problem solving models in criminal justice

Doha Declaration

Education for justice.

Agenda Day 1
Agenda Day 2
Agenda Day 3
Agenda Day 4
Registration
Breakout Sessions for Primary and Secondary Level
Breakout Sessions for Tertiary Level
E4J Youth Competition
India - Lockdown Learners
Chuka, Break the Silence
The Online Zoo
I would like a community where ...
Staying safe online
Let's be respectful online
We can all be heroes
Respect for all
We all have rights
A mosaic of differences
The right thing to do
Solving ethical dilemmas
UNODC-UNESCO Guide for Policymakers
UNODC-UNESCO Handbooks for Teachers
Justice Accelerators
Introduction
Organized Crime
Trafficking in Persons & Smuggling of Migrants
Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Reform
Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice & SDGs
UN Congress on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
Conference of the Parties to UNTOC
Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC
Rules for Simulating Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Bodies
Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
Engage with Us
Contact Us about MUN
Conferences Supporting E4J
Cyberstrike
Play for Integrity
Running out of Time
Zorbs Reloaded
Developing a Rationale for Using the Video
Previewing the Anti-Corruption Video
Viewing the Video with a Purpose
Post-viewing Activities
Previewing the Firearms Video
Rationale for Using the Video
Previewing the Human Trafficking Video
Previewing the Organized Crime Video
Previewing the Video
Criminal Justice & Crime Prevention
Corruption & Integrity
Human Trafficking & Migrant Smuggling
Firearms Trafficking
Terrorism & Violent Extremism
Introduction & Learning Outcomes
Corruption - Baseline Definition
Effects of Corruption
Deeper Meanings of Corruption
Measuring Corruption
Possible Class Structure
Core Reading
Advanced Reading
Student Assessment
Additional Teaching Tools
Guidelines for Stand-Alone Course
Appendix: How Corruption Affects the SDGs
What is Governance?
What is Good Governance?
Corruption and Bad Governance
Governance Reforms and Anti-Corruption
Guidelines for Stand-alone Course
Corruption and Democracy
Corruption and Authoritarian Systems
Hybrid Systems and Syndromes of Corruption
The Deep Democratization Approach
Political Parties and Political Finance
Political Institution-building as a Means to Counter Corruption
Manifestations and Consequences of Public Sector Corruption
Causes of Public Sector Corruption
Theories that Explain Corruption
Corruption in Public Procurement
Corruption in State-Owned Enterprises
Responses to Public Sector Corruption
Preventing Public Sector Corruption
Forms & Manifestations of Private Sector Corruption
Consequences of Private Sector Corruption
Causes of Private Sector Corruption
Responses to Private Sector Corruption
Preventing Private Sector Corruption
Collective Action & Public-Private Partnerships against Corruption
Transparency as a Precondition
Detection Mechanisms - Auditing and Reporting
Whistle-blowing Systems and Protections
Investigation of Corruption
Introduction and Learning Outcomes
Brief background on the human rights system
Overview of the corruption-human rights nexus
Impact of corruption on specific human rights
Approaches to assessing the corruption-human rights nexus
Human-rights based approach
Defining sex, gender and gender mainstreaming
Gender differences in corruption
Theories explaining the gender–corruption nexus
Gendered impacts of corruption
Anti-corruption and gender mainstreaming
Manifestations of corruption in education
Costs of corruption in education
Causes of corruption in education
Fighting corruption in education
Core terms and concepts
The role of citizens in fighting corruption
The role, risks and challenges of CSOs fighting corruption
The role of the media in fighting corruption
Access to information: a condition for citizen participation
ICT as a tool for citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
Government obligations to ensure citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
Teaching Guide
Brief History of Terrorism
19th Century Terrorism
League of Nations & Terrorism
United Nations & Terrorism
Terrorist Victimization
Exercises & Case Studies
Radicalization & Violent Extremism
Preventing & Countering Violent Extremism
Drivers of Violent Extremism
International Approaches to PVE &CVE
Regional & Multilateral Approaches
Defining Rule of Law
UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
International Cooperation & UN CT Strategy
Legal Sources & UN CT Strategy
Regional & National Approaches
International Legal Frameworks
International Human Rights Law
International Humanitarian Law
International Refugee Law
Current Challenges to International Legal Framework
Defining Terrorism
Criminal Justice Responses
Treaty-based Crimes of Terrorism
Core International Crimes
International Courts and Tribunals
African Region
Inter-American Region
Asian Region
European Region
Middle East & Gulf Regions
Core Principles of IHL
Categorization of Armed Conflict
Classification of Persons
IHL, Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism
Relationship between IHL & intern. human rights law
Limitations Permitted by Human Rights Law
Derogation during Public Emergency
Examples of States of Emergency & Derogations
International Human Rights Instruments
Regional Human Rights Instruments
Extra-territorial Application of Right to Life
Arbitrary Deprivation of Life
Death Penalty
Enforced Disappearances
Armed Conflict Context
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Convention against Torture et al.
International Legal Framework
Key Contemporary Issues
Investigative Phase
Trial & Sentencing Phase
Armed Conflict
Case Studies
Special Investigative Techniques
Surveillance & Interception of Communications
Privacy & Intelligence Gathering in Armed Conflict
Accountability & Oversight of Intelligence Gathering
Principle of Non-Discrimination
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Association
Fundamental Freedoms
Definition of 'Victim'
Effects of Terrorism
Access to Justice
Recognition of the Victim
Human Rights Instruments
Criminal Justice Mechanisms
Instruments for Victims of Terrorism
National Approaches
Key Challenges in Securing Reparation
Topic 1. Contemporary issues relating to conditions conducive both to the spread of terrorism and the rule of law
Topic 2. Contemporary issues relating to the right to life
Topic 3. Contemporary issues relating to foreign terrorist fighters
Topic 4. Contemporary issues relating to non-discrimination and fundamental freedoms
Module 16: Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
Thematic Areas
Content Breakdown
Module Adaptation & Design Guidelines
Teaching Methods
Acknowledgements
1. Introducing United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ vis-à-vis International Law
2. Scope of United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ
3. United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ in Operation
1. Definition of Crime Prevention
2. Key Crime Prevention Typologies
2. (cont.) Tonry & Farrington’s Typology
3. Crime Problem-Solving Approaches
4. What Works
United Nations Entities
Regional Crime Prevention Councils/Institutions
Key Clearinghouses
Systematic Reviews
1. Introduction to International Standards & Norms
2. Identifying the Need for Legal Aid
3. Key Components of the Right of Access to Legal Aid
4. Access to Legal Aid for Those with Specific Needs
5. Models for Governing, Administering and Funding Legal Aid
6. Models for Delivering Legal Aid Services
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Legal Aid Providers
8. Quality Assurance and Legal Aid Services
1. Context for Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials
2. Legal Framework
3. General Principles of Use of Force in Law Enforcement
4. Use of Firearms
5. Use of “Less-Lethal” Weapons
6. Protection of Especially Vulnerable Groups
7. Use of Force during Assemblies
1. Policing in democracies & need for accountability, integrity, oversight
2. Key mechanisms & actors in police accountability, oversight
3. Crosscutting & contemporary issues in police accountability
1. Introducing Aims of Punishment, Imprisonment & Prison Reform
2. Current Trends, Challenges & Human Rights
3. Towards Humane Prisons & Alternative Sanctions
1. Aims and Significance of Alternatives to Imprisonment
2. Justifying Punishment in the Community
3. Pretrial Alternatives
4. Post Trial Alternatives
5. Evaluating Alternatives
1. Concept, Values and Origin of Restorative Justice
2. Overview of Restorative Justice Processes
3. How Cost Effective is Restorative Justice?
4. Issues in Implementing Restorative Justice
1. Gender-Based Discrimination & Women in Conflict with the Law
2. Vulnerabilities of Girls in Conflict with the Law
3. Discrimination and Violence against LGBTI Individuals
4. Gender Diversity in Criminal Justice Workforce
1. Ending Violence against Women
2. Human Rights Approaches to Violence against Women
3. Who Has Rights in this Situation?
4. What about the Men?
5. Local, Regional & Global Solutions to Violence against Women & Girls
1. Understanding the Concept of Victims of Crime
2. Impact of Crime, including Trauma
3. Right of Victims to Adequate Response to their Needs
4. Collecting Victim Data
5. Victims and their Participation in Criminal Justice Process
6. Victim Services: Institutional and Non-Governmental Organizations
7. Outlook on Current Developments Regarding Victims
8. Victims of Crime and International Law
1. The Many Forms of Violence against Children
2. The Impact of Violence on Children
3. States' Obligations to Prevent VAC and Protect Child Victims
4. Improving the Prevention of Violence against Children
5. Improving the Criminal Justice Response to VAC
6. Addressing Violence against Children within the Justice System
1. The Role of the Justice System
2. Convention on the Rights of the Child & International Legal Framework on Children's Rights
3. Justice for Children
4. Justice for Children in Conflict with the Law
5. Realizing Justice for Children
1a. Judicial Independence as Fundamental Value of Rule of Law & of Constitutionalism
1b. Main Factors Aimed at Securing Judicial Independence
2a. Public Prosecutors as ‘Gate Keepers’ of Criminal Justice
2b. Institutional and Functional Role of Prosecutors
2c. Other Factors Affecting the Role of Prosecutors
Basics of Computing
Global Connectivity and Technology Usage Trends
Cybercrime in Brief
Cybercrime Trends
Cybercrime Prevention
Offences against computer data and systems
Computer-related offences
Content-related offences
The Role of Cybercrime Law
Harmonization of Laws
International and Regional Instruments
International Human Rights and Cybercrime Law
Digital Evidence
Digital Forensics
Standards and Best Practices for Digital Forensics
Reporting Cybercrime
Who Conducts Cybercrime Investigations?
Obstacles to Cybercrime Investigations
Knowledge Management
Legal and Ethical Obligations
Handling of Digital Evidence
Digital Evidence Admissibility
Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
Formal International Cooperation Mechanisms
Informal International Cooperation Mechanisms
Data Retention, Preservation and Access
Challenges Relating to Extraterritorial Evidence
National Capacity and International Cooperation
Internet Governance
Cybersecurity Strategies: Basic Features
National Cybersecurity Strategies
International Cooperation on Cybersecurity Matters
Cybersecurity Posture
Assets, Vulnerabilities and Threats
Vulnerability Disclosure
Cybersecurity Measures and Usability
Situational Crime Prevention
Incident Detection, Response, Recovery & Preparedness
Privacy: What it is and Why it is Important
Privacy and Security
Cybercrime that Compromises Privacy
Data Protection Legislation
Data Breach Notification Laws
Enforcement of Privacy and Data Protection Laws
Intellectual Property: What it is
Types of Intellectual Property
Causes for Cyber-Enabled Copyright & Trademark Offences
Protection & Prevention Efforts
Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment
Cyberbullying
Gender-Based Interpersonal Cybercrime
Interpersonal Cybercrime Prevention
Cyber Organized Crime: What is it?
Conceptualizing Organized Crime & Defining Actors Involved
Criminal Groups Engaging in Cyber Organized Crime
Cyber Organized Crime Activities
Preventing & Countering Cyber Organized Crime
Cyberespionage
Cyberterrorism
Cyberwarfare
Information Warfare, Disinformation & Electoral Fraud
Responses to Cyberinterventions
Framing the Issue of Firearms
Direct Impact of Firearms
Indirect Impacts of Firearms on States or Communities
International and National Responses
Typology and Classification of Firearms
Common Firearms Types
'Other' Types of Firearms
Parts and Components
History of the Legitimate Arms Market
Need for a Legitimate Market
Key Actors in the Legitimate Market
Authorized & Unauthorized Arms Transfers
Illegal Firearms in Social, Cultural & Political Context
Supply, Demand & Criminal Motivations
Larger Scale Firearms Trafficking Activities
Smaller Scale Trafficking Activities
Sources of Illicit Firearms
Consequences of Illicit Markets
International Public Law & Transnational Law
International Instruments with Global Outreach
Commonalities, Differences & Complementarity between Global Instruments
Tools to Support Implementation of Global Instruments
Other United Nations Processes
The Sustainable Development Goals
Multilateral & Regional Instruments
Scope of National Firearms Regulations
National Firearms Strategies & Action Plans
Harmonization of National Legislation with International Firearms Instruments
Assistance for Development of National Firearms Legislation
Firearms Trafficking as a Cross-Cutting Element
Organized Crime and Organized Criminal Groups
Criminal Gangs
Terrorist Groups
Interconnections between Organized Criminal Groups & Terrorist Groups
Gangs - Organized Crime & Terrorism: An Evolving Continuum
International Response
International and National Legal Framework
Firearms Related Offences
Role of Law Enforcement
Firearms as Evidence
Use of Special Investigative Techniques
International Cooperation and Information Exchange
Prosecution and Adjudication of Firearms Trafficking
Teaching Methods & Principles
Ethical Learning Environments
Overview of Modules
Module Adaption & Design Guidelines
Table of Exercises
Basic Terms
Forms of Gender Discrimination
Ethics of Care
Case Studies for Professional Ethics
Case Studies for Role Morality
Additional Exercises
Defining Organized Crime
Definition in Convention
Similarities & Differences
Activities, Organization, Composition
Thinking Critically Through Fiction
Excerpts of Legislation
Research & Independent Study Questions
Legal Definitions of Organized Crimes
Criminal Association
Definitions in the Organized Crime Convention
Criminal Organizations and Enterprise Laws
Enabling Offence: Obstruction of Justice
Drug Trafficking
Wildlife & Forest Crime
Counterfeit Products Trafficking
Falsified Medical Products
Trafficking in Cultural Property
Trafficking in Persons
Case Studies & Exercises
Extortion Racketeering
Loansharking
Links to Corruption
Bribery versus Extortion
Money-Laundering
Liability of Legal Persons
How much Organized Crime is there?
Alternative Ways for Measuring
Measuring Product Markets
Risk Assessment
Key Concepts of Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment of Organized Crime Groups
Risk Assessment of Product Markets
Risk Assessment in Practice
Positivism: Environmental Influences
Classical: Pain-Pleasure Decisions
Structural Factors
Ethical Perspective
Crime Causes & Facilitating Factors
Models and Structure
Hierarchical Model
Local, Cultural Model
Enterprise or Business Model
Groups vs Activities
Networked Structure
Jurisdiction
Investigators of Organized Crime
Controlled Deliveries
Physical & Electronic Surveillance
Undercover Operations
Financial Analysis
Use of Informants
Rights of Victims & Witnesses
Role of Prosecutors
Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Legal Systems
Mitigating Punishment
Granting Immunity from Prosecution
Witness Protection
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Sentencing Options
Alternatives to Imprisonment
Death Penalty & Organized Crime
Backgrounds of Convicted Offenders
Confiscation
Confiscation in Practice
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
Extradition
Transfer of Criminal Proceedings
Transfer of Sentenced Persons
Module 12: Prevention of Organized Crime
Adoption of Organized Crime Convention
Historical Context
Features of the Convention
Related international instruments
Conference of the Parties
Roles of Participants
Structure and Flow
Recommended Topics
Background Materials
What is Sex / Gender / Intersectionality?
Knowledge about Gender in Organized Crime
Gender and Organized Crime
Gender and Different Types of Organized Crime
Definitions and Terminology
Organized crime and Terrorism - International Legal Framework
International Terrorism-related Conventions
UNSC Resolutions on Terrorism
Organized Crime Convention and its Protocols
Theoretical Frameworks on Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
Typologies of Criminal Behaviour Associated with Terrorism
Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
Terrorism and Trafficking in Weapons
Terrorism, Crime and Trafficking in Cultural Property
Trafficking in Persons and Terrorism
Intellectual Property Crime and Terrorism
Kidnapping for Ransom and Terrorism
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Terrorism
Review and Assessment Questions
Research and Independent Study Questions
Criminalization of Smuggling of Migrants
UNTOC & the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants
Offences under the Protocol
Financial & Other Material Benefits
Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Liability
Non-Criminalization of Smuggled Migrants
Scope of the Protocol
Humanitarian Exemption
Migrant Smuggling v. Irregular Migration
Migrant Smuggling vis-a-vis Other Crime Types
Other Resources
Assistance and Protection in the Protocol
International Human Rights and Refugee Law
Vulnerable groups
Positive and Negative Obligations of the State
Identification of Smuggled Migrants
Participation in Legal Proceedings
Role of Non-Governmental Organizations
Smuggled Migrants & Other Categories of Migrants
Short-, Mid- and Long-Term Measures
Criminal Justice Reponse: Scope
Investigative & Prosecutorial Approaches
Different Relevant Actors & Their Roles
Testimonial Evidence
Financial Investigations
Non-Governmental Organizations
‘Outside the Box’ Methodologies
Intra- and Inter-Agency Coordination
Admissibility of Evidence
International Cooperation
Exchange of Information
Non-Criminal Law Relevant to Smuggling of Migrants
Administrative Approach
Complementary Activities & Role of Non-criminal Justice Actors
Macro-Perspective in Addressing Smuggling of Migrants
Human Security
International Aid and Cooperation
Migration & Migrant Smuggling
Mixed Migration Flows
Social Politics of Migrant Smuggling
Vulnerability
Profile of Smugglers
Role of Organized Criminal Groups
Humanitarianism, Security and Migrant Smuggling
Crime of Trafficking in Persons
The Issue of Consent
The Purpose of Exploitation
The abuse of a position of vulnerability
Indicators of Trafficking in Persons
Distinction between Trafficking in Persons and Other Crimes
Misconceptions Regarding Trafficking in Persons
Root Causes
Supply Side Prevention Strategies
Demand Side Prevention Strategies
Role of the Media
Safe Migration Channels
Crime Prevention Strategies
Monitoring, Evaluating & Reporting on Effectiveness of Prevention
Trafficked Persons as Victims
Protection under the Protocol against Trafficking in Persons
Broader International Framework
State Responsibility for Trafficking in Persons
Identification of Victims
Principle of Non-Criminalization of Victims
Criminal Justice Duties Imposed on States
Role of the Criminal Justice System
Current Low Levels of Prosecutions and Convictions
Challenges to an Effective Criminal Justice Response
Rights of Victims to Justice and Protection
Potential Strategies to “Turn the Tide”
State Cooperation with Civil Society
Civil Society Actors
The Private Sector
Comparing SOM and TIP
Differences and Commonalities
Vulnerability and Continuum between SOM & TIP
Labour Exploitation
Forced Marriage
Other Examples
Children on the Move
Protecting Smuggled and Trafficked Children
Protection in Practice
Children Alleged as Having Committed Smuggling or Trafficking Offences
Basic Terms - Gender and Gender Stereotypes
International Legal Frameworks and Definitions of TIP and SOM
Global Overview on TIP and SOM
Gender and Migration
Key Debates in the Scholarship on TIP and SOM
Gender and TIP and SOM Offenders
Responses to TIP and SOM
Use of Technology to Facilitate TIP and SOM
Technology Facilitating Trafficking in Persons
Technology in Smuggling of Migrants
Using Technology to Prevent and Combat TIP and SOM
Privacy and Data Concerns
Emerging Trends
Demand and Consumption
Supply and Demand
Implications of Wildlife Trafficking
Legal and Illegal Markets
Perpetrators and their Networks
Locations and Activities relating to Wildlife Trafficking
Environmental Protection & Conservation
CITES & the International Trade in Endangered Species
Organized Crime & Corruption
Animal Welfare
Criminal Justice Actors and Agencies
Criminalization of Wildlife Trafficking
Challenges for Law Enforcement
Investigation Measures and Detection Methods
Prosecution and Judiciary
Wild Flora as the Target of Illegal Trafficking
Purposes for which Wild Flora is Illegally Targeted
How is it Done and Who is Involved?
Consequences of Harms to Wild Flora
Terminology
Background: Communities and conservation: A history of disenfranchisement
Incentives for communities to get involved in illegal wildlife trafficking: the cost of conservation
Incentives to participate in illegal wildlife, logging and fishing economies
International and regional responses that fight wildlife trafficking while supporting IPLCs
Mechanisms for incentivizing community conservation and reducing wildlife trafficking
Critiques of community engagement
Other challenges posed by wildlife trafficking that affect local populations
Global Podcast Series
Apr. 2021: Call for Expressions of Interest: Online training for academics from francophone Africa
Feb. 2021: Series of Seminars for Universities of Central Asia
Dec. 2020: UNODC and TISS Conference on Access to Justice to End Violence
Nov. 2020: Expert Workshop for University Lecturers and Trainers from the Commonwealth of Independent States
Oct. 2020: E4J Webinar Series: Youth Empowerment through Education for Justice
Interview: How to use E4J's tool in teaching on TIP and SOM
E4J-Open University Online Training-of-Trainers Course
Teaching Integrity and Ethics Modules: Survey Results
Grants Programmes
E4J MUN Resource Guide
Library of Resources

