Problem-solving Courts Research Articles

Court as a health intervention to advance Canada\u2019s achievement of\xa0the sustainable development\xa0goals : a multi-pronged analysis of Vancouver\u2019s Downtown Community Court

BackgroundThe increase in problematic substance use is a major problem in Canada and elsewhere, placing a heavy burden on health and justice system resources given a spike in drug-related offences. Thus, achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 3.5 to ‘Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse’ is important for Canada’s overall realization of the SDGs, including SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing). Since 2008, Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court (DCC) has pioneered an innovative partnership among the justice, health and social service systems to address individuals’ needs and circumstances leading to criminal behaviour. While researchers have examined the DCC’s impact on reducing recidivism, with Canada’s SDG health commitments in mind, we set out to examine the ways health and the social determinants of health (SDH) are engaged and framed externally with regard to DCC functioning, as well as internally by DCC actors. We employed a multi-pronged approach analyzing (1) publicly available DCC documents, (2) print media coverage, and (3) health-related discourse and references in DCC hearings.ResultsThe documentary analysis showed that health and the SDH are framed by the DCC as instrumental for reducing drug-related offences and improving public safety. The observation data indicate that judges use health and SDH in providing context, understanding triggers for offences and offering rationale for sentencing and management plans that connect individuals to healthcare, social and cultural services.ConclusionsOur study contributes new insights on the effectiveness of the DCC as a means to integrate justice, health and social services for improved health and community safety. The development of such community court interventions, and their impact on health and the SDH, should be reported on by Canada and other countries as a key contribution to SDG 3 achievement, as well as the fulfillment of other targets under the SDG framework that contain the SDH. Consideration should be given by Canada as to how to capture and integrate the important data generated by the DCC and other problem-solving courts into SDG reporting metrics. Certainly, the DCC advances the SDGs’ underlying Leave No One Behind principle in a high-income country context.

Realising the Potential of Judging

Over the last twenty years, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of judicial officers understanding how cultural, developmental, health, social, economic and other aspects of people coming before a court, affect how legal problems arise and how they are resolved. Diverse developments such as the introduction of specific Bench Books - Aboriginal Bench Books, equal opportunity Bench Books, child witness Bench Books - and publications on the application of therapeutic jurisprudence to judging such as Judging in a Therapeutic Key, Judging for the 21st Century and Solution-Focused Judging Bench Book, reflect this increasing awareness and the need for resources to equip judicial officers to address these factors in judging. Another significant aspect of this development has been the introduction of problem-solving courts, court diversion programs and Indigenous sentencing courts, which use processes thought to be more suitable in addressing the underlying issues of those coming before the court with legal problems.

An Evaluation of Successful Program Completions across Types of Problem-Solving Courts

Variations of problem-solving court programs have been created to address a wide variety of offense-related problems, such as drug addiction, mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, and many others. Yet there is little knowledge as to whether this model is equally effective across these many versions of the model. This study uses data from the 2012 Census of Problem-Solving Courts to assess whether there is variation in the proportion of successful program completions across program types. Additionally, this study examined what program-level characteristics are associated with increased successful program completions. The findings of this study suggest that, while there is some variation in program success across program types, there is also substantial variation within types of programs. That is, not one type of problem-solving court program is more effective than any other. The results of this study also found that the programs that offer a larger variety of services are likely to have higher levels of successful program completions. Future research should follow these preliminary findings by examining variations in other outcomes measures of success.

Problem-Solving Court Policies on Cannabis Use.

Problem-solving courts have developed across the United states to offer specific offenders, including those with substance use or mental disorders, alternatives to incarceration that often involve community-based treatment services and judicial supervision. At the same time, dozens of states have legalized the use of cannabis for medical or recreational purposes, even as cannabis use remains illegal under federal law. State legalization of cannabis use has introduced legal and medical complexities for problem-solving courts, particularly concerning the management of offenders who use cannabis. This article reviews implications of cannabis use for defendants' eligibility and participation in problem-solving courts, with a focus on adult drug courts and mental health courts. This article also examines a range of policies, such as abstinence-based, tolerance-based, and adaptive approaches, that problem-solving courts may consider implementing. Further research is needed to characterize existing problem-solving court policies toward cannabis use and to develop evidence-based practices that courts may follow.

Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court

Problem-solving courts are traditionally voluntary in nature to promote procedural justice and to advance therapeutic jurisprudence. The Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC) in Lancaster County, Nebraska is a mandatory dependency court for families with allegations of child abuse or neglect related to substance use. We conducted a program evaluation examining parents’ case outcomes and perceptions of procedural justice to examine whether a mandatory problem-solving court could replicate the positive outcomes of problem-solving courts. We employed a quasi-experimental design that compared FTDC parents to traditional dependency court parents (control parents). We examined court records to gather court orders, compliance with court orders, case outcomes, and important case dates. We also conducted 263 surveys (FTDC = 232; control = 31) to understand parents’ perceptions of procedural justice in the court process. Overall, FTDC parents were more compliant with some court orders than control parents. Although FTDC and control parents did not have significantly different case outcomes, FTDC parents’ cases closed significantly faster than control parents’ cases. FTDC parents also had higher perceptions of procedural justice than control parents. Mediation analyses indicated that FTDC parents believed the court process was more fair and therefore participated more consistently in court-ordered services and therefore reunified more often than control parents. Mandatory problem-solving courts can serve parents through the same mechanisms as voluntary problem-solving courts. More research is necessary to examine which specific elements of problem-solving courts, aside from the voluntary nature, are essential to maintain their effectiveness.

A drug court by any other name? An analysis of problem-solving court programs.

Beginning with the original drug court model, specialized court programs (SCPs) have expanded to address a variety of offense-related problems, such as domestic violence courts, mental health courts, veteran courts, and homeless courts. To date, there has been no empirical assessment as to whether these types of court programs share similar program characteristics with the drug court model. To address this gap, we used data from the 2012 Census of Problem-Solving Courts of 2,793 problem-solving court programs in the United States to examine differences between drug courts and other court types. We used multinomial logistic regression to analyze program-level characteristics between SCPs and drug courts. SCPs were similar on several key characteristics to drug courts, such as specialization and services, staff training, and procedures. Where SCPs tend to differ were whether felony offenders were allowed, charges dismissed after program completion, and participants entering the program post-adjudication. Though they may go by different names, many SCPs continue to rely on the original drug court model. Future research within the drug court paradigm should consider expanding to other types of SCPs to provide more comprehensive knowledge on the "black box" of problem-solving courts and how courts can more effectively implement court programs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Time In Between: A Response to A Theory of Civil Problem-Solving Courts

As small claims courts grow in numbers and popularity, more issues are beginning to rise to the surface. These issues stem from a lack of understanding of the process, not following the court’s procedural rules, and many others revolving around pro se litigants. As criminal courts begin to shift how they treat the underlying issues of defendants, so are the ideas for how to handle civil litigants. Most of the solutions proposed for solving civil courts’ issues are admirable and likely to succeed. However, as a magistrate judge and former prosecutor who worked closely with South Carolina’s first homeless court, I believe that we need to implement two solutions before the long-term plans can be realized: enforcing current contract law through the lens of pro se relaxation, and the application of homeless court principles.

Occupational Therapy and Criminal Court Mental Health Initiatives: An Important Emerging Practice Setting

Occupational therapy is well equipped to help people with mental illness in criminal justice contexts. Criminal court mental health initiatives, meanwhile, have emerged as a “rehabilitative response” to disproportionate numbers of people with mental illness caught in the criminal justice system. These initiatives—namely, mental health courts and mental health diversion—belong to a family of problem-solving courts animated by the theoretical concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. Occupational therapy is on the periphery of these developments, but this article argues that the growing emergence of these initiatives presents an important and expanding new area of practice for occupational therapy.

Problem-Solving Courts in China: Background, Development, and Current Status

ABSTRACTAs a judicial system, the Chinese problem-solving courts are more deeply rooted in traditional judicial approaches than in therapeutic jurisprudence that fueled the movement in the West. Nevertheless, they share many similarities with problem-solving courts developed elsewhere in the world. To provide a better understanding of the courts, the authors first introduce the cultural and legal tradition that served as background for the judicial innovations. They then review the social and economic conditions that provided the impetus for the judicial reform. Next, they examine the two most common forms of the problem-solving court—the juvenile court and the family court—and identify their key functions and procedures. Last, the authors discuss the significance of the legal reform, the challenges it confronts, and improvement it can achieve.

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

ABSTRACTAlthough researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike have long known about the established link between substance abuse and criminal behavior, criminal justice agencies in the United States are still tasked with managing an influx of individuals who display symptoms of abuse and dependence. By the late 1980s, the drug court model emerged as an innovative response to this problem, and this reform has since proliferated to such an extent that it is the most common type of problem-solving court in America. Still, there remains much variation in how drug courts are implemented across jurisdictions, which can have strong implications for the outcomes among the courts’ participants. In this review, we summarize the key research on drug court implementation, followed by an assessment of whether they can be said to “work” in terms of reducing criminal behavior and relapse among adults. We conclude that the model remains an evidence-based practice and suggest some directions for future work, including increased emphasis on theory and causal dynamics and key measurement issues.

Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACTRecently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.

Problem-Solving Courts in Australia: A Review of Problems and Solutions

ABSTRACTThis article reviews the experience of Australian problem-solving courts since their introduction 20 years ago. The paper begins with a description of these courts, describing how the cautious tone that accompanied their emergence has evolved into blurred definitions and interpretations. We then describe some of the prospects (participant satisfaction, collaboration, and effectiveness) and pitfalls (scope, access, content, and constitutionality) of problem-solving courts. We conclude by forwarding recommendations for the future of these courts (improving access, assessments, services, processes, and research), suggesting that the problems and the solutions must be better defined and resourced for Australian problem-solving justice to be just.

The Effectiveness of A Problem-Solving Court for Individuals Charged with Misdemeanor Prostitution in Harris County Texas

This exploratory study examines the effectiveness of SAFE Court, a prostitution problem-solving court located in Harris County, Texas (Houston). During a two-year period, 344 participants were screened for SAFE Court eligibility. Of these, 230 individuals refused participation, 68 entered SAFE Court, and 46 entered community supervision. These three groups were compared on recidivism, as measured by rearrest. Results indicate that community supervision participants recidivated less than participants who refused SAFE Court, but SAFE Court participants did not differ from community supervision participants or the SAFE Court refusal group. Prior arrest served as the strongest predictor of recidivism.

Problem-Solving Justice in Criminal and Civil Justice in Finland

Problem-solving justice as a concept has often been understood in relation to the criminal justice system. The best-known application of problem-solving justice is problem-solving courts. However, in Finland and the other Nordic countries, no courts could be described as problem-solving courts. As a theoretical concept, problem-solving justice is not very well known or used in research or in legal textbooks. Indeed, the core concept of problem-solving justice is quite unfamiliar in Finnish and in Nordic legal culture. That being said, problem-solving approaches in a broader sense are currently quite important in the law and conflict resolution mechanisms of Nordic countries. In the field of conflict resolution, there are many simultaneous and alternative problem-solving methods and ways to deal with conflicts. There are also many mediation systems, and research in the field of conflict resolution is dynamic. In the Nordic countries, the problem-solving approach is included in the whole criminal and civil law systems and procedural law. The attention and desired changes in legal policy from this perspective are less attached to the structure of the court system than in common law countries, and the idea of special courts has been rejected. It is unlikely that there will be specific problem-solving courts in the future in Finland or the other Nordic countries. Instead, as a theoretical concept, problem solving justice is useful in the Nordic context when we review and evaluate the functioning of the court and conflict resolution system. It is appropriate to understand the “problem solving justice” concept more widely than it has often been understood. In its wider meaning, it is not limited to the criminal justice system or to special problem-solving courts. Instead we can use it in a broader sense to describe different conflict resolution systems and activities, the aim of which is based more on problem solving than on pure judicial decision making.

Problem-Solving Initiatives in Administrative and Criminal Law in the Netherlands

In this contribution we describe how efforts to solve the problems of litigants, suspects and victims are organized in the Dutch administrative and criminal justice systems. Contrary to the problem-solving courts that we know from the United States and Australia, problem-solving justice in the Netherlands is for a large part in the hands of administrative authorities and a variety of agencies in the criminal justice organisation. The possibilities for judges to actually solve litigants’ problems are few, at least in administrative and criminal law. This is related to a lack of expertise and training, but also to time pressure and a lack of involvement of non-judicial expertise in the courts. With regard to the criminal justice system, there is a resistance to a more extensive intervention of the judges in problem-solving initiatives, as this would be at odds with their impartiality and independence. The results of several empirical studies show that the Dutch approach can be quite successful if it comes to ‘keeping cases out of court’. To a certain extent, this approach helps solve concrete problems of parties and of persons situated in a criminal law context. On the negative side, the position of interested parties in administrative decision-making is quite weak, and the same is true for suspects in the criminal justice domain.

