Home The Gamechangers Problem solving courts for Criminal Cases

Problem-solving courts
for crime

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime.

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability.

Focus on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime

Hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the surrounding community

Foster interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system

Connect participants with individualised, evidence-based treatment

Problem-solving courts
for crime

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime.

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability.

Focus on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime

1

Foster interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system

2

Hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the surrounding community

3

Connect participants with individualised, evidence-based treatment

4

In what setting?

Problem-solving courts have been established in a number of high-income countries. Problem-solving principles and practices are also applied in programmes that “divert” cases from the criminal courts to a plethora of other interventions. In communities where formal justice is difficult to obtain, criminal justice often has many similar elements: sharing of experiences, restorative justice, rehabilitation, contributions by families and community members, avoiding retaliation and a return to harmony in the community.

In their report, What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Porter, Rempel, and Mansky identify universal indicators for each of the three organising principles of problem-solving courts. They include: (under problem-solving) individualised justice and substantive education for court staff; (under collaboration) links with community-based agencies and court presence in community; and (under accountability) compliance reviews, early coordination of information, and court data systems.

Examples of problem solving practices

Many of these problem-solving principles and practices can be (and are) applied and monitored in traditional court settings. Judges monitor the progress of problem-solving court participants in terms of rehabilitation and restorative justice for victims.

From the HiiL Justice Accelerator’s portfolio, Mental Health Court in USA pioneered by Judge Ginger Wren is a successful example of such a problem-solving court.

Other example includes Drug Courts set up by the governments in UK, Canada, Australia and USA.

Scaling of Problem-solving Courts

Evidence-based and informed by high-quality research

Problem-solving courts are informed by high-quality research. Gradually, outcomes have been defined and standardised performance indicators have been developed. The individualised treatments problem-solving courts provide are rigorously researched and applied based on validated risk-needs assessments. Many have been standardised and can easily be translated into evidence-based guidelines that can be used across jurisdictions.

Evidence-based and informed by high-quality research

From depending on referrals to becoming the default

Most problem-solving courts still depend on prosecutors or judges selecting and referring individual cases. By now, the outcomes achieved in problem-solving courts can be compared systematically to similar outcomes achieved by standard criminal courts. The best treatments should become the default.

From depending on referrals to becoming the default

Scaling the number of courts has been successful

In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. These numbers are not the only relevant measure for evaluating the extent to which this gamechanger has successfully scaled, however. In addition to horizontal scaling of courts across the country, vertical integration of problem-solving principles and practices within particular jurisdictions is an important indicator of problem-solving courts’ spread and influence.

Scaling the number of courts has been successful

Problem-solving practices are broadly used

The principles and practices of problem-solving justice can be and are increasingly applied by traditional justice actors and in existing, non-specialised courts. Police departments across the country are learning that they can divert defendants to treatment from the get-go, without necessarily waiting for a case to be processed through the courts. Prosecutors and judges who are not operating within a problem-solving court can apply problem-solving principles by linking defendants to services and making use of alternative sentences instead of jail time.

Problem-solving practices are broadly used

Integration is happening

This “problem-solving orientation” is much bigger than problem-solving courts. One indication that problem-solving courts have already scaled “horizontally” in the US - and that this “vertical” scaling is the latest trend - is the fact that the US government’s drug courts funding solicitation in 2020 no longer includes a category for the creation of a new drug court.

Integration is happening

The revenue model needs attention

The revenue model of problem-solving courts needs attention. Funding from user fees is unlikely to cover all costs. Problem-solving courts are more likely to emerge in settings where one agency (for example, a city or county) has a choice between spending on problem-solving, police patrols, prisons or old-school courts.

The revenue model needs attention

Problem-solving practices can also be used in community justice programs

In countries with fewer resources, problem-solving practices can grow in community justice programs, informed by guidelines to ensure adequate quality. In many countries, individual judges are already applying problem-solving practices in traditional local courts.