Module 2: Crime Prevention

{{item.name}} ({{item.items.length}}) items
Add new list

E4J University Module Series: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Introduction and learning outcomes.

Topic 1: Definition of crime prevention and terminology
Topic 2: Key crime prevention typologies
Topic 2 cont.: Detailed explanation of Tonry and Farrington's typology
Topic 3: Crime problem-solving approaches
Topic 4: What works

Case studies

Possible class structure, core reading, advanced reading, student assessment, additional teaching tools, further resources.

United Nations entities
Regional crime prevention councils / institutions
Key clearinghouses
Systematic reviews

Guidelines to develop a stand-alone course

First published in March 2019

This module is a resource for lecturers

Topic three - crime problem-solving approaches.

Different crime problem-solving approaches (such as SARA, and Ekblom's 5Is) provide structure to crime prevention planning and problem-solving efforts.

The SARA model is a commonly used problem-solving method linked to the problem-oriented policing (developed by Professor Herman Goldstein). It includes the following four elements:

SARA Approach

Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police.
Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police.
Prioritizing those problems.
Developing broad goals.
Confirming that the problems exist.
Determining how frequently the problem occurs and how long it has been taking place.
Selecting problems for closer examination.
Identifying and understanding the events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem.
Identifying relevant data to be collected.
Researching what is known about the problem type.
Taking inventory of how the problem is currently addressed and the strengths and limitations of the current response.
Narrowing the scope of the problem as specifically as possible.
Identifying a variety of resources that may be of assistance in developing a deeper understanding of the problem.
Developing a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring.
Brainstorming for new interventions.
Searching for what other communities with similar problems have done.
Choosing among the alternative interventions.
Outlining a response plan and identifying responsible parties.
Stating the specific objectives for the response plan.
Carrying out the planned activities.

Assessment:

Determining whether the plan was implemented (a process evaluation).
Collecting pre- and post- response qualitative and quantitative data.
Determining whether broad goals and specific objectives were attained.
Identifying any new strategies needed to augment the original plan.
Conducting ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness.

(Source: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Arizona State University )

Ekbloms 5is.

Professor Paul Ekblom's 5Is crime problem-solving methodology is widely used. It covers the following:

Intelligence
Intervention
Implementation
Involvement

Ekblom's 5Is

INTELLIGENCE - gathering and analysing information on:

crime and disorder problems and their consequences
offenders and modus operandi
causes of crime and (with longer term, developmental prevention) the 'risk and protective factors' in young children's life circumstances associated with later criminality

INTERVENTION - blocking, disrupting or weakening those causes. The interventions cover the entire field:

acting through both civil prevention and traditional justice/ law enforcement
addressing both situational and offender-oriented causes
and tackling causation at different levels - immediate 'molecular' causes of criminal events, higher-level causes in communities, networks, markets and criminal careers, and remote 'upstream' causes influenced by manipulation of risk and protective factors in children' early lives

IMPLEMENTATION - converting the intervention principles into practical methods that are:

customised for the local problem and context
targeted on offenders, victims, buildings, places and products, on an individual or collective basis
planned, managed, organised and steered
monitored and quality assured, with documentation of inputs of human and financial resources, outputs and intermediate outcomes
assessed for ethical issues

INVOLVEMENT - mobilising other agencies, companies and individuals to play their part in implementing the intervention, or acting in partnership, because crime prevention professionals must often work through or with others, rather than directly intervening in causes of crime. In both cases specifying:

who was involved
what broad roles or specific tasks they undertook
how they were alerted, motivated, empowered or directed (eg by publicity campaigns, financial incentives)
how a broadly supportive climate was created in the community and how hostility was reduced

IMPACT - nature of evaluation (how the project was assessed, by whom; whether this was a reliable, systematic and independent evaluation; and what kind of evaluation design was used)

impact results (what worked, how)
cost-effectiveness, coverage of crime problem, timescale for implementation and impact
process evaluation (what problems/ tradeoffs faced in implementation, how they were resolved at each stage)
replicability (which contextual conditions and infrastructure are helpful, or necessary, to successfully replicate this project - or particular elements of it - at each of the 5Is stages)
learning points - both positive and negative (what to do, what not to do)

(For a detailed overview of the 5Is see Ekblom, 2011; see also this website)

Next: topic four - what works, back to top, supported by the state of qatar, 60 years crime congress.

Criminal Justice Know How

We connect community with the criminal justice system.

Law Enforcement

The S.A.R.A. Model

problem solving models in criminal justice

by Kelly M. Glenn, 2020

When we prevent crime, we prevent victimization, which is the ultimate goal! Several theories exist involving crime prevention, including (but not limited to):

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (C.P.T.E.D.)
The Broken Window Theory
The S.A.R.A. Model (Scan, Analyze, Respond, Assess)
The Crime Prevention Triangle

The S.A.R.A. Model of crime prevention is a part of what was coined as “Problem-Oriented Policing” by Herman Goldstein in 1979. Problem-Oriented Policing, or POP, was a response to reactive, incident-driven policing in which successes in addressing community problems were short-lived. Before we get into how the S.A.R.A. Model changed that, let’s take a look at an example of a law enforcement response that would be considered reactive and incident-driven with short-lived success:

Officer Comar was assigned to patrol a densely populated downtown area where foot traffic was fairly moderate. Maris, owner of a local convenience store, called 9-11 nearly every day wanting the police department to come run off the drunks that would come into her store, buy a beer, and then hang around on her sidewalk drinking and asking other patrons to buy them more alcohol. For Maris, her store felt more like a get together for middle-aged men who traded showers, shaving, and jobs for getting drunk on her doorstep by 10 a.m. Once the store closed for the night, she would spend considerable time waking up the ones that had passed out and cleaning up their trash. Her main complaint, though, was that they alienated customers and that she was losing good business because of them. Going to the store and running them off was part of Officer Comar’s daily routine. In fact, because she went so often, she got into the habit of pulling into the parking lot, even if Maris didn’t call, hitting her siren, and watching them disperse. Officer Comar considered this good, proactive police work, and Maris was happy that she didn’t always have to pick up the phone to solve the problem.

In our scenario, we can clearly identify a community problem: the local convenience store was overrun by alcohol addicts, and law-abiding citizens were avoiding the business to avoid the drunks. But was Officer Comar truly doing good, proactive police work by showing up several times a shift to run them off, and was Maris getting the best service from her local police department?

We’ll find out!

In 1987, Eck and Spelman built upon the Problem-Oriented Policing approach by using the S.A.R.A. Model to address community problems and crime. S.A.R.A. looks to identify and overcome the underlying causes of crime and disorder versus just treating the symptoms. It can be applied to any community problem by implementing each of four steps in the model: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.

First Step – Scanning

During the scanning phase, law enforcement works with community members to identify existing or potential problems and prioritize them. It’s helpful to answer a few questions within this phase:

Is this problem real or perceived? For example, do the 291 calls for service to report speeders in a residential area really mean that drivers are exceeding the speed limit? Or, are the calls coming from one resident who is irritated that drivers won’t slow down to below the speed limit when she crosses the street to check her mail?
What are the consequences of not addressing this problem? Are the consequences merely a matter of inconvenience for some people, or does this particular problem impact the health, safety, prosperity, happiness, etc. of community members?
How often does this problem occur? Is it daily? Weekly? Just during certain seasons, or when a big event occurs in town?

If we think about Maris and her convenience store, we can clearly identify a few existing symptoms of a problem. First, Maris is losing business due to the drunks hanging out on her sidewalk all day. Second, other community members who may rely on this convenience store as their easiest option for groceries and goods, may be avoiding it to avoid the drunks. Third, Maris is maintaining somewhat of a common nuisance. She has an environment that is conducive to crime and disorder, which is creating a burden on local police services. Prioritizing this community problem and reducing or eliminating the aforementioned symptoms by tackling the root cause(s) could be a win for many people. Let answer the above questions with our scenario in mind:

Is this problem real or perceived? The problem is real. Maris’s declining sales, the police department’s calls for service, and Officer Comar’s own observations and actions support the legitimacy of the issue.
What are the consequences of not addressing this problem? This problem will not go away on its own. In fact, if trouble loves company, we can predict that the group of drunks will continue to grow, thus increasing the calls for service to the police department. Additionally, Maris’s business will continue to struggle, and without enough customers, the convenience store could eventually close, creating a burden for citizens who do depend upon it.
How often does this problem occur? As calls for service show, this problem is a daily occurance. More than likely, it is a bigger problem during fair weather than when it’s cold or rainy; however, the problem is consistent and reocurring.

Now that we’ve scanned for the community problem, identified it, and prioritized it by answering some questions, let’s tackle our next step!

Second Step: Analysis

When we analyze a known community problem, we use relevant data to learn more. Our goal is to be effective in reducing or eliminating it, so we must pinpoint possible explanations for why or how the problem is occuring. Again, we can ask some useful questions to guide us:

What relevant data is available? Statistics? Calls for service? Demographics?
What are some possible explanations for why or how the problem is occuring? Are there environmental issues? Is there a behavioral issue? Is there a lack of appropriate legislation or policy to enforce a solution? Is there a lack of community services?
What is currently being done to address the problem? Is anything at all being done? If something is being done, why is it ineffective? Who is involved in the current response? What resources are being dedicated to the current response?

Let’s take a look at how we can answer these questions when working with Maris within our scenario:

What relevant data is available? Maris can provide records for declining sales, and they can be compared to various seasons of the year when weather may impact the gatherings of the local drunks outside of her convenience store. The police department can use the number of calls for service, as well as data on how each call for service was cleared (arrest, warning, report, etc.). The police department can also see if other more serious crimes are linked to this problem (physical fights between drunks, thefts out of customer vehicles, etc.). Collectively, they can identify the average ages of the individuals, as well as their socioeconomic status.
Maris’s store is open to the public, and the drunks are part of the public.
Maris’s store is located in an area that is accessible to foot traffic, and these drunks live in nearby housing.
These drunks suffer from an addiction to alcohol, and Maris sells beer.
The drunks can pay for the beer whether it be from money they earn, money they receive in public assistance, or money that is given to them by other generous customers.
Maris calls the police department when she wants the drunks to leave; although sometimes, Officer Comar will automatically address the issue when she drives by.
The current response is ineffective because the drunks come back later and/or return the following day.
Maris, Officer Comar, and the local police department are involved in the current response.
The current response depletes the taxpayer funded resources via the use of the local police department.

