Problem-Solving Courts Today: An Introduction

All courts are inspired by a sense of morality. But “problem-solving courts” and, relatedly, courts with “restorative justice” approaches, are more explicitly imbued by the concept of conscience. Problem-solving courts are typically motivated by a desire to help defendants with particular histories (including but not limited to veterans, those with substance use disorders, mental illness, or prior conviction). Restorative justice principles are grounded in the idea that any problem-solving process (whether in court or another setting) should center the needs of the victim and repairing the offender-victim relationship.

These courts are also more flexible and far-ranging than their regular counterparts; they may meet in nontraditional settings, receive substantial input from social workers and psychologists, attempt to address criminal behavior ex ante, more regularly invoke evidence-based practices, and draw upon unconventional consequences. And their goals are often more holistic — promoting community engagement, connecting people to services, repairing harm, and reducing recidivism, among other aims.

Moreover, their popularity is on the rise: There are at least 4,000 problem-solving courts nationally, and more than 30 states have implemented restorative justice practices. As these courts and practices have grown, so has the discourse about them and the populations they serve. In this issue, we spotlight a leading group of judges, lawyers, social scientists, and legal scholars with their own perspectives.

• First, Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks and her law clerk, Piper Byzet, describe the BRIDGE program, a drug court in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
• Then, Dr. Eva McKinsey and co-authors examine how court personnel believe judges influence the experience of kids prosecuted in juvenile court — arguably the first kind of problem-solving court.
• Next, leaders from the Youth Sentencing & Reentry Project recount how they promote the wellbeing of children tried in the adult system, and how judges can help.
• Judge Juan G. Villaseñor, Colorado state district court judge, and Mariah Bauguess, legal fellow at Bridge to Justice, describe the kinds of restorative justice principles employed nationally.
• Researchers at Policy Research Associates provide a highlight reel of social science studies relevant to courts — for judges interested in employing more evidence-based practices, whether they preside over a problem-solving court or not.
• Judge Richard Berman, in turn, offers some data from his own experience with the supervised release of more than 152 supervisees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, describes her court’s work in reentry, pretrial, and veterans court.
• University of Richmond Law Professor Erin Collins explores whether problem-solving courts function as intended, looking toward the next wave of unconventional efforts to help populations in need.
• Finally, Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi and the current chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, along with Con Reynolds, counsel to the chair, explain how the commission can help better vindicate the mission of problem-solving courts.

Taken together, these authors offer a nuanced view of these nontraditional approaches.

— Amelia Ashton Thorn