Posttraumatic Stress, Posttraumatic Growth, and Religious Coping in Individuals Exiting Sex Trafficking

ABSTRACTSeismic suffering stemming from sex trafficking can also paradoxically prompt a process of transformation and adaptive coping strategies. We investigated the levels of and linkages between traumatic events (TEs), posttraumatic stress (PTS), posttraumatic growth (PTG), and religious coping (RC) in individuals exiting sex-trafficking who were enrolled in a problem-solving court program (CATCH Court) and whether the amount of time in the program was associated with the study variables. Simultaneous, multiple linear regression analysis and simple mediation analysis were employed. The majority of the participants experienced extremely high TEs and elevated PTS, as well as, moderately high levels of PTG. Participants reported engaging in both positive and negative religious coping (PRC, NRC) although PRC was used more frequently. TE, PTS, PRC, NRC, and Time in CATCH Court significantly predicted PTG, explaining 41% of the variance. Higher levels of PRC were positively associated with higher levels of PTG. NRC and PRC were not substantiated as mediators in the relationships between TE and PTS, and PTS and PTG, respectively, though the NRC model narrowly missed establishing confidence. The struggle with stressors and use of PRC may provide some individuals exiting sex trafficking ways of experiencing transformative changes. Clinical and problem-solving court implications are included.

'The Pain I Rise Above': How International Human Rights Can Best Realize the Needs of Persons with Trauma-Related Mental Disabilities

Persons with mental disabilities — and specifically those with trauma-related mental disabilities — must seek to rise above their pain each day, in a world that is not designed to understand or have compassion for their individualized needs. This population is disproportionately traumatized, not only by the existence of their disability, but also by how others treat them. This article explores how international human rights documents — particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) — can be used to realize the rights of dignity, respect, and equality for persons with trauma-related mental disabilities, and how trauma-informed practice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and problem-solving courts can be utilized to ensure the protection of the rights of individuals with trauma-related mental disabilities.

Reflections from the ‘Double Figures’ Milestone: A Decade of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Tasmania.

This paper is a frontline analysis of ten years of problem-solving courts in Tasmania, Australia (2007-2017), particularly the Drug Court (CMD). Stakeholder input contributes to recommendations for the future of the program.

The role of therapeutic jurisprudence to support persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the courtroom: Reflections from Ontario, Canada

It is generally recognized that persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are at greater risk than the general population when they encounter the criminal justice system due to vulnerabilities such as cognition, memory and language (Jones, 2007). To date, little evidence has been generated regarding best practice to support persons with IDD in the criminal justice system, specifically the courtroom. Various models of problem-solving courts have developed across Canada to divert cases composed of complex human social problems to more appropriate community-based treatment and supports. Past Canadian authors have raised critical questions that require reflection about the broader theory of Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) and its current implementation in problem-solving courts. Given the risk and vulnerabilities of persons with IDD in the criminal justice system, problem-solving courts (specifically mental health courts) hold great promise to address some of the unique needs of these individuals. We reflect on the critical questions raised by previous Canadian authors regarding problem-solving courts and suggest some considerations that need to be addressed to maximize the benefits of these courts for persons with IDD.

Dissolving the stiff upper lip: Opportunities and challenges for the mainstreaming of therapeutic jurisprudence in the United Kingdom

Although therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ”) is increasingly well-established internationally, particularly within the United States of America (“US”), to date it remains relatively unacknowledged within the United Kingdom (“UK”). This article will explore the opportunities presented within contemporary UK society for the greater promotion, and eventual mainstreaming, of TJ. It will also consider the challenges faced during this process and how best to overcome these. Its first key area of focus will be upon the potential role of legal education in the UK in educating law students (and academics) about TJ, considering which approaches are likely to be most effective in incorporating TJ perspectives, at what stage this should occur and to what extent TJ is likely to impact on the existing curricula at a time when proposed changes relating to entry into the legal profession are heavily influencing the work of Law Schools. The article will then move on to consider the receptiveness of the UK legal profession to the TJ paradigm in light of recent attempts to move to a competency-based approach to practice and to reconceptualise professionalism to meet the challenges of increasing fragmentation and corporatisation. The third key area it will explore is the UK's recent plans to reintroduce problem-solving courts (“PSCs”) into its criminal justice system. The authors will discuss the downfall of the six UK Drug Court (“DC”) pilots originally established in 2005 theorising upon their failures and reflecting upon whether the current UK criminal justice system is truly able to support a fresh round of PSC initiatives. The article will end with recommendations for ways in which the international TJ community should begin the process of mainstreaming TJ within the UK. It will conclude that there are currently significant opportunities to be utilised, but that this requires significant commitment and mobilisation amongst existing TJ scholars and practitioners.