Now that a lot of the brain work is done, it’s time to turn ideas into action. Let’s take a look at the third step in the S.A.R.A. Model:

Third Step: Response

In this phase of addressing crime, law enforcement and community partners work together to identify and select responses, or interventions, that are most likely to lead to long-term success in reducing or eliminating the community problem they have scanned and analyzed.

Two questions should be asked during this phase:

What are some possible ways to address the problem? Do we need more community partners? Do we need to alter access? Do we need to install monitoring devices? Does a law or policy need to be implemented or changed? Do we need to better enforce the ones we already have? Do we need to make a list of community services and make referrals?
Which of the potential responses are going to be most successful? Which interventions will attack the root causes, not the symptoms? What interventions will have a positive long-term impact?

Using our scenario, let’s list some possible ways to address Maris’s problem at her convenience store, as well as select the interventions that are likely going to lead to long-term success. Remember, this is a team effort, and Maris definitely should have some input!

Although Maris’s store is open to the public, her business is privately owned and located on private property. Existing laws in her locality protect private business and property owners by allowing them to bar people from the property as long as it is not discriminatory based on protected classes, so Maris does have the legal authority to ban the drunks from her property and business. During a meeting with the police department, in which everyone is sharing information and working together to come up with a response plan, Officer Comar confirms what Maris already suspected: many of these addicts have long histories of arrests for public intoxication, trespassing, etc., and going to jail for a night or two isn’t much of a deterrent for them. While she can go through the effort of barring each one and the police department can make arrests, both she and the police department agree that it’s not the most effective route for long-term success. This intervention was eliminated from the response plan.
Maris’s store is accessible to foot traffic, which is both a blessing and a curse. There is nothing she can do or wants to do to alter the way her customers enter her business or property. With that said, Maris does not have “No Loitering” signs posted on the property, and her locality has enforceable loitering laws. “No Loitering” signage could motivate customers to make their necessary transactions and leave, but she has always been hesitant to put them up because she does not want to appear “unfriendly” to youth who come by and chat over a bag of chips and a soda. She also learns that despite there being a local ordinance against loitering, the local judges are hesitant to impose any significant sanctions for it. Maris opts not to install “No Loitering” signage. This intervention was eliminated from the response plan.
Maris offers a product (beer) that her problem customers are addicted to, but it’s also a popular product among her good customers. Regardless, she could stop selling it. Upon some discussion, Maris shares that she is unwilling to stop selling beer. It is one of her best selling products, and she has a loyal customer base who have kept her in business by overlooking and literally overstepping the drunks to come in and buy their favorite case of beer from her. This prompted Officer Comar to ask, “Are your best customers the ones who come in, buy their beer, and leave with beer as singles out of the cooler or as warm cases of beer you have stocked on the shelves?” Maris thought about it quickly and responded that the warm cases of beer are cheaper. Her customers often opt for those and simply put their beer in their fridge when they get home. As if a light came on, the entire group began talking about how her problem customers are not going to be interested in drinking warm beer as soon as they leave the store. If Maris were to stop selling single beers in the cooler, the group of drunks may stop gathering on her sidewalk all day long. Maris was very open to trying this.
During the meeting, the police department also advises Maris that she does have the legal authority to refuse service to anyone, even paying customers. Technically, she can refuse to serve the drunks. Maris gave it some thought, but instead of refusing service to the group of drunks that frequent her store, she decides that she will continue to sell them warm cases of beer or any other product they opt to purchase. After all, many of them also buy snacks or may have limited access to food. This intervention of refusing them service altogether was eliminated from the response plan.
Finally, the police department and Maris acknowledge that while they don’t have control over everything, they can’t ignore the fact that addiction plays a role in this community problem. Officer Comar shares that she has access to a list of free resources for addicts, including locations and times of AA Meetings. The police department could make a poster with the information, and Maris could hang it in the window of her store. Maris liked this idea. It made her feel as if she was contributing to a solution for a problem that is bigger than just her and her convenience store.

As we can see, out of all of that scanning and analyzing, only two responses appear to be a viable long-term strategy, but that’s okay! Even one effective strategy is better than a dozen ineffective ones.

Now that we have two good possibilities, let’s look at what needs to be included in our response plan:

an outline of each potential response,
the objective for each potential response,
who is implementing each response, and
the responsibilities of each person or agency implementing each response.

Let’s finish out our plan of action for the interventions Maris, Officer Comar, and the police department agreed upon.

RESPONSE PLAN – Intervention #1

Outline: Maris will stop selling individual beers in the cooler at her convenience store for six months but will continue selling warm cases of beer on the shelves.
Objective: To eliminate the desire of drunk patrons to loiter at Maris’s convenience store
Who Implements: Maris
Maris will contact her distributors and alter her beer orders for six months.
Maris will instruct her employees not to stock individual beers in the cooler for six months.
Maris will post signage on the cooler doors that state, “We no longer sell individual beers. Please select from our great variety of cases on Aisle 2.”

RESPONSE PLAN – Intervention #2

Outline: Maris will also hang a poster about local AA Meetings and resources for addicts in the window of her convenience store.
Objective: to provide referrals to resources available for addicts
Who Implements: Office Comar and Maris
Officer Comar will compile all of the AA Meeting locations, dates, and times and will create a poster.
Maris will hang the AA Meeting poster in the window of her store.

Now, we sit back and wait! The team agreed to carry out the last step of the S.A.R.A. Model, Asssessment, in six months. Let’s take a look at what that will entail.

Fourth Step – Assessment

During the final phase of the S.A.R.A. Model, the team evaluates two questions:

Was each intervention in the response plan implemented in a way that was consistent with the plan? Did each person and/or agency carry out their responsibilities? Did anyone veer off course? Did the plan lose momentum?
Did the response achieve their intended effects? Were the objectives met? If not, why?

When the team from our scenario met again six months later, they assessed their response by answering both questions:

Was each response implemented in a way that was consistent with the plan? It was determined that Maris, Office Comar, and the police department stuck to the plan, and each person/agency followed through on their responsibilities for the entire six months.
Did the response plan achieve their intended effects? Yes! Maris described the first few days as a little rough. In fact, she had to call the police department more than once to handle customers who became disorderly when they saw that she was no longer offering single beers in the cooler. Officer Comar had been the one to show up on a few occasions, but both were happy to report that once they made it through the first week, it was smooth sailing. The kind of customers who are currently frequenting the store are the kind of customers Maris wants, and she’s even seen her sales pick up. As for assessing whether or not addicts received referrals to community resources through the posters Officer Comar made and Maris hung, it’s difficult to ascertain. While Officer Comar did call around to the AA Meeting hosts to find out if any of the known addicts from the convenience store had attended meetings, AA explained that their meetings and attendees must remain confidential.

Of course, not every response is going to be as successful as the one in our scenario, but in those cases, teams can demonstrate their commitment to Problem-Oriented Policing by revisiting the S.A.R.A. Model and determining which steps need to be repeated.

One pitfall should also be noted, even with the most successful responses: As with any success, we can sometimes become complacent, and when we become complacent, we let down our guard. This is when small cracks in the response occur, and the problem can get a foothold again. For example, in our scenario, if Maris feels like things are going so well that she can probably start selling single beers in the cooler again, the problem behaviors could eventually return. It’s never a bad idea to schedule follow-up assessments just to ensure the response is still working!

Finally, it’s important to highlight again that the S.A.R.A. Model cannot be successful without the involvement of community partners. In our scenario, it took collaboration at each stage to reach a long-term solution that worked.

Many thanks to two former students, Miller Comar and Maris Benar, and former law enforcement officer John Moisa, for serving as inspiration for the S.A.R.A. Model scenario!

National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day

5 Things Every Domestic Violence Report Should Include

Thank You to Our 911 Dispatchers

Our Mission
Team Members
TC Magazine
Advisory Board
100K for 10
Criminology at GMU
Join Our Mailing List
News & Announcements
CEBCP in the News
Calendar of Events
Achievement Award
Policing Hall of Fame

News and Announcements
Translational Criminology Magazine
Symposia and Briefings
Evidence-Based Policing
Crime and Place
Systematic Reviews
Criminal Justice Policy
CEBCP-W/B HIDTA
Outreach, Symposia, & Briefings
Translational Criminology
CEBCP Video Library
Criminology & Public Policy
Technology Web Portal
COVID-19 Projects
Crime & Place Bibliography
Important Links
What Works in Policing?

Home › Evidence-Based Policing › What Works in Policing? › Review of the Research Evidence › Problem-Oriented Policing

Review of the Research Evidence
Seattle Police Case Study

What is Problem-Oriented Policing?

What is Problem-Oriented Policing (POP)? (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
The SARA Model (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
Problem-Oriented Policing (Herman Goldstein, 1990, McGraw-Hill; Book front matter available here)
Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention (Anthony A. Braga, 2008, Criminal Justice Press; introduction and first two chapters here)
On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving (Wesley Skogan et al.)

What is the Evidence on Problem-Oriented Policing?*

Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence (National Research Council)
See also Crime Prevention Research Review No. 4: The Effects of Problem-Oriented Policing on Crime and Disorder
Problem-oriented policing (CrimeSolutions.gov)

What Should Police Be Doing to Implement Problem-Oriented Policing?

Problem-Oriented Hot Spots Studies:

Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Controlled Experiment (Anthony Braga, David Weisburd, Elin Waring, Lorraine Mazerolle, William Spelman, and Frank Gajewski)
Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial (Anthony Braga and Brenda Bond)
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Different Policing Strategies at Hot Spots of Violent Crime in Jacksonville (Bruce G. Taylor, Christopher S. Koper, and Daniel J. Woods)Vi

Strategies for Implementing POP:

25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)

Seattle Police officer image courtesy of Flickr user Hollywata and used under a Creative Commons license.

In 1979 Herman Goldstein critiqued police practices of the time by noting that they were more focused on the “means” of policing than its “ends.” He advocated for a paradigm shift in policing that would replace the primarily reactive, incident driven “standard model of policing” (Weisburd & Eck, 2004) with a model that required the police to be proactive in identifying underlying problems that could be targeted to alleviate crime at its roots. He termed this new approach “problem-oriented policing” to highlight the call for police to focus on problems instead of on single calls or incidents. Goldstein also argued that the police had to deal with an array of problems in the community, including not only crime but also social and physical disorders. He also called for the police to expand their toolbox to address problems. In Goldstein’s view, the police needed to draw on not only the criminal law but also civil statutes and rely on other municipal and community resources if they were to address crime and disorder problems.

Goldstein’s approach was elaborated by Eck and Spelman’s (1987) SARA model. SARA is an acronym representing four steps they suggest police should follow when implementing POP. “Scanning” involves the police identifying and prioritizing potential problems. The next step is “Analysis,” which involves the police thoroughly analyzing the problem(s) using a variety of data sources so that tailored responses can be developed. The “Response” step has the police developing and implementing interventions designed to solve the problem(s). The final step is “Assessment,” which involves assessing whether the response worked. The SARA process has become widely accepted and adopted by police agencies implementing problem-oriented policing.

Wesley Skogan and colleagues (1999) describe a five-step model used for problem solving as part of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) :

Identify and prioritize recurring problems
Analyze problems using a variety of data sources
Design response strategies based on what was learned from analyzing the problem
Implement response strategies
Assess the success of response strategies

Problem-oriented policing is listed under “What works?” on our Review of the Research Evidence.

Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, and Eck (2010) conducted a Campbell review on the effects of POP (i.e. studies that followed the SARA model) on crime and disorder, finding a modest but statistically significant impact among 10 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Some of the studies in this review that showed smaller effects (or backfire effects) experienced implementation issues that threatened treatment fidelity. The more successfully implemented studies tended to show stronger effects.

Additionally, Weisburd et al. (2010) also collected less rigorous but more numerous pre/post studies without a comparison group. While the internal validity of these studies is weaker than those in the main analysis, these studies are notable in the remarkable consistency of positive findings. Weisburd et al. (2010: 164) concluded that “POP as an approach has significant promise to ameliorate crime and disorder problems broadly defined.”

* We do not include pulling levers or focused deterrence studies in this section as they are reviewed elsewhere. Pulling levers policing can be viewed as a type of problem-oriented policing though.

Problem-oriented policing covers a broad array of responses to a wide range of problems and the evidence base of rigorous studies remains limited. This makes it difficult to give specific recommendations as to how police agencies should deal with certain types of problems. Goldstein’s notion of problem-oriented policing, however, was not designed to provide agencies with specific ways of handling problems. Indeed, Goldstein rejected such one-size fits all tactics that had been typical in the “standard model of policing.” Essential to problem-oriented policing is the careful analysis of problems to design tailor-made solutions. While individualized solutions are important, it is also the case that police agencies across the U.S. often face very similar types of problems that may respond to similar types of solutions. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has recognized this, creating more than 70 problem-specific guides for police that provide recommendations on how agencies can tackle a number of different problems.

Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, and Eck (2008) provided some limited guidance on the types of problem-oriented policing interventions that seem to be most effective:

1. Hot spots policing interventions that use POP have shown particularly successful results. In such studies, it is difficult to disentangle whether problem solving or the focus on small geographic areas is driving the success, but the two strategies seem to work quite well in concert.

2. Problem-oriented policing appears most effective when police departments are on board and fully committed to the tenets of problem-oriented policing. In a problem-oriented policing project in Atlanta public housing, for example, the program suffered greatly because the police were not fully committed to problem-oriented policing.

3. Program expectations must be realistic. Officer case load must be kept to a manageable level and police should not be expected to tackle major problems in a short period of time. In the Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing study for example, officers were overwhelmed by dealing with more than 200 problem addresses in a 12-month period. Conversely,in the Jersey City POP at hot spots experiment , officers were given a more manageable 12 hot spot case load, and officers were more effective in implementing the response.

4. Based on limited evidence, collaboration with outside criminal justice agencies appears to be an effective approach in problem-oriented policing. The two probationer-police partnerships included in the review were particularly successful in reducing recidivism.

5. In terms of using the SARA model to guide POP, police agencies typically fail to conduct in-depth problem-analysis. Indeed they often engage in a form of “shallow problem solving” that involves only peripheral analysis of crime data and a largely law enforcement-oriented response. While we do not want to advocate shallow adherence to the SARA model, the evidence suggests that even shallow problem analysis is effective in reducing crime and disorder. This also suggests that if police were to more closely follow the SARA model and expand their repertoire of responses beyond traditional law enforcement they might enjoy even greater crime control benefits from problem-oriented policing. The assessment phase in SARA also tends to be a weak area for many police agencies, but one that is incredibly important to inform police practice. As Sherman (1998) notes, evidence-based policing involves not only police using strategies and tactics shown to be effective, but also agencies constantly evaluating their practices. The assessment phase of the SARA model provides a framework for agencies to consistently learn from and improve their problem solving projects.

Micro Place Studies from the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix

Not all micro place studies are POP studies. Problem-oriented policing studies represent 12 of the 49 micro place studies in the Matrix.

Problem-Oriented Policing Studies from the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix

Y-axis : F = focused; G= general

Z-axis : R = reactive, P = proactive, HP = highly proactive

Social Sciences

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication

Criminology

Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Problem-Solving Courts

Introduction, general overviews.