Problem-solving practices can also be used in community justice programs

Problem-solving forms of legal representation exist as well

The traditional role of lawyers in criminal cases is also changing. Specialised lawyers are developing their practices in the direction of more holistic types of advice. These lawyers assist their clients in reorganising their lives rather than focusing on the legal defence. The outcomes they try to achieve for their clients are similar to those achieved in problem-solving courts.

Problem-solving forms of legal representation exist as well

The broader criminal justice context is changing

Defence lawyers consider rehabilitation programs if this is an element of the court procedure and is an answer to what the client needs. Criminal justice now operates in the context of problem solving courts, plea bargaining and increased victim participation, This may be an opening for further integration and innovation. Only a small minority of individuals seeking justice use a lawyer. Many studies compare the outcomes for people in courts with or without lawyers, and the literature seems to suggest that lawyer assistance produces better outcomes in more complex proceedings.

The broader criminal justice context is changing

Legal aid by private law firms requires effective contracting

Integrating assistance by lawyers is a challenge for criminal justice systems. Many defendants cannot afford a private lawyers, so subsidies are needed. But most countries cannot afford a large legal aid budget. Legal aid comes in two models with different incentives.The judicare model uses lawyers from private law firms. It is used in high income countries such as England and Wales, the Netherlands and Canada. This depends on effective contracting with private law firms, using tendering, fixed fee arrangements and quality control mechanisms.

Legal aid by private law firms requires effective contracting

Legal aid by public defenders is a lower cost alternative

An alternative is a government legal aid office hiring lawyers to assist clients in courts, known as the public defender system for criminal cases. Costs tend to be lower in public defender systems. Middle-income countries such as South Africa and Brazil mainly use public defenders, and hire lawyers from private firms for specific cases.

Legal aid by public defenders is a lower cost alternative

When procedures and roles change, new models are needed

Can problem solving criminal practices be scaled in a sustainable way? Can they become more broadly available at less cost to the taxpayer and with more value added for the people directly involved and for the community?

When procedures and roles change, new models are needed

Problem-solving Practices: becoming the default for crimes

Suggestions for what should be addressed in a feasibility study

Emphasising the strengths of evidence based interventions

Problem solving courts have proliferated in the US. They exist in quite a few other common law countries. Similar practices have developed in Nordic countries and in programs to “divert” cases from the criminal courts to a plethora of other interventions. In communities where formal justice is difficult to obtain, criminal justice often has many similar elements: sharing of experiences, restorative justice, rehabilitation, contributions by families and community members, avoiding retaliation and a return to harmony in the community.

Problem solving courts are informed by high quality research. Gradually, outcomes have been defined and judges are monitoring progress of rehabilitation and contributions of perpetrators to restorative justice for victims. Treatments are standardised and can easily grow into evidence based guidelines that can be used across jurisdictions.

Planning to become the default instead of diversion option

Most problem solving courts still depend on prosecutors or the judiciary selecting and referring individual cases. By now, the outcomes achieved in problem solving courts can be compared systematically to similar outcomes achieved by standard criminal courts. The best treatments should become the default.

Linking funding models to budget owners

The revenue model of problem solving courts needs attention. Funding from user fees is unlikely to cover all costs. Problem solving courts are more likely to emerge in settings where one agency (a city, a county) has a choice between spending on problem solving, police patrols, prisons or old school courts. An agency willing to respond to the long term security and criminal justice needs of the population has a position similar to an access to justice task force.

In countries with less resources, problem solving practice can grow in community justice programs, informed by guidelines to ensure adequate quality. Countries also may have local courts where individual judges already apply problemsolving practice.

Towards an investable opportunity

Click below to access a Business Model Canvas on how problem-solving justice can be financed in innovative ways.

In the canvas, we quantify activities, possible revenue streams and give an indication of the required investments. We also give estimates of market size and potential contribution to growth of the justice sector, showing the most important assumptions for these calculations.

Justice Dashboard

Justice Dashboard

Problem-solving courts
for crime