Problem-Solving Justice

The April 24, 2008, roundtable brought together judges, policy analysts, and court administrators.

Statewide Coordination of Problem-Solving Courts: A Roundtable Discussion

Spurgeon Kennedy, of the Washington D.C. Pretrial Services AgencyOver the last few years, a number of states have begun to coordinate or administer problem-solving courts on a statewide basis.

What are states trying to achieve by doing this? Is this the logical next step in the development of problem-solving justice? Is it possible to “institutionalize” problem-solving courts without stifling innovation?

These were just some of the questions tackled by participants in a daylong roundtable sponsored by the Center for Court Innovation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Nancy Fishman, left, of the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and Judge Eileen Olds, president of the American Judges Association.The roundtable, which took place at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. on April 24, 2008, brought together judges, policy analysts, and court administrators to discuss the advantages and challenges of statewide coordination, as well as various strategies for carrying it out. Among the states represented were Maryland, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Utah, Indiana and New York. (An analysis of the roundtable discussion is available here.)

Tim Murray, of the Pretrial Justice Institute, served as moderator.One of the tensions inherent in statewide coordination is “how to institutionalize problem-solving courts” while also providing “the freedom to experiment,” said Domingo Herraiz, director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, as he welcomed participants to the roundtable.

Judge Judy Harris Kluger, the administrator responsible for problem-solving courts in New York, said “the last thing we wanted [in New York] was a cookie-cutter approach.” Instead, her office strives to provide “guidance, help, a conversation between the different parts of the state that may be doing things similarly but could learn from each other,” she said.

Spurgeon Kennedy, of the Washington D.C. Pretrial Services Agency, agreed. “For us coordination really is more along the lines of support. It’s being able to say that here is an idea… Here [are] resources to help you develop that idea,” he said.

A survey of statewide coordinators conducted by the Center for Court Innovation prior to the roundtable indicated a “lack of uniformity from state to state” in approaches to coordinating problem-solving justice, noted Tim Murray, of the Pretrial Justice Institute, who served as the roundtable moderator. For instance, states like California, Idaho and New York have devoted extensive resources to not only launching problem-solving courts but also training, technology, evaluation, and integrating problem-solving principles into more traditional court settings. Meanwhile, states like Kentucky, Minnesota and New Jersey have confined statewide coordination efforts exclusively to drug courts. Other states are still at the conceptual stage.

Challenges facing statewide coordinators of problem-solving courts are many. The most common involve obtaining adequate treatment resources and securing necessary funding. Statewide coordinators cited a particular shortage of options for mentally-ill offenders, especially those with dual diagnoses (that is, those who have both drug addiction and mental illness). Many interviewed for a briefing paper prepared prior to the roundtable reported that resources are particularly scarce in rural areas.

One roundtable participant, Dawn Rubio, of the National Center for State Courts, expressed concern that problem-solving courts shift needed resources from conventional courts: “There is still that tension that problem-solving courts focus on a few rather than the many.”

But Karen Freeman-Wilson, the former executive director of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, countered by saying, “There are ways that we can create a problem-solving courts system that does not necessarily shift resources from traditional court.” One way to do this is by applying “aspects of the problem-solving court model” in conventional court settings; another way is to shift resources from corrections departments, Freeman-Wilson explained.

American University’s Justice Programs Office assisted with roundtable logistics.

Download "A New Way of Doing Business," which summarizes and analyzes the roundtable discussion on statewide coordination of problem-solving courts.