Anthologies
Reference Resources
Transforming Behavior
Public Defenders
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice
Drug Courts
Mental Health Courts
Reentry Courts
Domestic Violence Courts
Family Courts
Community Courts
Practical Efficacy
Race and Class Issues
Social and Legal Critiques
Challenging the Court-Centered Model
The Problem of Net Widening
Proposals for Reform
Extension to Foreign Jurisdictions

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Education Programs in Prison
Mixed Methods Research in Criminal Justice and Criminology
Victim Impact Statements
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Problem-Solving Courts by Eric J. Miller LAST REVIEWED: 06 November 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 14 April 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0073

Problem-solving courts are a recent and increasingly widespread alternative to traditional models of case management in criminal and civil courts. Defying simple definition, such courts encompass a loosely related group of practice areas and styles. Courts range from those addressing criminal justice issues, such as drug courts, mental health courts, reentry courts, domestic violence courts, and juvenile courts, to those less directly connected with traditional criminal justice issues, including family courts, homelessness courts, and community courts, to name just a few. Most courts, however, share some distinctive common features: channeling offenders away from traditional forms of legal regulation or punishment, relying on a more or less lengthy program of supervision and intervention that utilizes the informal or institutional authority of the judge, and a robust toleration of relapse backed by a graduated series of sanctions directed at altering the participants’ problematic conduct. These courts work to stream participants out of the traditional legal system either at the front end, prior to judgment being entered, or at the back end, as a consequence of entry of judgment, but prior to sentencing or other case disposition. Many, but not all, of these courts subscribe to the practice of either therapeutic or restorative justice (or both).

The major texts listed here are mostly book-length treatments and articles that covering issues common to the problem-solving courts in general by focusing on discrete court styles. Nolan 2001 ; Hora, et al. 1999 ; and Mackinem and Higgins 2008 discuss drug courts, whereas Berman, et al. 2005 ; Casey and Rottman 2005 ; Thompson 2002 ; and Winick 2003 are principally interested in the neighborhood or quality-of-life courts. Furthermore, the authors provide variable depth of treatment, often determined by the type of analysis. Berman, et al. 2005 ; Hora, et al. 1999 ; and Winick 2003 have all played an active role in developing various aspects of problem-solving court practice: they tend to focus on descriptions of court operation and practical impact. Articles written by law professors, social scientists, or anthropologists, such as Thompson 2002 , Mackinem and Higgins 2008 , and Fagan and Malkin 2003 , tend to place problem-solving courts in a more theoretically oriented style of analysis, bringing to bear core legal values, or sociological or cultural critique.

Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice . New York: New Press.

Broad and accessible overview of problem-solving courts, and in particular those addressing quality-of-life issues, against the background of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Casey, Pamela M., and David B. Rottman. 2005. Problem-solving courts: Models and trends . Justice System Journal 26.1: 35–56.

Simple and effective overview of the key elements of different styles of problem-solving courts. Suitable for all levels of study

Fagan, Jeffrey, and Victoria Malkin. 2003. Theorizing community justice through community courts . Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 897–954.

Seminal examination of the manner in which community courts use the problem-solving method to generate public legitimacy for low-level criminal courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug-treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America . Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

One of the essential works on the drug court movement and the use of therapeutic justice in the courtroom. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

Mackinem, Mitchell B., and Paul Higgins. 2008. Drug court: Constructing the moral identity of drug offenders . Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

A thorough and informative study of all aspects of drug-court operation, paying particular attention to the perspective of drug court participants. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement . Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

The most important single work on drug courts, and a seminal study of the problem-solving movement from a sociological perspective. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Thompson, Anthony C. 2002. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

Discussing the emergence of the community court movement and the features it shares with other forms of problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Winick, Bruce J. 2003. Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts . Fordham Urban Law Journal 30.3: 1055–1103.

Seminal overview of problem-solving courts from the perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence, written by one of the founders of the therapeutic justice movement. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Criminology »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Active Offender Research
Adler, Freda
Adversarial System of Justice
Adverse Childhood Experiences
Aging Prison Population, The
Airport and Airline Security
Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
Animals, Crimes Against
Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
Bail and Pretrial Detention
Batterer Intervention Programs
Bentham, Jeremy
Big Data and Communities and Crime
Biosocial Criminology
Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
Blumstein, Alfred
Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
Burglary, Residential
Bystander Intervention
Capital Punishment
Chambliss, William
Chicago School of Criminology, The
Child Maltreatment
Chinese Triad Society
Civil Protection Orders
Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
Collective Efficacy
Commercial and Bank Robbery
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
Community Change and Crime
Community Corrections
Community Disadvantage and Crime
Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
Confessions, False and Coerced
Conservation Criminology
Consumer Fraud
Contextual Analysis of Crime
Control Balance Theory
Convict Criminology
Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
Corporate Crime
Costs of Crime and Justice
Courts, Drug
Courts, Juvenile
Courts, Mental Health
Courts, Problem-Solving
Crime and Justice in Latin America
Crime, Campus
Crime Control, Politics of
Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
Crime Prevention, Situational
Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
Crime Trends
Crime Victims' Rights Movement
Criminal Career Research
Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
Criminal Justice Data Sources
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
Criminal Records
Criminal Retaliation
Criminal Talk
Criminology and Political Science
Criminology of Genocide, The
Critical Criminology
Cross-National Crime
Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
Cultural Criminology
Cultural Theories
Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
Cycle of Violence
Deadly Force
Defense Counsel
Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
Developmental and Life-Course Criminology
Digital Piracy
Driving and Traffic Offenses
Drug Control
Drug Trafficking, International
Drugs and Crime
Elder Abuse
Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
Employee Theft
Environmental Crime and Justice
Experimental Criminology
Family Violence
Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
Felon Disenfranchisement
Feminist Theories
Feminist Victimization Theories
Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
Firearms and Violence
Forensic Science
For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
Gender and Crime
Gendered Crime Pathways
General Opportunity Victimization Theories
Genetics, Environment, and Crime
Green Criminology
Halfway Houses
Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
Hate Crime Legislation
Healthcare Fraud
Hirschi, Travis
History of Crime in the United Kingdom
History of Criminology
Homelessness and Crime
Homicide Victimization
Honor Cultures and Violence
Hot Spots Policing
Human Rights
Human Trafficking
Identity Theft
Immigration, Crime, and Justice
Incarceration, Mass
Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
Income Tax Evasion
Indigenous Criminology
Institutional Anomie Theory
Integrated Theory
Intermediate Sanctions
Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
Interrogation
Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
Investigation, Criminal
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Justice System, The
Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
Labeling Theory
Labor Markets and Crime
Land Use and Crime
Lead and Crime
LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
LGBTQ People in Prison
Life Without Parole Sentencing
Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
Lombroso, Cesare
Longitudinal Research in Criminology
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
Measuring Crime
Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
Mental Health and Crime
Merton, Robert K.
Meta-analysis in Criminology
Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
Migrant Detention and Incarceration
Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
Money Laundering
Motor Vehicle Theft
Multi-Level Marketing Scams
Murder, Serial
Narrative Criminology
National Deviancy Symposia, The
Nature Versus Nurture
Neighborhood Disorder
Neutralization Theory
New Penology, The
Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
Offense Specialization/Expertise
Organized Crime
Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
Panel Methods in Criminology
Peacemaking Criminology
Peer Networks and Delinquency
Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
Phenomenological Theories of Crime
Police Administration
Police Cooperation, International
Police Discretion
Police Effectiveness
Police History
Police Militarization
Police Misconduct
Police, Race and the
Police Use of Force
Police, Violence against the
Policing and Law Enforcement
Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
Policing, Broken Windows
Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
Policing Cybercrime
Policing, Evidence-Based
Policing, Intelligence-Led
Policing, Privatization of
Policing, Proactive
Policing, School
Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
Policing, Third Party
Polyvictimization
Positivist Criminology
Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
Pretrial Diversion
Prison Administration
Prison Classification
Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
Prison Education Exchange Programs
Prison Gangs and Subculture
Prison History
Prison Labor
Prison Visitation
Prisoner Reentry
Prisons and Jails
Prisons, HIV in
Private Security
Probation Revocation
Procedural Justice
Property Crime
Prostitution
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
Psychology and Crime
Public Criminology
Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
Public Order Crimes
Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
Punishment Justification and Goals
Qualitative Methods in Criminology
Queer Criminology
Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
Racial Threat Hypothesis
Racial Profiling
Rape and Sexual Assault
Rape, Fear of
Rational Choice Theories
Rehabilitation
Religion and Crime
Restorative Justice
Risk Assessment
Routine Activity Theories
School Bullying
School Crime and Violence
School Safety, Security, and Discipline
Search Warrants
Seasonality and Crime
Self-Control, The General Theory:
Self-Report Crime Surveys
Sentencing Enhancements
Sentencing, Evidence-Based
Sentencing Guidelines
Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
Sex Trafficking
Sexual Revictimization
Situational Action Theory
Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
Social Construction of Crime, The
Social Control of Tobacco Use
Social Control Theory
Social Disorganization
Social Ecology of Crime
Social Learning Theory
Social Networks
Social Threat and Social Control
Solitary Confinement
South Africa, Crime and Justice in
Sport Mega-Events Security
Stalking and Harassment
State Crime
State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
Strain Theories
Street Code
Street Robbery
Substance Use and Abuse
Surveillance, Public and Private
Sutherland, Edwin H.
Technology and the Criminal Justice System
Technology, Criminal Use of
Terrorism and Hate Crime
Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
Testimony, Eyewitness
Trajectory Methods in Criminology
Transnational Crime
Truth-In-Sentencing
Urban Politics and Crime
US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
Victimization, Adolescent
Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
Victimization Patterns and Trends
Victimization, Repeat
Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
Victimless Crime
Victim-Offender Overlap, The
Violence Against Women
Violence, Youth
Violent Crime
White-Collar Crime
White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
White-Collar Crime, Women and
Wilson, James Q.
Wolfgang, Marvin
Women, Girls, and Reentry
Wrongful Conviction
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.80.151.41]
185.80.151.41

Justice Dashboard

Publications

Explore Data of Countries

Find out how people in different countries around the world experience justice. What are the most serious problems people face? How are problems being resolved? Find out the answers to these and more.

Burkina Faso
General population
IDPs and host communities
The Netherlands

Solving & Preventing

Guidelines for Justice Problems

Justice Services

Innovation is needed in the justice sector. What services are solving justice problems of people? Find out more about data on justice innovations.

The Gamechangers

The 7 most promising categories of justice innovations, that have the potential to increase access to justice for millions of people around the world.

Justice Innovation Labs

Explore solutions developed using design thinking methods for the justice needs of people in the Netherlands, Nigeria, Uganda and more.

Creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework where innovations and new justice services develop

Rules of procedure, public-private partnerships, creative sourcing of justice services, and new sources of revenue and investments can help in creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework.

Forming a committed coalition of leaders

A committed group of leaders can drive change and innovation in justice systems and support the creation of an enabling environment.

Find out how specific justice problems impact people, how their justice journeys look like, and more.

Employment Justice
Family Justice
Land Justice
Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Trend Report 2021 – Delivering Justice / Case Study: Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Author: Isabella Banks , Justice Sector Advisor

Introduction

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime (Wright, no date). “Generally, a problem-solving court involves a close collaboration between a judge and a community service team to develop a case plan and closely monitor a participant’s compliance, imposing proper sanctions when necessary” (Ibid). In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. All 50 states have appointed a statewide drug court coordinator, and at least 13 have introduced the broader position of statewide problem-solving court coordinator (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

What does it mean for a court to be problem-solving?

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist across the US, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are focused on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime. This includes reducing recidivism as well as rehabilitating participants (with the exception of domestic violence courts, as elaborated below), victims and the broader community (Ibid. p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are also characterised by interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system. Dedicated staff who have been assigned to the problem-solving court work together to develop court policies and resolve individual cases in a relatively non-adversarial way. Ongoing collaboration between court staff and public agencies, service providers and clinical experts is also essential for providing appropriate treatment to problem-solving court participants (Ibid. p. 38). Because problem-solving courts aim to address the impact of crime on the community and increase public trust in justice, they also have frequent contact with community members and organisations and regularly solicit local input on their work (Ibid. p. 39).

Problem-solving courts aim to hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the broader community. For individuals with justice system involvement, this means holding them accountable for their criminal behaviour by promoting and monitoring their compliance with court mandates. In order to comply, problem-solving court participants must understand what is expected of them, regularly appear for status hearings, and have clear (extrinsic and intrinsic) incentives to complete their mandates.

For service providers, this means providing services based on a coherent, specified and effective model, and accurately and regularly informing the court about participants’ progress. Problem-solving courts are also responsible for assessing the quality of service delivery and making sure models are adhered to (Ibid. p. 43-44).

Lastly and perhaps most fundamentally, problem-solving courts must hold themselves to “the same high standards expected of participants and stakeholders” (Ibid. p. 44-45). This means monitoring implementation and outcomes of their services using up-to-date data.

What does problem-solving justice look like in practice?

Problem-solving justice comes in different forms. The original, best known, and most widespread problem-solving court model is the drug court. The first drug was created in 1989, after a judge in Miami Dade county became frustrated seeing the same drug cases cycling through her court and began experimenting with putting defendants into treatment (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). This approach (elaborated in the sections that follow) gradually gained traction, and there are now over 3,000 drug courts across the US (Strong and Kyckelhahn 2016).

This proliferation of drug courts helped stimulate the emergence of three other well-known problem-solving court models: mental health, domestic violence and community courts (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.). Mental health courts are similar to drug courts in that they focus on rehabilitation, but different in that they aim for the improved social functioning and stability of their participants rather than complete abstinence (Ibid. p. 51). Domestic violence courts are unique in that they do not universally embrace participant treatment and rehabilitation as an important goal. Instead, many – thought not all – are primarily focused on victim support and safety and participant accountability and deterrence (Ibid. p. 52).

Community courts “seek to address crime, public safety, and quality of life problems at the neighbourhood level. Unlike other problem-solving courts…community courts do not specialise in one particular problem. Rather, the goal of community courts is to address the multiple problems and needs that contribute to social disorganisation in a designated geographical area. For this reason, community courts vary widely in response to varying local needs, conditions, and priorities” (Lee et al. 2013). There are now over 70 community courts in operation around the world (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Some are based in traditional courthouses, while others work out of storefronts, libraries or former schools. Though they typically focus on criminal offences, some community courts extend their jurisdiction to non-criminal matters to meet specific needs of the communities they serve as well (Ibid. p. 1.). Regardless of location and jurisdiction, all community courts take a proactive approach to community safety and experiment with different ways of providing appropriate services and sanctions (Wright n.d.).

Other less common problem-solving models include veterans courts, homeless courts, reentry courts, trafficking courts, fathering courts, and truancy courts (Ibid).

The principles and practices of problem-solving justice can also be applied within non-specialised courts that already exist. In a 2000 resolution that was later reaffirmed in 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators advocated for, “Encourag[ing], where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem-solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law” (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 3). Key features of a problem-solving approach to justice – which will be elaborated in the sections that follow – include: individualised screening and problem assessment; individualised treatment and service mandate; direct engagement of the participant; a focus on outcomes; and system change (Ibid. p. iv).

Problems and impacts

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts measured and mapped the following as a first step towards people-centred justice.

The most prevalent justice problems within the population served
The justice problems with greatest impact on the population served
The justice problems that are most difficult to resolve and therefore tend to remain ongoing
The groups most vulnerable to (systemic and daily) injustices within the population served

As their name suggests, problem-solving courts emerged to address the most prevalent, impactful, and difficult to resolve justice problems within the populations they serve. The first drug (and Drinking While Driving or DWI) courts were created as a response to the increase in individuals with substance use disorders in the criminal justice system and their levels of recidivism. Similarly, mental health courts “seek to address the growing number of [individuals with mental health needs] that have entered the criminal justice system” (Wright n.d.). As one interviewee put it, “The biggest mental health provider [in Los Angeles] is the county jail” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Drug and mental health problems are among the most common issues faced by individuals responsible for both minor and more serious crime. These issues are difficult to resolve because judges – who have historically had little understanding of treatment and addiction – are inclined to hand down harsh sentences when defendants relapse or fail to complete their court mandate (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020). This trend was particularly acute in the 1980s, when the war on drugs resulted in draconian sentencing laws that reduced judicial discretion (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In order to understand and meet the needs of their unique populations, problem-solving courts track measures of problem prevalence and severity. As noted in the first section, early and individualised screening and problem assessment is a key feature of problem-solving justice. The purpose of such screenings is to “understand the full nature of the [participant’s] situation and the underlying issues that led to justice involvement.”

