Problem-Solving Courts

Origins and Characteristics

Problem-solving courts originated in 1989 with advent of the nation’s first drug court in Dade County (Miami), Florida. It was a product of efforts to develop strategies of addressing significant court caseloads and backlogs resulting from the drug epidemic of the 1980s and intensive law enforcement policies and more severe sanctions that emanated from the War on Drugs. In the face of increased numbers of drug cases, traditional courts could merely attempt to expedite case processing, so as to reduce the time from arrest to conviction. By contrast, drug courts’ objective is to break the cycle of drug use, dependence, and crime among substance-involved offenders by linking them to judicially monitored treatment. This first drug court was a harbinger of significant change in the nation’s courts—a shift from the traditional emphasis on speedy case processing and efficiently meting out penalties to practices designed to reduce recidivism by addressing problems that bring about defendants’ criminal behavior.

In the 1990s, the accomplishments of drug courts across the nation led to the development of other types of problem-solving courts. While problem-solving courts vary in terms of their specific missions and procedures, they have a shared purpose of offering innovative responses to criminal acts committed by individuals with problems that underlie their offending behavior. Whereas in the traditional court setting, the task of monitoring defendants is relegated to probation departments or community-based organizations, in the setting of the problem-solving court, judicial personnel, including judges and attorneys, take an active role in monitoring defendants. An overarching characteristic of problem-solving courts is their focus on outcomes—that is, meaningfully addressing the problems that they are designed to take on. These outcomes can include reducing offenders’ recidivism (by addressing the issues, such as drug addiction, underlying their criminality), enhancing victims’ safety (in the case of domestic violence courts), and improving community conditions (by offering a meaningful judicial response to offenses that harm a community’s quality of life).

...