Problem-Solving Justice
The Center has recently undertaken a series of research projects designed to identify the fundamental principles and practices common to all problem-solving court models; and, even more importantly, to explore which of these practices might be productively applied throughout state court systems, beyond the limits of specialized court settings.

The Problem-Solving and the American Bench: A National Survey of Trial Court Judges
By Donald J. Farole, Jr., Michael Rempel, Francine Byrne, and Yueh-Wen Chang
A nationwide survey of more than 1,000 trial court judges concerning their attitudes and practices with respect to problem-solving. The results indicate broad support for problem-solving methods and offer encouraging news for those interested in integrating problem-solving court principles in conventional court settings. The results also identify important obstacles, including limited resources and a need for greater education and training of judges. 

The Challenges of Going to Scale: Lessons from Other Disciplines for Problem-Solving Courts 
By Donald Farole, Jr. 
A discussion of the lessons learned in going to scale with innovations in education and other fields, and what these lessons imply for state judiciaries as they seek to go to scale with problem-solving justice. 

Collaborative Justice in Conventional Courts (Phase One): Opportunities and Barriers
By Donald Farole, Jr., Nora Puffett, Michael Rempel, and Francine Byrne
A study of the potential to apply specialized "problem-solving court" principles and practices more broadly throughout state court systems. Based on focus groups and interviews with 35 judges in California and New York, the study assesses which problem-solving court practices are transferable to general court calendars, the major barriers to transferability and how problem-solving methods may be more widely disseminated among judges and judicial leaders.

Collaborative Justice in Conventional Courts (Phase Two): Stakeholder Perspectives
By Donald Farole, Jr., Nora Puffett, and Michael Rempel
A second study of the potential to apply specialized "problem-solving court" principles and practices more broadly throughout state court systems. This study focused on the views of justice and treatment system stakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, treatment professionals, and representatives of statewide organizations) of whether problem-solving should be expanded beyond specialized courts; what concerns might they have about such an expansion; and, if problem-solving were to be expanded, what practical steps and operational changes would need to be implemented in and outside of the courthouse.

Applying Problem-Solving Principles in Mainstream Courts: Lessons for State Courts
By Donald Farole, Jr., Nora Puffett, Michael Rempel, and Francine Byrne
A summary of focus groups of judges in New York and California examining which practices of problem-solving courts can be integrated into conventional court operations. Published in The Justice System Journal, Volume 26, No. 1 (2005)

Applying the Problem-Solving Model Outside of Problem-Solving Courts
By Donald Farole, Jr., Nora Puffett, Michael Rempel, and Francine Byrne
A brief article highlighting major findings and lessons concerning the potential to apply problem-solving practices in a more in-depth way throughout the courts. Longer versions of this research are available in other publications. Published in Judicature, Volume 89, No. 1 (2005).

And the Survey Says…: Making Change Happen in State Courts
By Aubrey Fox
Results from a survey of 500 state criminal court judges about their attitudes towards common problems within criminal courts as well as a variety of new tools and strategies for addressing these problems.


Drug Courts
The Center’s research on drug courts has explored both the “bottom line” question of whether they work; as well as how and why they work – which specific practices are the keys to their success. In 2003, the Center completed among the first multi-site drug court evaluations in the country, a statewide evaluation of New York’s adult drug courts that demonstrated consistent and meaningful recidivism impacts across multiple sites. In addition, the Center recently completed a series of papers written for a practitioner as well research audience, summarizing the literature, identifying best practices, and reporting participant perspectives on the drug court experience.

The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants, and Impacts
By Michael Rempel, Dana Fox-Kralstein, Amanda Cissner, Robyn Cohen, Melissa Labriola, Donald Farole, Jr., Ann Bader, and Michael Magnani
One of the first multi-year evaluations in the country to demonstrate consistent and meaningful recidivism impacts across a large number of drug court sites. This study, conducted by staff from the New York State Unified Court System and the Center for Court Innovation, documents the policies, participant characteristics, and performance of participants in eleven of New York's oldest and largest drug courts. Among other analyses, the report evaluates the impact of six drug courts on recidivism and identifies the participant characteristics and programmatic features that increase the likelihood of successful drug court outcomes.