For drug courts, relevant measures of problem severity may include: drug of choice; years of drug use; age of first use; criminal history; and treatment history (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 50). Mental health courts typically assess the nature and severity of their participants’ underlying mental health issues, and may also look at participant stability (in terms of health care, housing, compliance with prescribed medications, and hospitalisations) (Ibid. p. 51).

Domestic violence courts and community courts are somewhat unique in that the primary population they serve include victims and members of the community as well as individuals with justice system involvement. Domestic violence courts focus on assessing the needs of victims of domestic violence in order to connect them with safety planning and other individualised services. Likewise, in addition to identifying the problems that impact individual participants, community courts focus on assessing the problems that impact the underserved (and also often disserved) neighbourhoods where they work. These should be identified through outreach in the relevant community but often include concentrations of lower level crimes – such as vandalism, shoplifting, and prostitution – as well as distrust of traditional justice actors (Ibid. p. 55-56).

Now that technical assistance is broadly available for problem-solving courts across the US, individualised screening and problem assessment has become increasingly data-driven and informed by validated needs assessment tools (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Over the years, problem-solving courts have also become more adept at identifying groups within the populations they serve that are particularly vulnerable to injustice. The advancement of brain science, for example, has influenced many problem-solving courts to treat participants under 25 differently and give them an opportunity to age out of crime. Young people transitioning out of foster care are particularly vulnerable to justice involvement given their sudden lack of family support. Trafficked individuals, who used to be treated as criminals, are now widely recognised as victims (Ibid). Specialised problem-solving courts, diversion programs, and training initiatives have emerged to understand the unique needs and vulnerabilities of this population (Wright n.d.).

Problem-solving courts have also become more aware of racial inequities in the populations selected to receive treatment (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Drug court participants in particular are often disproportionately white, with racial breakdowns that do not mirror the racial breakdowns of those arrested. This is largely a result of eligibility requirements tied to federal drug court funding, which has historically restricted individuals with violent criminal histories from participating. Drug courts have also been accused of cherry-picking participants who were most likely to be successful to improve their numbers and receive more funding. Both of these phenomena have had the effect of excluding disproportionate numbers of people of colour from drug treatment (Ibid). In addition to taking steps to mitigate these inequities, drug courts have increasingly come to recognise that cherry-picking low-risk cases reduces their effectiveness overall (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Defining + Monitoring Outcomes

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts researched and identified the outcomes that people in the target population expect from justice processes.

In 1993, the first community court was set up in the Midtown neighbourhood of New York City (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Inspired by the Midtown model, the Red Hook Community Justice Center was established in a particularly disadvantaged area of Brooklyn seven years later. Like the Midtown Court, the goal of the Red Hook Community Justice Center was “to replace short-term jail sentences with community restitution assignments and mandated participation in social services” (Taylor 2016).

In the planning stages however, residents of Red Hook were not happy to learn that a new court was being introduced in their community. Though sustained community outreach, Red Hook court staff were able to change these negative perceptions and convince residents they wanted to do something different. They began by asking the community what outcomes were most important to them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

This early engagement helped the Red Hook planners realise that tracking outcomes related to people’s presence in the court would not be enough to assess the court’s impact in the community. They would also need to look at outcomes that were meaningful to residents, asking questions like: How can we disrupt crime hot spots? How safe does the community feel? Do residents feel safe walking to the park, or the train? At what times? (Ibid).

Although the Red Hook community court model has since been replicated in different parts of the world, the experiences of two of these international courts illustrate that identifying the outcomes that community members expect from justice processes can sometimes be a challenge.

In 2005, England opened its first community court: the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre (NLCJC). A 2011 evaluation of the NLCJC acknowledged its innovative approach and “potentially transformative effect on criminal justice” but also noted:

How and why the Centre needs to connect with the public it is charged with serving remains one of the most complex and enduring concerns for staff...how consistently and how effectively the ‘community’ was contributing to the workings of the Centre provided a constant source of uncertainty” (Mair and Millings 2011).

After eight years of operation, the NLCJC was closed in 2013. Observers have since noted that a lack of grassroots community engagement in the planning and operation of the NLCJC was among the primary reasons that it ultimately failed to take hold (Murray and Blagg 2018; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

One year after the NLCJC opened in England, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) was piloted in the Collingwood neighbourhood of Melbourne, Australia. At the time, Collingwood had the highest crime rate in Melbourne, high rates of inequality, and a high concentration of services. This combination made it an ideal location for Australia’s first community court.

Modelled on the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn and spearheaded by the State Attorney General at the time, Rob Hulls, the NJC pilot was focused on improving the community’s relationship with the justice system through local, therapeutic and procedural justice. Like Red Hook, it was designed based on evidence and an analysis of gaps in existing justice services. Despite shifting political winds – including “tough-on-crime” rhetoric on the one hand and complaints of more favourable “postcode justice” available only for the NJC’s participants on the other – the NJC managed to secure ongoing state government support (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Unlike the NLCJC, the NJC remains in operation today. The procedurally just design of the NJC building and approach of its magistrate, David Fanning, have earned the court significant credibility and legitimacy in the Collingwood community (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018; J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). Community and client engagement have continued to be a key feature of the NJC’s work, helping to reduce recidivism and increase compliance with community-based court orders (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018) .

In spite of its success, some observers note that the NJC’s outreach efforts have not gone as far as they could have. Early consultations with a group of community stakeholders regarding the design and governance of the NJC were discontinued in the Centre’s later years. Although the reason for this is unclear and may well have been legitimate, the result was that key representatives of the community lost direct and regular access to NJC leadership over time (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

These examples illustrate that even under the umbrella of a one-stop-shop community court, identifying expected justice outcomes in the community as a first step towards problem-solving justice – and continuing to do so even after the court is well-established – is not a given. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the approach of the particular court and its efforts to create a reciprocal and collaborative relationship with the surrounding community.

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts determined whether existing justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Problem-solving courts generally – and community courts and drug courts in particular – are created with the explicit intention to address gaps in existing justice processes.

Community courts are typically established in communities that have been historically underserved and disproportionately incarcerated to provide a more holistic response to crime and increase trust in the justice system.

In the early days of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the community’s deep distrust of law enforcement emerged as a key challenge for the Center’s work. Red Hook staff approached this challenge by inviting police officers into the court and showing them the data they had collected on the justice outcomes that residents were experiencing. They helped the officers understand that by not addressing the root causes of crime in the Red Hook community, they were delaying crime rather than stopping it (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Over time, the court’s relationship with law enforcement has improved. In 2016, the Justice Center launched its “Bridging the Gap” initiative, which creates a safe space for young people and police officers to get to know each other and discuss difficult topics that offer the chance to explore the other’s perspective (Red Hook Justice News 2016; Sara Matusek 2017).

Similarly, the proliferation of drug courts across the country was a response to high rates of recidivism among individuals with substance use disorders, which persisted in spite of tough-on-crime sentencing practices. During the so-called “war on drugs” in the mid-1980s, judges across the country gradually began to realise that handing down increasingly long sentences to people with substance use disorders was not working.

One such person was the late Honourable Peggy Hora, a California Superior Court judge responsible for criminal arraignments. Like other judges repeatedly confronted with defendants grappling with substance use disorders in the 1980s and 90s, Judge Hora initially felt that incarceration was the only tool available to her. Not much research had been done on incarceration at the time, so its detrimental effects were not yet widely known (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Determined to understand why the defendants that came before her seemed to be willing to risk everything to access drugs – even their freedom and the right to see their children – Judge Hora took a class on chemical dependency. This experience brought her to the realisation that “everything they were doing was wrong.” She quickly built relationships with people at the National Institute on Drug Abuse and began engaging with drug treatment research at a national level (Ibid).

Judge Hora eventually went on to establish and preside over the nation’s second drug court in Alameda County, California. After learning more about procedural justice and seeing evidence that early drug courts worked and saved money in the long run, she helped promote the model across the country and around the world (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts created a system for monitoring whether new, people-centered justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Outcomes monitoring is an essential component of problem-solving justice. As Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel, and Adam Manksy of the Center for Court Innovation set out in their 2010 report on universal performance indicators for problem-solving courts:

It is perhaps their focus on the outcomes generated after a case has been disposed that most distinguishes problem-solving courts from conventional courts. Like all courts, problem-solving courts seek to uphold the due process rights of litigants and to operate efficiently, but their outcome orientation demands that they seek to address the underlying issues that precipitate justice involvement (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 1.).

Measuring and monitoring people-centred outcomes was also key to problem-solving courts’ early success. Because the problem-solving approach was so different from the status quo, showing evidence that it worked was necessary for building political and financial support. This meant clearly articulating the goals of problem-solving courts and finding ways to measure progress towards them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

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 (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 57). Many of these problem-solving principles and practices can be (and are) applied and monitored in traditional courts.

To ensure delivery of individualised justice for example, any court staff can engage the individuals appearing before it by making eye contact, addressing them clearly and directly, and asking if they have any questions about the charges or their mandate (Ibid). This kind of engagement can “radically change the experience of litigants, victims, and families” and “improve the chance of compliance and litigant perceptions of court fairness” (Ibid). Similarly, any court can prioritise and track its use of alternative sanctions – such as community service or drug treatment – and its efforts to link individuals to existing services in the community (Ibid).

The extent to which a particular (problem-solving or traditional) court monitors progress towards these people-centred outcomes depends on its ability to track compliance and behaviour change among participants. This can be achieved through regular compliance reviews, which provide “an ongoing opportunity for the court to communicate with [participants] and respond to their concerns and circumstances” (Ibid. p. 60-61). Investing in electronic data systems that track and coordinate information also makes it easier for a court to monitor its overall impact on case outcomes and improve the quality of its mandates (Ibid).

Successful outcomes monitoring also depends crucially on a court’s ability to develop strong relationships with researchers. Without this, early problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center would not have been able to, for example, quantify the impact of a 7-day jail stay in terms of budget, jail population, and bookings per month. Strong research partnerships also made it possible to compare successful and unsuccessful court participants, which was necessary to assess and improve the quality of the court’s services (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Outcomes monitoring at the Red Hook Community Justice Center was not without its challenges, however. Because most people who come before the court are charged with less serious crimes, their treatment mandates are relatively short. The short amount of time the Red Hook staff and service providers have to work with these participants means that outcomes related to individual progress are not likely to show a full picture of the court’s impact. The Red Hook Community Justice Center addressed this by also measuring outcomes related to the court’s impact on the community. What was the effect on social cohesion and stability when someone’s brother, father, or son was allowed to remain in the community instead of being incarcerated? (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Another challenge faced by community courts broadly is that traditional outcomes monitoring systems are not well-equipped to acknowledge the reality that everything is connected. Where does one draw the line between service providers and justice providers? If a restorative justice process facilitated under the supervision of the court fails to reconcile the parties in conflict but has a positive impact on the lives of the support people who participate, should it be considered a success or failure?

A former Red Hook staff member involved in the court’s peacemaking initiative shared a story of a young, devout woman with a new boyfriend who mistreated her and who her children strongly disliked. When she tried to throw him out, the boyfriend would use her Christian values against her and convince her to let him stay. Eventually, he punched someone and was arrested on assault charges. His case was referred to a restorative justice circle for resolution. In the circle, the boyfriend was very aggressive and as a result, his case was sent back to court. The woman and her children asked if they could continue meeting in circle without him because they found it helpful (Ibid).

After a series of circle sessions together, the woman came to realise that her abusive boyfriend was using drugs and found the courage to kick him out. In his absence, the woman and her children were able to reconcile and reunite. The woman returned to school and her oldest son found a job. The criminal case that started the process was ultimately unresolved, but from a more holistic and common sense perspective the impact of the circles on the family was positive (Ibid). How should success be measured in this case? This is a challenge that community courts attempting to measure and monitor people-centred justice regularly face.

Evidence-Based Solutions

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts introduced interventions that are evidence-based and consistently deliver the justice outcomes that people in the target population look for.

Problem-solving courts have introduced a number of interventions that have proven to deliver people-centred outcomes for the communities they serve. Although different interventions work for different populations, direct engagement with participants and the delivery of individualised treatments are two key elements of the problem-solving orientation that all problem-solving courts share (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 29-30).

As described in the previous section, direct engagement means that the judge speaks to participants directly and becomes actively engaged in producing positive change in their lives (Ibid. p. 30-31). This effort to ensure that participants feel heard, respected and experience the process as fair is supported by research on procedural justice.

Individualised treatment means that the interventions delivered are tailored to the specific problems of each participant. This requires that the court offer “a continuum of treatment modalities and services to respond to the variety and degrees of need that participants present.” This service plan must be revisited by the court on a regular basis and adjusted depending on the participant’s reported progress (Ibid. p. 29-30).

Despite this shared approach to justice delivery, different problem-solving courts have identified different types of treatments and ways of monitoring whether they work that are unique to the populations they serve.

Community courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center, for example, generally work with the residents in their neighbourhood to find out what is important to them rather than imposing a predetermined set of solutions.

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne did this through a unique problem-solving process that took place outside of the courtroom and which participants could opt into voluntarily. In a confidential, facilitated discussion based on restorative and therapeutic justice principles, participants were given an opportunity to share their perspective on the problems they were facing and empowered to become collaborators in their own rehabilitation. Important takeaways from this process would be reported back to the court’s magistrate so he could help them move forward – for example by changing their methadone (1) dose or changing the number of treatments they received per week. The collaborative nature of the sessions helped ensure that the treatment plans mandated by the court were realistic for participants. Though the content of these sessions was unpredictable and varied, the co-design process remained constant (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020; Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018).

With that said, certain interventions have proven to consistently improve outcomes for communities, victims, and individuals with justice system involvement when applied to low-level cases. These include: using (validated) screening and assessment tools (2); monitoring and enforcing court orders (3); using rewards and sanctions; promoting information technology (4); enhancing procedural justice (5); expanding sentencing options (to include community service and shorter interventions that incorporate individualised treatment); and engaging the community (6).

In 2009, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center to assess whether it was achieving its goals to reduce crime and improve quality of life in the Red Hook neighbourhood through these interventions (Lee et al. 2013, p. 2.). The evaluation found that:

The Justice Center [had] been implemented largely in accordance with its program theory and project plan. The Justice Center secured the resources and staff needed to support its reliance on alternative sanctions, including an in-house clinic and arrangements for drug and other treatment services to be provided by local treatment providers...The Justice Center’s multi-jurisdictional nature, as well as many of its youth and community programs, evolved in direct response to concerns articulated in focus groups during the planning process, reflecting a stated intention to learn of and implement community priorities (Ibid. p. 4).

Using a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the evaluation also concluded that Red Hook had successfully: changed sentencing practices in a way that minimised incarceration and motivated compliance; provided flexible and individualised drug treatment; sustainably reduced rates of misdemeanour recidivism among young people and adults; and reduced arrests in the community.

