organizations, collaborative learning environments allow innovations implementation flexibility. Through examining data collected as part of the JSTEPS study, we found that problem solving courts (PSC) possess unique team dynamics and roles that affected implementation. For instance, probation officers (POs) working within PSCs are crucial within the adoption and implementation processes and often lead courtroom workgroups' decision-making processes. Likewise, judges often rely on POs and treatment provider expertise backstage, while in the front-stage courtroom they lead the sessions, through more informal and less adversarial roles. Lastly, prosecutors and public defenders often work to achieve the collaborative PSC goals through covert adversaralism. Examining how the roles of the courtroom workgroup actors shift and adapt under the PSC model is a crucial step to effectively implement newly designed EBP processes like CM within justice environments.