Drug Courts an Effective Treatment Alternative
By Michael Rempel, Dana Fox-Kralstein, and Amanda Cissner
An overview of the findings of the groundbreaking study, "The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants and Impacts," one of the most comprehensive statewide evaluations of drug courts ever done. The study, conducted by the Center for Court Innovation and the New York State Office of Court Administration, found consistent and meaningful recidivism impacts across a large number of drug court sites. Published in Criminal Justice 19, No. 2, Summer 2004 © 2004 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

Seeing Eye to Eye: Participant and Staff Perspectives on Drug Courts
By Donald Farole, Jr. and Amanda Cissner
The results of focus groups conducted among the participants and court staff in three New York State drug courts. The research was designed to provide feedback about drug court operations and to assist programs by examining the extent to which participants and staff hold comparable views about various aspects of the drug court experience. In other words, sought to answer the question: do drug court participants and court staff see eye to eye?

The Staten Island Treatment Court Evaluation: Planning, Implementation, and Impacts
By Kelly O'Keefe and Michael Rempel

The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond 'Do They Work?'
By Amanda Cissner and Michael Rempel
An overview of the drug court research literature written for practitioners and researchers alike. This review assesses what we know now concerning both whether drug courts work, including their effects on recidivism, drug use, and cost savings. It also discusses how and for whom they work, including which components of the model are most important and how those components should be implemented to maximize effectiveness.

Action Research: Using Information to Improve Your Drug Court
By Michael Rempel
A practical guide for drug court administrators and staff reporting how they can use data productively to monitor their operations, measure key performance indicators, identify areas of success, and bring to light problem areas or ways to improve.

Recidivism 101: Evaluating the Impact of Your Drug Court
By Michael Rempel
A plain-language discussion written either for practitioners or for researchers new to the drug court field of the key methodological questions that must be addressed in any recidivism analysis. This paper was motivated by the reality that while producing reductions in recidivism is a universal drug court goal, court administrators and staff are routinely uncertain how to go about obtaining a valid recidivism analysis. The paper discusses: (1) which drug court participants to include in a recidivism analysis, (2) what is an appropriate "comparison group," (3) how to ensure that the final drug court participants and comparison samples are truly comparable, and (4) what is an appropriate definition of recidivism. Real examples from the evaluation literature are incorporated throughout to provide clear illustrations of how different methods have been applied.

Predictors of Engagement in Court-Mandated Treatment: Findings at the Brooklyn Treatment Court, 1996-2000, available in print from the Drug Court publications page
By Christine DeStefano and Michael Rempel
A study of key criminal justice, demographic, drug use, and neighborhood-based characteristics associated with serious engagement in treatment at the Brooklyn Treatment Court. Published in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.


Domestic Violence
The Center seeks both to evaluate new domestic violence court programs and to pinpoint specific court practices, rigorously examining their efficacy. The Center recently completed a randomized trial testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and ongoing judicial monitoring with convicted domestic violence offenders. Current projects include a national survey of courts, batterer programs, and victim service agencies regarding how courts respond to the noncompliance of offenders mandated to programs; statewide research on integrated domestic violence courts in New York; and an evaluation of an experimental Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court located in Brooklyn.

Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a Randomized Trial at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court
By Melissa Labriola, Michael Rempel, and Robert C. Davis
A study testing whether batterer programs and judicial monitoring are effective at reducing recidivism among domestic violence offenders. The study compares the recidivism rates of convicted offenders who were randomly assigned either to attend or not to attend a batterer program; and includes a second analysis examining whether ongoing judicial monitoring by the court deters recidivism. Results are based on a combination of official re-arrest records and victim reports of re-abuse. The results indicate that neither of the interventions in question produce a reduction in recidivism.

Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Comparison in the Bronx
By Melissa Labriola, Michael Rempel, and Robert C. Davis
A study of the impact of intensive judicial monitoring with convicted domestic violence offenders. Published in Violence Against Women, Volume 14, Number 2 (February 2008), and available from Sage Journals Online. Key findings are also presented in Chapter Six of Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring.

Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or Re-Arrest Rates?
By Amanda Cissner and Nora Puffett
The research examines the use of two batterer programs with disparate program philosophies by the Brooklyn Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, comparing outcomes among mandated defendants. The results suggest that neither underlying program philosophy nor program length alone predict either program completion or future violence.

Court Responses to Batterer Program Noncompliance: A National Perspective
By Melissa Labriola, Michael Rempel, Chris S. O'Sullivan, Phyllis B. Frank, Jim McDowell, and Rachel Finkelstein
A study conducted in collaboration with VCS Inc. that examines how criminal courts respond when domestic violence offenders are noncompliant with a court mandate to a batterer program. The study, based on a national survey of courts, batterer programs, and victim assistance agencies in all 50 states, detected overwhelming support for the goal of "accountability" in theory but a gap between theory and practice, as most courts indicated that they do not always or often impose sanctions when offenders are noncompliant with the batterer program mandate.

Bridging Theory and Practice: A Roundtable about Court Responses to Domestic Violence
By Carolyn Turgeon
An edited transcript of a daylong conversation among 20 national experts as they explored options for improving criminal court responses to domestic violence, with particular focus on batterer program mandates, judicial monitoring, probation supervision, and victim advocacy.

A Comparison of Two Prosecution Policies in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence: Mandatory Case Filing vs. Following the Victim’s Lead
By Chris S. O'Sullivan, Robert C. Davis, Donald J. Farole, Jr., and Michael Rempel
Whether prosecution should proceed in domestic violence cases without the support of the victim is an important question with valid theoretical arguments on each side but a dearth of empirical data. This study compared case outcomes, victim satisfaction, and costs in a jurisdiction where the DA’s Office typically declines to file cases when the victim opposes prosecution (the Bronx) with a jurisdiction where the DA’s Office has a universal filing policy (Brooklyn).
download complete document
download executive summary only

Bringing Domestic Violence Best Practices to New York's Town and Village Courts
By Amanda Cissner
Based on findings from a recent training series, this descriptive study documents the current domestic violence policies and practices of town and village justice courts located in one rural county of upstate, New York. The report highlights the challenges faced by many rural jurisdictions in implementing domestic violence best practices and measures the effectiveness of a traditional training for small jurisdictions.

Process Evaluation of the Brooklyn Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court
By Amanda Cissner
An evaluation of the Brooklyn Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court. Through a number of data sources including defendant and stakeholder interviews, the evaluation documents the planning and implementation process, describes court operations, and identifies key challenges and lessons during the first 15 months of court operations.

Criminal Domestic Violence Case Processing: A Case Study of the Five Boroughs of New York City
By Chandra Gavin and Nora Puffett
A comparison of prosecution and court processing practices in the five criminal (misdemeanor) domestic violence courts of New York City. The study explores the views of different stakeholders—judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors and victim advocates—regarding the rationale and impact of court policies, with most expressing support for a specialized domestic violence court model, but continued concern for issues of victim safety and recidivism.

Predictors of Program Outcome and Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court
By Nora K. Puffett and Chandra Gavin
An analysis of mandate completion and criminal recidivism rates for defendants sentenced to a batterer intervention program and/or substance abuse treatment. The study found that defendants with more serious criminal histories were more likely to be mandated to substance abuse treatment, were more likely to be non-compliant with court mandates from the outset, and were more likely to be rearrested. Findings suggest that courts may be able to predict defendants' probability of success in programs and make sentencing decisions accordingly.