In spite of the robust evidence supporting their approach, many community courts experience resistance to their efforts to help participants address underlying issues of substance use and mental disorders through treatment. As Brett Taylor, a Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice and former defence attorney at the Red Hook explains:

Some critics of community courts say that [this] is not the job of courts and should be handled by other entities. In a perfect world, I would agree. However, in the reality of the world today, people with social service needs continue to end up in the courts. Court systems across the country have realised that if defendants with social service needs are not given treatment options, those defendants will be stuck in the revolving door of justice and continue to clog the court system....Although it may not comport with the vision of success that many defence attorneys had upon entering this work, I can tell you that nothing beats seeing a sober, healthy person approach you on the street and hearing, ‘Thank you for helping me get my life back on track’ (Taylor 2016, p. 25).

In contrast to the broad and community-based approach to treatment taken by community courts, drug courts focus specifically on providing drug treatment. In the words of Judge Peggy Hora, drug treatment is “painful and difficult.” Because of this, drug courts start with external changes as their goal, but ultimately aim for internal change. This means appropriately matching participants with evidence-based treatment and using neutral language that assists, supports, and encourages participants along the way. Because relapse is such a common feature of recovery, drug courts focus on keeping people in appropriate treatment as long as necessary for them to eventually graduate from the program (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Drug court treatments have become increasingly evidence-based since the 1990s due to a growing movement toward performance measurement in the non-profit sector:

The emergence of drug courts as a reform of courts’ traditional practice of treating drug-addicted offenders in a strictly criminal fashion coincided with renewed interest in performance measurement for public organisations. The argument for measuring the performance of drug courts is compelling because they are a recent reform that must compete with existing priorities of the judicial system for a limited amount of resources. This makes it incumbent upon drug courts to demonstrate that the limited resources provided to them are used efficiently and that this expenditure of resources produces the desired outcomes in participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 1).

This movement was further strengthened by the development of a cutting edge performance measurement methodology known as the “balanced scorecard.” Created for the business sector, the balanced scorecard method aims to go beyond traditional measures of success and get a more balanced picture of performance by incorporating multiple perspectives. This method was adapted to create CourTools, a set of ten performance measures designed to evaluate a small set of key functions of trial courts (Ibid. p. 2).

Because “the nature of addiction and the realities of substance use treatment require extended times to disposition for drug court participants,” many of the performance measures developed for conventional trial courts (such as reduced time to disposition) are not directly applicable to drug courts. However, the increased application of performance measurement to courts and the creation of CourTools in particular helped make way for the development of the first set of nationally recommended performance measures for Adult Drug Courts in 2004 (Ibid. p. 4).

Developed by a leading group of scholars and researchers brought together by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and published for the first time in 2006, these included four key measures of drug court performance: retention; sobriety, in-program recidivism; and units of service (Ibid. p. 5).

Retention refers to the amount of time drug court participants remain in treatment. “Longer retention not only indicates success in treatment but also predicts future success in the form of lower post treatment drug use and re-offending” (Ibid. p. 5). Sobriety – both during and after treatment – is another important goal of drug courts. “As the participant proceeds through the program, a trend of decreasing frequency of failed [drug] tests should occur. Research has shown that increasing amounts of time between relapses is associated with continued reductions in [drug] use” (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5). In-program recidivism is the rate at which drug court participants are re-arrested during the course of their participation. This is expected to be lowered through a combination of “judicial supervision, treatment, and rewards and sanctions” unique to drug courts (Ibid. p.5; US Government and Accountability Office, 2005). Finally, units of service refers to the dosages in which drug court treatment services – including, but not limited to substance use treatment – are delivered. These are usually measured in terms of days or sessions of service provided (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5).

Since their development, these four measures of drug court performance have been actively promoted by leading technical assistance providers like the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (Ibid. p. 6). They have since been adopted and adapted by a number of states across the US. The NCSC facilitates this process, but decisions about what specifically to measure are made by the advisory committee convened by the state-level agency responsible for drug courts (Ibid). Additional performance measures used by some states relate to, for example: accountability, social functioning, processing, interaction with other agencies, compliance with quality standards, and juvenile drug court measures, family drug court measures, and domestic violence drug court measures (Ibid. p. 10).

In 2007, the NCSC surveyed statewide drug court coordinators from across the country about their use of state-level performance measurement systems (SPMS). Out of 45 states that completed the surveys, 58% were using a SPMS in their drug courts. Most of these were adult drug courts (Ibid. p. 14). Although the frequency with which these states reported performance measurement data varied from quarterly to annually, the majority did provide data to a central agency (Ibid. p. 15).

The development and widespread use of SPMS have helped drug courts deliver treatments that are increasingly evidence-based in the sense of consistently delivering the outcomes that their participants need. However, the NCSC survey found that the state-level performance measures used were not entirely balanced in that they typically focused more on the effectiveness of drug courts than their efficiency, productivity, or procedural satisfaction (Ibid. p. 20). The NCSC therefore recommended that a more balanced, national and uniform set of drug court performance measures be developed to measure performance more holistically and facilitate comparisons of performance across states (Ibid. p. 18).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts used outcome-based monitoring (discussed in the previous section) to continuously improve these interventions and replace interventions that have proven ineffective?

Because of their problem-solving orientation and focus on outcomes, problem-solving courts are by their nature adaptive and capable of developing new treatment modalities to meet different kinds of needs. As Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving at the Center for Court Innovation put it, “the problem-solving court environment creates a space in which there is more room for creativity. If you were to redesign the justice system now, there wouldn’t be only courts you could go to, there would be different justice mechanisms and modalities available to treat different levels of issues. Perhaps that is why new modalities develop within problem-solving courts” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

A clear example of this creative and outcomes-based approach to improvement was the way the problem-solving dialogue process developed at the Neighbourhood Justice Center (NJC) was adapted over time to meet changing demands in the community. As Jay Jordens, a Neighbourhood Justice Office at the NJC who introduced the process explains: “different problems would arise that would demand a re-design of the court’s approach” (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

For example, the NJC began to notice that people responsible for family violence were participating in problem-solving dialogues without sharing this part of their history. In response, the NJC developed a tailored problem-solving process for people who were respondents to a family violence order in which this part of their past would be addressed from the start. The NJC also began facilitating support meetings for victims of family violence, including for example parents who were being mistreated by their children. The process was designed to solicit feedback about the new approach after victims had tried it. Eventually, it earned the support of the police in the community because it consistently delivered outcomes for a unique population (Ibid).

A second adaptation of the problem-solving process at the NJC was made when court staff noticed that many young people were opting out. Many of the court-involved young people in the Collingwood community were refugees from South Sudan who were experiencing the effects of intergenerational trauma. Realising that the process as it was originally imagined was too interrogative for this population, the NJC began holding circles with the young person, their mother, and one or two support workers. A facilitator would begin by asking humanising questions of everyone in the circle. Although the young person would often pass when it was their turn to speak, participating in the circle gave them an opportunity to listen, relax, and improve their relationships with the adults sitting in the circle with them. These problem-solving circles were designed to prioritise safety concerns and would often result in an agreement among the participants to get external support and/or attend family therapy.

Jay Jordens notes that such adaptations were possible in spite of, not because of, an operational framework of specialisation within the court that made collaboration a choice rather than an expectation among Centre staff. “We aren’t there yet where these processes are intuitive,” he explained, “we still need to actively facilitate them” (Ibid).

Because of their systematic approach to outcomes monitoring and performance measurement, drug courts have made a number of improvements to the treatment they provide as well. First and foremost, they have learned to avoid net widening: “the process of administrative or practical changes that result in a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system” (Leone n.d.).

Specifically, drug courts have learned that putting the wrong people in the wrong places results in bad outcomes. An example of this is cherry picking the easiest cases for drug treatment: a common practice among drug courts in the early years of their development that later proved to be harmful. Evidence has shown that drug courts are most effective when they focus on treating high-risk, high-needs participants who are most likely to reoffend (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Cherry picking low-risk cases in order to inflate measures of success means putting them in more intensive treatment than they need and failing to appropriately match treatments with risk. Over time, this entraps people in the criminal justice system unnecessarily and reduces drug courts’ potential to meaningfully reduce crime (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Cherry picking low-risk cases for drug treatment has also resulted in racially biased outcomes. Because of the ways racial bias is embedded in the American criminal justice system, young white defendants have historically been more likely to be assessed as low-risk and eligible for specialised treatment than participants of colour. Participants of colour who were selected for drug court programming also tended to flunk out or leave voluntarily at higher rates than white participants.

In response to these trends, drug courts developed a toolkit on equity and inclusivity to examine the data and understand why this was happening. They introduced HEAT (Habilitation Empowerment Accountability Therapy), a new drug treatment modality geared towards young black men which was recently evaluated with very positive results. They have also worked harder generally to ensure that treatments are culturally appropriate for the different populations they serve.

Drug courts have also become more sophisticated at treating different kinds of drug addiction. The Matrix Model, for example, was developed to engage a particularly difficult population – stimulant (methamphetamine and cocaine) users – in treatment. Previously considered “untreatable” by many drug courts, stimulant users treated using the Matrix Model have shown statistically significant reductions in drug and alcohol use, risky sexual behaviors associated with HIV transmission, and improved psychological well-being in a number of studies (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020; National Institute of Drug Abuse 2020).

Drug court judges who once took a “blaming and shaming” approach have shifted towards a more people-centred one, as evidenced by changes in the language used to describe participants. In response to research in the medical sector demonstrating that people who are described as addicts receive lower quality care and fewer prescriptions, drug courts have increasingly replaced the term “addiction” with “substance use disorder” (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In line with this shift, attitudes towards medically assisted drug treatment have also changed dramatically over the years. Whereas most drug courts previously did not allow the use of methadone in treatment, the field has now clearly adopted medically assisted treatment after finding that it was consistent with improved graduation rates, among other outcomes. Though not universally accepted, it is now considered a best practice supported by decades of research (Ibid).

On a more systematic level, a 2007 analysis of performance measurement data collected by the state of Wyoming provides an example of how drug courts have started to use this data to improve the quality of their treatments and overall impact. Based on results related to the key measures of drug court performance introduced in the previous section – retention, sobriety, in-program recidivism and units of service – the NCSC made a number of programmatic recommendations for drug courts across the state. First, they suggested that drug courts aim to support participants’ education and employment-related needs, as both attainment of a diploma and employment at admission to treatment were associated with increased graduation rates. They also recommended that additional resources be made available for young participants of colour, who were found to have higher rates of positive drug tests and recidivism than young white participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 17).

Innovations + Delivery Models

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts scaled their people-centered service delivery model to deliver justice outcomes for a larger population.

Many problem-solving courts across the US continue to start in the way the first problem-solving courts did: with judges deciding to do things differently. With that said, the proliferation of problem-solving courts across the country can be traced to three primary factors: science and research; technical assistance; and changes in legal education.

Research has helped bring problem-solving courts to scale by showing that the problem-solving approach to justice, if properly implemented, can be effective. Research on procedural justice and advancements in understanding of the science of addiction have been particularly important in this respect. Increased awareness of major studies in these areas have helped the field shift towards evidence-based working and helped legal professionals learn from past mistakes. More and more judges realise that relapse is part of recovery, and that mandated treatment within a drug court structure delivers positive outcomes for participants (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Once a number of problem-solving courts had been established around the country, technical assistance providers emerged to help them take a data-driven approach. This means working with communities to look at the numbers and identify the biggest crime problems they are struggling with and introducing a problem-solving court that is responsive to those issues. It also means using screening and needs assessment tools to make informed sentencing decisions and match participants to appropriate treatments. Technical assistance has helped problem-solving courts increase their impact and effectiveness and over time deliver outcomes for larger populations (Ibid).

As problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center have become better known, law students and young legal professionals have become more aware of and enthusiastic about problem-solving justice as an alternative to adversarial ways of working (Ibid). This represents a significant shift from the early days of problem-solving courts, when judges and lawyers alike were reluctant to embrace non-conventional conceptions of their roles as legal professionals. Prosecutors called problem-solving courts “hug-a-thug” programs. Defence attorneys resisted the idea of a court being a cure-all for their clients. Judges insisted that they “weren’t social workers” and shouldn’t be doing this kind of work (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Service providers were concerned too: they feared that involving the justice system in treatment would ruin their client relationships.

Over time, judges have come to see that their roles could expand without violating something sacrosanct about being a judge. In 2000, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators adopted a resolution supporting the use of therapeutic justice principles. Since then, experience presiding over a drug court has come to be seen as a positive in judicial elections (Ibid).

Despite early concerns that problem-solving courts were “soft on crime,” prosecutors and defense attorneys have largely come on board as well. Research has demonstrated that when problem-solving courts acknowledge their gaps in knowledge and defer to service providers for clinical expertise, they can be successful in supporting treatment. As a result of advances in research, the emergence of problem-solving technical assistance, and important cultural shifts, drug and mental health courts are now widely recognised as appropriate and welcome additions to the field (Ibid). This acceptance has facilitated their spread nationally and as far as Australia and New Zealand.

Court numbers are not the only relevant measure for evaluating the extent to which problem-solving courts have 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 (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As explained in the introduction, 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 (Ibid). A prominent example of police-led diversion is LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) in Seattle, “a collaborative community safety effort that offers law enforcement a credible alternative to booking people into jail for criminal activity that stems from unmet behavioural needs or poverty” (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, n.d.). The Seattle LEAD model was externally evaluated and found to deliver a range of positive outcomes for individuals with justice system involvement and the community (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-a). The model has been replicated successfully and is now operating in over thirty-nine counties in the US (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-b).

Cases that do reach court are also increasingly diverted outside of it. Prosecutors and judges who are not operating within a problem-solving court can nevertheless apply problem-solving principles by linking defendants to services and making use of alternative sentences in lieu of jail time. This “problem-solving orientation” has allowed problem-solving justice to be applied in more instances and settings without necessarily setting up new 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 (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Evidence of this trend towards vertical scaling can be found as far away as Australia. As a specific alternative to horizontal replication, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) has developed resources to support judges at the Melbourne Magistrates Court to adopt a problem-solving approach to their work. Over time, this court has become a “laboratory of experimentation” for problem-solving principles and practices as well as other complementary technologies (i.e. therapeutic or procedural justice approaches) that need to be tested before broader roll-out. In a similar vein, New York City’s courts have carried the innovative principles and practices of community courts into centralised courthouses in Brooklyn and the Bronx rather than creating more Red Hooks (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts funded their service delivery model in a sustainable way?

Drug courts have been successful in obtaining large and sustainable streams of federal funding due to the strong research partnerships they developed from the start. Early data collection and evaluation persuaded funders that the problem-solving approach would deliver positive outcomes and save money by reducing incarceration costs. The fact that Florida Attorney General Janet Reno – who set up the nation’s first drug court in 1989 – worked with Assistant Public Defender Hugh Rodham (7) in Miami Dade County also helped make drug courts a success and capture the attention of the federal government early on.

Importantly, federal funding for drug courts was often conditional upon their participation in rigorous evaluations. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the drug court model in a way that may not have been possible had the drug courts had to fund the research themselves, and justified their continued funding (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). In recent years, states and counties have become a significant source of funding for drug courts as well (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Although the federal government has also helped fund other types of problem-solving courts, drug courts are by far the most sustainably funded. Only recently has the government made it possible for community courts to apply for direct funding, or indirect funding as subgrantees of the Center for Court Innovation. The long-term funding for many community courts is provided by local municipalities (Ibid). Funding community courts is a unique challenge because in addition to standard line items like project director and case worker salaries, they must find a way to cover less conventional expenses support for community volunteers and circle participants (often in the form of food, which the government is not willing to fund) (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Direct federal funding for other kinds of problem-solving courts is very limited. What funding has been made available to them has gone primarily towards research and the establishment of state-level coordinators and problem-solving court infrastructure. This has helped to increase awareness of the problem-solving principles and practices at the state level and encouraged their application in different areas (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Private foundations have supported various aspects of problem-solving justice initiatives in certain parts of the country, but have not yet committed to doing so in a sustained way (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts leveraged the following sustainable financing strategies: public-private partnerships and smart (user) contributions?

