Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts

The most formal and comprehensive versions of these programs are the specialized “problem-solving courts” developed to address domestic violence, drug abuse, family matters, mental illness, quality-of-life crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism, and so forth.¹ Although subject matter jurisdiction varies across these problem-solving courts, they all have service coordination as a core feature of their operation. Service coordination begins early in the process, often post-arrest, to determine eligibility for programs and the need for prompt, specialized services. Some problem-solving courts are preadjudicatory and diversion oriented and others require a plea before a treatment plan is implemented. In either model, however, considerable service coordination has usually taken place by the time a treatment order is entered. Given their concentration on service coordination, these problem-solving courts offer a starting point to explore promising court practices that integrate treatment services with judicial case processing to address the service needs of individuals in courts.

This exploration was a focus of the Models of Effective Court-Based Service Delivery for Children and Their Families project. The project included field research in eight jurisdictions: Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts in California; the Mental Health Court in Broward County, Florida; the Jefferson Family Court in Louisville, Kentucky; the Circuit Court (including its drug courts) in Kalamazoo, Michigan; the Youth Part of Manhattan’s Criminal Court in New York County, New York; the Oregon Judicial Department and Integrated Family Courts in Deschutes and Jackson Counties; the Richland County Family Court in Columbia, South Carolina; and the King County Unified Family Court in Seattle, Washington. The field research was supplemented with a literature review and a telephone survey of 50 courts as a preliminary step to obtain basic information on court coordination of services.

The information from the project’s data collection efforts underscores that a single model of service coordination is inappropriate. Jurisdictions vary considerably in their local legal and service cultures and resources. What works for one jurisdiction may need significant modification to work in another. In recognition of this variation, the project focused not on specific models but on broader service coordination goals and strategies for achieving the goals. This approach allows each jurisdiction to assess its current service coordination needs and develop a strategy to address these needs given local jurisdiction culture and resources.