Community courts in New York – including the Red Hook Community Justice Center and the Midtown Community Court – have benefitted from public-private partnerships to the extent that their planning and operations have been led by the Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership between the New York court system and an NGO. Over the years, these courts have also partnered with local “business improvement districts” to supervise community service mandates and offer employment opportunities to program graduates (Ibid).

Some treatment courts do also charge a nominal participant fee, which can range from $5-$20 per week (Wallace 2019). These user contributions can be used for grant matching, among other things. Charging people for their participation in problem-solving programming is generally not regarded as good practice, however (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

More broadly, problem-solving courts and community courts in particular can be said to be financially sustainable in that they often save taxpayer money (Wallace 2019). Although it takes time to realise the benefits of the upfront costs of creating and running a drug court for example, research has demonstrated that once established, the associated cost savings range from more than $4,000-$12,000 per participant (Office of National Drug Court Policy 2011). The Red Hook Community Justice Center alone was estimated to have saved local taxpayers $15 million per year (primarily) in victimisation costs that were avoided as a result of reduced recidivism (Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo 2018). The cost savings associated with problem-solving courts have helped them to continue to be competitive applicants for federal, state and local, and sometimes private grant funding over the years and in spite of changing political winds (Wallace 2019).

Enabling environment

How and to what extent have regulatory and financial systems created/enabled by the government supported problem-solving courts and made it possible for this service/activity to scale?

Most if not all states in the US have allowed drug courts to become part of state legislation, which makes possible their continued operation (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

How and to what extent have the outcomes-based, people-centered services delivered by problem-solving courts been allowed to become the default procedure?

Problem-solving courts have not been allowed to become the default procedure in that adversarial courts and procedures remain the standard way of responding to crime in the US. In the words of Judge Hora, “There is no question that the number of people served is growing, but this remains only a drop in the bucket. For every person served there are 6-7 who aren’t” (Ibid). However, the expanding presence of problem-solving courts has helped the justice sector shift away from the excessively punitive state sentencing laws and tough-on-crime rhetoric of the late 1980s towards a more restorative and evidence-based way of working (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Problem-solving courts have enabled cultural change by demonstrating to lawyers and judges that defendants do better when they are able to access treatment, while at the same time allowing these traditional legal players to act as intermediaries and retain a gatekeeping role. As discussed in previous sections, police, prosecutors, and judges alike have grown increasingly comfortable with diverting cases from the adversarial track to community-based treatment (Ibid).

It is a paradox that the US has developed and spread the problem-solving courts model as the country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Former Senior Advisor of Training and Technical Assistance at the Center for Court Innovation, Julius Lang, speculates that this punitive backdrop is what has allowed alternatives to incarceration to flourish in the US and become so highly developed. At the same time, countries with lower baseline penalties that have set up problem-solving courts, such as Canada and Australia, have developed creative means of engaging defendants who need treatment since there is less of a threat of incarceration (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts stimulated (or benefitted from) investment into justice research and development?

Problem-solving courts have both stimulated and benefited from investment into justice research and development. As discussed in the previous sections, the success of problem-solving courts in the US can be attributed in large part to their strong research partnerships.

From the start, “problem-solving courts always took responsibility for their own research and their own outcomes” (Ibid). Problem-solving justice initiatives run by the Center for Court Innovation, for example, always worked directly with researchers. This produced a huge amount of evaluation literature, which was important for securing the buy-in and funding necessary to continue operating (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

The fact that federal funding has incentivised high-quality evaluations has also gone a long way to build a foundation of evidence demonstrating drug courts’ effectiveness (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Leadership + Pathways

How and to what extent have justice sector leaders’ skills and collaborations enabled/hindered problem-solving courts to increase access to justice by delivering the outcomes people need at scale.

Strong leadership has been essential to problem-solving courts’ ability to deliver the treatment outcomes people need at scale. Without the leadership of visionary judges and other leaders aiming to do things differently, they would never have come into existence in the first place.

Because of the tendency to maintain the status quo, individual problem-solving courts also rarely get off the ground without a strong champion. The reason for this can be traced to problem-solving principles and practices themselves: the goal is not to force people to change, but to make them change because they want to. In the same way, effective leaders can persuade system actors that problem-solving justice is the way to achieve common goals (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Community courts in particular require strong leadership. This can sometimes pose problems for the courts’ long-term stability. For example, a community court in North Liverpool was championed by prominent national politicians. Their leadership was important for the court’s establishment and initial funding, but changes in national leadership and the lack of local support were major factors in the court’s ultimate closure (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As mentioned above, community courts may struggle when their early champions move on. To avoid this and prepare for the eventual departure of the personalities who are driving change, it is important to put the courts’ internal ways of working into writing. As previously discussed, it is also necessary to obtain evidence that the court’s approach works, as this is a more important driver of funding than good leadership in the long-run (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Mid-level leadership within problem-solving courts also matters. Since staff are often employed and supervised by various partner agencies – rather than the director of the project as a whole – it is particularly important that they be selected with care, trained in the project’s mission, policies and practices, and incentivised to work as part of a single team (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/benefited from new high-level strategies or pathways towards people-centred justice in the US?

High-level strategies at the state level and in the form of technical assistance have benefitted problem-solving courts significantly by facilitating their replication. This is particularly true of drug courts, for which state-wide coordination mechanisms were set up at an early stage.

Recognising that substance use disorder was a major problem, and persuaded by the same research as federal legislators, state officials began to set up mechanisms that would allow them to receive federal drug court funding. This also allowed them to strategise about which counties would most benefit from drug courts (or other problem-solving courts), and which standards to impose.

Together, state-wide coordination mechanisms created an infrastructure for the improvement and replication of drug courts nationwide, and made it easier to apply problem-solving practices and principles in new settings. Whereas trainings on brain science and what’s working in treatment used to be reserved for drug court judges, there are now few states that do not include them in judicial training for all new judges. The same can be said for trainings for prosecutors, defence attorneys, and service providers (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

The emergence of technical assistance providers specialising in problem-solving justice such as the Center for Court Innovation, Justice System Partners, the National Center for State Courts, and the Justice Management Institute have also helped problem-solving courts to coordinate and replicate in strategic ways. By developing listservs and organising conferences, these organisations have enabled people in various problem-solving courts to support each other across state and international lines. Over time, these efforts have created shared principles and legitimacy around the movement for problem-solving justice (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/played a role in a broader paradigm shift towards people-centered justice?

As mentioned in the introduction, a fifth key feature of the problem-solving orientation is system change. By educating justice system stakeholders about the nature of behavioural problems that often underlie crime and aiming to reach the maximum number of cases within a given jurisdiction, problem-solving courts seek to make broader impact within the justice system and community (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 32-33).

Since the first drug court was set up in 1989, legal professionals have become increasingly aware that many people with social problems end up in the justice system: a system that was never intended to address those problems. Problem-solving courts have contributed to a broader paradigm shift towards people-centred justice to the extent that they have helped these professionals:

Acknowledge this issue;
Recognise that lawyers are not equipped to deal with this issue (American law schools do not prepare them to);
Connect with service providers in the community;
Leverage the coercive power of the justice system in a positive way;
Encourage success in treatment programs using procedural justice.

By taking a collaborative approach to decision-making, delivering individualised justice for each participant while at the same time holding them accountable, educating staff, engaging the broader community, and working to produce better outcomes for people, problem-solving courts have demonstrated what people-centred criminal justice can look like in the US and around the world.

View additional information

(1) Methadone is a synthetic opioid used to treat opioid dependence. Taking a daily dose of methadone in the form of a liquid or pill helps to reduce the cravings and withdrawal symptoms of opioid dependent individuals.

(2) “A screening tool is a set of questions designed to evaluate an offender’s risks and needs fairly quickly…An assessment tool is a more thorough set of questions administered before an offender is matched to a particular course of treatment or service.” Taylor 2016, p. 7.

(3) “The main monitoring tool community courts use is compliance hearings, in which participants are periodically required to return to court to provide updates on their compliance.” Taylor, 2016, p. 9.

(4) “Community courts have promoted the use of technology to improve decision-making. Technology planners created a special information system for the Midtown Community Court to make it easy for the judge and court staff to track defendants…Information that’s reliable, relevant, and up-to-date is essential for judges to make the wisest decisions they can.” Taylor 2016, p. 12-13.

(5) In community courts, “judges often speak directly to the offender, asking questions, offering advice, issuing reprimands, and doling out encouragement. This reflects an approach known as procedural justice…Its key components, according to Yale Professor Tom Tyler, are voice, respect, trust/neutrality, and understanding.” Taylor 2016, p. 15.

(6) “Community courts emphasize working collaboratively with the community, arguing that the justice system is stronger, fairer, and more effective when the community is invested in what happens inside the courthouse.” Taylor 2016, p. 22.

(7) Hugh Rodham was the brother of Hillary Clinton, who would become the First Lady a few years later.

View References

Amanda Cissner and Michael Rempel. (2005). The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond ‘Do They Work?’ , Center for Court Innovation.

Brett Taylor. (2016). Lessons from Community Courts: Strategies on Criminal Justice Reform from a Defense Attorney . Center for Court Innovation, p. 3.

Cheryl Wright, (n.d.). Tackling Problem-Solving Issues Across the Country . National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Cynthia Lee, Fred Cheesman, David Rottman, Rachael Swaner, Suvi Lambson, Michael Rempel and Ric Curtis. (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center . National Center for State Courts, Center for Court Innovation, p.1.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Four) . Justice Speakers Institute.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part One) . Justice Speakers Institute.

Dawn Marie Rubio, Fred Cheesman and William Federspiel. (2008). Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art . National Center for State Courts, Volume 6, p. 1.

George Mair and Matthew Millings. (2011). Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre . Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review, 27(4).

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 5, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 14, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Jay Jordens, Education Program Manager – Therapeutic Justice, Judicial College of Victoria, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Judge Peggy Hora, President, Justice Speakers Institute, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Julius Lang, Senior Advisor, Training and Technical Assistance, Center for Court Innovation, October 28, 2020.

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) , King County.

LEAD National Support Bureau, (n.d.). Evaluations .

LEAD National Support Bureau. (n.d.). LEAD: Advancing Criminal Justice Reform in 2020 .

Mark Halsey and Melissa de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review 27 (4).

Matthew Leone, Net widening , Encyclopaedia of Crime and Punishment, SAGE Reference.

National Institute of Drug Abuse (2020). The Matrix Model (Stimulants) , Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide

Office of National Drug Court Policy. (2011). Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice .

Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel and Adam Mansky. (2010). What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice . Center for Court Innovation, p. 1

Red Hook Justice News. (2016). Bridging the Gap: Youth, Community and Police .

Sarah Matusek. (2017). Justice Center celebrates Bridging the Gap birthday . The Red Hook Star Revue.

Sarah Murray and Harry Blagg. (2018). Reconceptualising Community Justice Centre Evaluations – Lessons from the North Liverpool Experience . Griffith Law Review 27 (2).

Suzanne Strong and Tracey Kyckelhahn. (2016). Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 . Bureau of Justice Statistics.

US Government and Accountability Office, 2005.

Table of Contents

Case Studies:
Casas De Justicia Colombia
Local Council Courts in Uganda
LegalZoom in the US
The Justice Dialogue
Methodology

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law Tel: +31 70 762 0700 E-mail: [email protected]

Solving & preventing
Justice services
Data by country

Privacy Overview

The SARA Model

A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The SARA model contains the following elements:

Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police.
Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police.
Prioritizing those problems.
Developing broad goals.
Confirming that the problems exist.
Determining how frequently the problem occurs and how long it has been taking place.
Selecting problems for closer examination.
Identifying and understanding the events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem.
Identifying relevant data to be collected.
Researching what is known about the problem type.
Taking inventory of how the problem is currently addressed and the strengths and limitations of the current response.
Narrowing the scope of the problem as specifically as possible.
Identifying a variety of resources that may be of assistance in developing a deeper understanding of the problem.
Developing a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring.
Brainstorming for new interventions.
Searching for what other communities with similar problems have done.
Choosing among the alternative interventions.
Outlining a response plan and identifying responsible parties.
Stating the specific objectives for the response plan.
Carrying out the planned activities.

Assessment:

Determining whether the plan was implemented (a process evaluation).
Collecting pre– and post–response qualitative and quantitative data.
Determining whether broad goals and specific objectives were attained.
Identifying any new strategies needed to augment the original plan.
Conducting ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness.
What Is Problem-Oriented Policing?
History of Problem-Oriented Policing
Key Elements of POP
The Problem Analysis Triangle
Situational Crime Prevention
25 Techniques
Links to Other POP Friendly Sites
About POP en Español

Health care
Environment
Criminal Justice
Election 2024
Social Issues

‘Tough-on-crime’ policies are back in some places that had reimagined criminal justice

Several states are considering or have already enacted legislation undoing more progressive policies., by: amanda hernández - march 18, 2024 5:00 am.

The District of Columbia’s major crime bill, the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024, was recently signed into law. The roughly 100-page piece of legislation toughens penalties for gun crimes, establishes drug-free zones and allows police to collect DNA from suspects before a conviction. In other cities and states, political leaders also are embracing a return to “tough-on-crime” policies. J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press

Fueled by public outrage over the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and other high-profile incidents of police violence, a seismic shift swept across the United States shortly afterward, with a wave of initiatives aimed at reining in police powers and reimagining criminal-legal systems.

Yet less than half a decade later, political leaders from coast to coast are embracing a return to “tough-on-crime” policies, often undoing the changes of recent years.

This resurgence is most palpable in the nation’s major urban centers, traditionally bastions of progressive politics. San Francisco voters earlier this month approved ballot initiatives that would require drug screenings for welfare recipients and would loosen restrictions on police operations. The District of Columbia, too, has pivoted toward a harder stance on crime, with its mayor signing into law a sweeping package that toughens penalties for gun crimes, establishes drug-free zones and allows police to collect DNA from suspects before a conviction.

Local and state leaders in blue and red states — including California, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont — also have looked to toughen their approaches to crime and public safety in a variety of ways. Lawmakers have proposed bills that would stiffen retail theft charges, re-criminalize certain hard street drugs, keep more suspects in jail in lieu of bail and expand police powers.

Many are passing with bipartisan support.

Some of what we’re seeing is more like … shaving off the edges of some of the policies that felt too lenient.

– Adam Gelb, the president and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice

Policymakers are responding to public concerns over rising crime rates and heightened fear and anger due to a surge in offenses such as carjackings and retail theft. To some criminal justice experts, the legislative actions represent more of a partial rollback of progressive criminal justice changes rather than a complete return to past punitive policies.

“The issue for most people isn’t whether something is up or down by 10%. It’s that they are seeing randomness and brazenness, and getting a sense of lawlessness,” said Adam Gelb, the president and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. “Some of what we’re seeing is more like … shaving off the edges of some of the policies that felt too lenient.”

The percentage of Americans who think the United States is “not tough enough” on crime grew for the first time in 30 years, according to a Gallup poll released in November. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they believe the criminal-legal system is too soft, up from 41% in 2020.

While national crime data is notoriously difficult to track and understand , violent crime across the United States decreased in 2022 — dropping to about the same level as before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the FBI’s annual crime report. Property crimes rose during the same period. Crime data compiled by the Council on Criminal Justice also suggests that most types of crime are reverting toward pre-pandemic levels.

Georgia’s legislature earlier this year passed a bill that would add 30 additional felony and misdemeanor crimes to the state’s list of bail-restricted offenses, meaning that people accused of those crimes would be required to post cash bail. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp hasn’t said whether he will sign the bill.

Last week, the Tennessee Senate passed a bill that would prohibit local governments from altering police traffic stop policies. If signed into law, it would overturn a Memphis city ordinance that bans pretextual traffic stops, which is when police use minor traffic infractions such as broken taillights as grounds to investigate motorists for more serious crimes.

Car thefts and carjackings are up. Unreliable data makes it hard to pinpoint why.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat who leads the first state to decriminalize drugs, announced in early March she plans to sign legislation that would redefine the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, such as fentanyl or methamphetamine, as a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months in jail.

The bill also would allow law enforcement to take action to prevent the distribution and use of controlled substances in public areas, such as parks or sidewalks.

“What we did is we tried to make sure that we could blend together our public safety in a behavioral health approach when folks are caught with drugs,” said Oregon state Rep. Jason Kropf, a Democrat and one of the bill’s lead authors.

Still, critics of the new legislation argue that re-criminalizing drug use would disproportionately affect Black, Latino and Indigenous communities, and further burden Oregon’s already overwhelmed criminal justice system. There are more than 2,800 people in the state currently unrepresented in court and about half are facing misdemeanor charges, according to the Oregon Judicial Department’s dashboard .

Some of these concerns are why Oregon state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat, voted against the new legislation.

“I do believe that this [bill] will in fact reinstitute the war on drugs,” Prozanski said in an interview. “We’re just gonna compound the problem to what’s happened in the current caseload without attorneys — cases being dismissed, cases being delayed. And that doesn’t help anyone in the system, including victims of crime.”

Why some lawmakers are reworking policies

Some criminal justice advocates and experts perceive the recent trend of states dialing back reforms as impulsive reactions to what might be a temporary, pandemic-related spike in certain crimes. They argue that these measures are more about sending a political message than finding solutions.

“Some of the knee-jerk reactions aren’t even responsive to the actual problem at hand,” said David Muhammad, the executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, an advocacy and research group.

Others, though, say recent votes are a “rejection of pro-criminal policies” that prioritized the rights of offenders over the needs of crime victims.

“This is a return to normalcy — to common sense. The fact is that their ideas failed. They were bad,” said Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“This isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing or a blue or red state thing. This is a law and order versus chaos thing. Period.”

As xylazine surges, some lawmakers want jail time for dealers and people who use the drug

In Vermont, Republican Gov. Phil Scott urged lawmakers this year to revisit criminal justice reform legislation passed a few years ago, bills that he signed into law. Among them is the state’s “Raise the Age” law, which reclassified 18-year-old adults as juveniles within the criminal justice system. He has urged lawmakers to postpone the plan to do the same for 19-year-old adults. Scott said the state isn’t ready to house those suspects as juveniles.

“I wish I had better anticipated the challenge,” he said in his State of the State address earlier this year.

Last week, the Vermont House approved a bill that would stiffen repeat retail theft violations, allowing aggregation of stolen goods’ value to shift charges from misdemeanors to felonies. The bill will now go to the Senate for consideration.

Meanwhile, in California, a bipartisan effort is underway to amend Proposition 47, which was passed by voters in 2014. It raised the threshold to $950 of stolen goods for shoplifting to be considered a felony and reclassified some drug charges from felonies to misdemeanors. The proposition was widely supported as a way to reduce prison overcrowding. Now, a new bill would, as in Vermont, allow prosecutors to charge repeat retail theft offenders on a cumulative basis for goods stolen.

“Shoplifting, smash-and-grab thefts, and other acts of retail theft trends are causing retailers to close their businesses and endangering customers and employees,” Democratic Assemblymember James Ramos, the bill’s lead author, said in a news release . “Since the pandemic, these crimes have increased. That is not the direction California needs to go.”

Rollbacks in Louisiana

Louisiana earned national attention in 2017 when then-Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, signed a legislative package intended to reduce the state prison population and bolster alternatives to incarceration. Louisiana saved nearly $153 million, and the number of people held in state custody decreased by 1,627 people, or 11%, from 2016 to 2023, according to state records .

Shortage of prosecutors, judges leads to widespread court backlogs

The state again earned national attention this winter after lawmakers met for a special session on public safety and considered a slew of bills. These included allowing 17-year-olds to be charged as adults, unsealing some juvenile criminal records, limiting post-conviction appeals and expanding the state’s methods of performing executions to include nitrogen gas and electrocution.

A proposal to move Louisiana’s public defender system under the governor’s direct control was also discussed. The bill raised concerns among attorneys, public defenders and retired judges, according to the Louisiana Illuminator.

“I definitely believe there’s a fear now that public defense will be affected by politics,” said Alaina Bloodworth, who is from Louisiana and is the executive director of the Black Public Defender Association, in an interview.

To date, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has signed 19 bills into law, encompassing measures such as allowing concealed carry of a gun without a permit, imposing harsher penalties for carjackings and treating all 17-year-olds charged with crimes, including misdemeanors, as adults.

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.

District of Columbia

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Amanda Hernández

Amanda Hernández covers criminal justice for Stateline. She has reported for both national and local outlets, including ABC News, USA Today and NBC4 Washington.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom , the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Related News

A new wave of 'tough-on-crime' laws aim to intimidate criminals. Experts are skeptical.

A recent wave of new policies and ballot measures makes it clear : Many politicians across the country think crime is out-of-control and tougher laws will help fix the problem.

From Louisiana to California, efforts to increase criminal penalties and give more power to police have made it on the books as politicians say they want to make their streets safer. Most Americans (58%), meanwhile, now think the country is not tough enough on crime, a reversal from just a few years earlier (41%), according to public opinion polling from Gallup .

The most recent wave of laws extend to even liberal enclaves like San Francisco, a marked turn from reforms passed years ago in the wake of George Floyd's murder, which sparked a mass awakening to the inequities of the criminal justice system.

Efforts to crack down on crime, commonly called "tough-on-crime" laws, have been studied for years and have been found to boost the number of people in jail, but there's little evidence that they're effective crime deterrent, experts say. That's in part because most people who commit crime aren’t thinking about the penalties for their actions.

Tough-on-crime laws attempt to solve crime by stigmatizing people who commit crimes rather than addressing the root causes, driving mass incarceration and disrupting families and communities while heavily impacting people of color, said Shari Stone-Mediatore, the cofounder of advocacy group Parole Illinois and a professor at Ohio-Wesleyan University.

“It’s not a productive way to deal with social problems” like drug addiction or unemployment, Stone-Mediatore said.

'A stunning turnabout': Voters and lawmakers across US move to reverse criminal justice reform

Because the latest wave of laws follow widespread criminal justice reforms, some experts note the new laws may not be as extreme as some past crime crackdowns.

"They're not going back to the way it was before," said Adam Gelb, President and CEO of the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice . Many recent tough-on-crime laws are essentially rolling back some of the most controversial reforms, "rather than completely rejecting a balanced approach."

He also acknowledged that some policies that have popped up recently may be intended to send a message about crime tolerance rather than stop crime directly.

‘Restored law and order’: Crime rates prompting concern by politicians

Crime rates fluctuate based on innumerable factors, which the U.S. has seen throughout history, according to Jeffrey Bellin, a professor at the William & Mary Law School and the author of “Mass Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became Addicted to Prisons and Jails and How It Can Recover.”

National data on crime rates shows that while crime went up during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has mostly returned to pre-pandemic levels or below. FBI crime reports show that violent crimes in particular, which jumped in 2020, have come back down. In 2022, there was a 6.1% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Rape decreased 5.4% and aggravated assault dropped 1.1%, the data shows.

Yet robbery increased 1.3%. Property crimes overall increased 7.1% in 2022, with motor vehicle thefts showing the biggest increase at 10.9%. Carjackings increased 8.1% from 2021, including those that led to injury.

“The COVID pandemic was such a shock to the system that it created all sorts of distortions, not just in terms of how people were behaving,” but also in how policing of communities was carried out, Bellin said.

In Louisiana, which just overhauled its criminal justice system and reversed previous efforts at reform in a special session, crime rates have followed a similar pattern, but the state has had one of the highest homicide rates in the country in recent years.

“(C)riminals have been thriving while our law enforcement officers are more demoralized than ever,” Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, both Republicans, said in an opinion article published by USA TODAY’s Network in Louisiana.

“With this Special Session, the Louisiana Legislature restored law and order and put criminals on notice that they will face punishments for their crimes,” they said.

Among the legislation passed: laws that will treat all 17-year-olds who commit crimes as adults, harsher penalties for carjackings and a minimum of 25 years in jail in cases where someone distributes fentanyl in a way that appeals to children, such as the shape, color, taste or packaging design.

Meanwhile in California, San Francisco voted for two propositions that give police more leeway to pursue suspects in vehicles and expand the use of drones and surveillance cameras, and that require welfare recipients to undergo drug treatment. In Washington, D.C., the city council approved public safety measures including establishing “drug-free zones” to target drug-related loitering.

In Oregon, the first state to decriminalize illicit drugs three years ago , politicians have reinstated criminal penalties for possession of some drugs.

READ MORE: 'A stunning turnabout': Voters and lawmakers across US move to reverse criminal justice reform

Low-level offenses often targeted in crime crackdowns

When elected officials want to crack down on crime rates, they often choose to implement harsher sentences for crimes, including lower-level offenses, leading to longer prison sentences and more people in prison. The hope is that keeping criminals off the streets will lessen the amount of crime that is committed, and deter others from committing crime.

“Tough on crime in this country is a way of thinking about how to deal with social problems that became strongly articulated in the late 70s and 80s,” Stone-Mediatore said. “Since then, study after study has shown that it does not work.”

A good example of a tough-on-crime approach is the U.S. war on drugs that saw a sharp increase in the number of people sent to prison for drug offenses starting in the 70s, Bellin said. Yet that didn’t reduce the availability of drugs or the number of people using them, Bellin said.

Tough-on-crime laws often target crimes that are easier for police to detect, like drug offenses, rather than the types of crimes that people most care about, like sexual violence and murder, Bellin said.

When considering what effect tough-on-crime laws have, Bellin said, “what we really mean is tough on the people we catch.”

Want to prevent crime? Make people believe they will be caught, research suggests.

According to Stone-Mediatore and Bellin, research shows people care about getting caught and often have a warped sense of whether they will be.

But laws that increase prison sentences don’t inherently deter them, because the people potentially committing crimes may not know about what those new penalties are.

The National Institute of Justice , a body of the U.S. Department of Justice, found in a 2016 analysis of a wide body of research that:

The severity and length of punishment is a less effective deterrent than the certainty of being caught. Police can deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught.
A prison sentence for every person convicted of a crime is not effective at deterring crime. Rather, people who go to prison may learn more effective crime strategies while they’re in prison.
Research doesn’t prove that the death penalty deters people from committing homicides.

What can result in reduced violent crimes like murder is expanding law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute those more serious crimes rather than focusing on lower-level crimes like drug offenses.

“If it's likely that you'll get caught for committing a crime, you're less likely to commit the crime,” Bellin said, regardless of how stiff the penalty is.

Contributing: Kinsey Crowley, USA TODAY; The Associated Press

IMAGES

The S.A.R.A. Model
PPT
Logic model of potential criminal justice impact on crime rates
FIGURE 1 THE SARA MODEL OF PROBLEM-SOLVING
Models of Criminal Justice (Crime Control (Stresses the importance of…
Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System

VIDEO

Problem Solving IQ Pedestal
All Character Face Models in Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League
Leading With Integrity, Public Safety, and Criminal Justice Reform
Echoes of Justice: The Indiana 'Slasher' Case Solved after 48 Years #truecrimeshorts #coldcasesolved
Heroic 911 Operator Saves A Captivated Boy #crime #911dispatcher #kidnapping
Solving Crimes with TCG: Ace Attorney

COMMENTS

The SARA Model
The SARA Model. A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The SARA model contains the following elements: Scanning: Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police. Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police. Prioritizing those ...
Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 2 Key Issues: 3- Crime
Learn about different crime problem-solving approaches, such as SARA and Ekblom's 5Is, that provide structure to crime prevention planning and problem-solving efforts. The web page explains the elements, goals and methods of each approach and their applicability to criminal justice contexts.
The S.A.R.A. Model
The Crime Prevention Triangle. The S.A.R.A. Model of crime prevention is a part of what was coined as "Problem-Oriented Policing" by Herman Goldstein in 1979. Problem-Oriented Policing, or POP, was a response to reactive, incident-driven policing in which successes in addressing community problems were short-lived.
Problem‐oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. Correspondence Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State ... (Mazerolle, Ready, Terrill & Waring, 2000) found that a police problem-solving model could be used to respond to violent and property crime in six housing complexes. In another example, Clarke ...
Problem-Solving Courts
Learn about the problem-solving court model, which focuses on one type of offense or person committing the crime and uses case management and therapeutic jurisprudence to reduce criminal offending. Find out the types of problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and reentry courts, and the NIJ projects that evaluate their effectiveness and impacts.
PDF Problem-Solving Tips
©2010 The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or ... officers worked with researchers to develop a problem-solving model that could be used to address any crime or disorder problem. The result was the SARA model, which has four stages: Scanning,
PDF Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:
• Arrest and prosecution alone—the traditional functions of the criminal justice system—are not always sufficient for effectively resolving problems. ... The preeminent conceptual model of problem solving, known as SARA, grew out of the problem-oriented policing project in Newport News. The acronym SARA stands for scanning, analysis,
Problem-Oriented Policing
The SARA process has become widely accepted and adopted by police agencies implementing problem-oriented policing. Wesley Skogan and colleagues (1999) describe a five-step model used for problem solving as part of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS): Identify and prioritize recurring problems. Analyze problems using a variety of ...
Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing
The SARA model (which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) is one major conceptual model of problem-solving that can be used by officers (for a full description of the SARA model, see Problem-Oriented Policing below). ... Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2):142-158. Miró-Llinares, F. 2014. Routine activity ...
The Use and Effectiveness of Problem-Oriented Policing
The 5Is are intelligence, intervention, implementation, involvement, and impact. These components help supplement the SARA model and deal with the true complexity of problem-oriented policing (Sidebottom & Tilley, 2010, pp. 6-7). When presented with these three models, SARA, PROCTOR, and 5Is, officials and criminologists must decide which one ...
PDF Principles of Problem-Solving Justice
the rest of the criminal justice system, helping give rise to innovations like commu-nity prosecution, community courts, and problem-solving probation.These new ... the description becomes meaningless.The diversity of problem-solving models is reflected in the different assumptions about rehabilitation posited by drug and
Adopting Problem-Based Learning in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Problem-solving skills are very important for human existence, especially in a constantly changing social environment that requires people to continually engage in social problems. ... High incarceration rates become one of the most serious criminal justice problems in the United States because there are many collateral consequences of the ...
Problem Solving
A major conceptual vehicle for helping officers to think about problem solving in a structured and disciplined way is the scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (SARA) model. This Police Foundation report on the Pulse nightclub shooting attack in June 2016 details multiple aspects of the attack and response, including leadership ...
Problem-Oriented Policing: The SARA Model
Problem-Oriented Policing: The SARA Model, an eLearning course, provides learners with a basic awareness and understanding of the fundamental principles of a common approach used by many community policing agencies to identify and solve repeat crime and community problems.The SARA model allows agencies to scan through multiple data sources, conduct a thorough analysis of a problem through the ...
Problem-Solving Courts
Introduction. Problem-solving courts are a recent and increasingly widespread alternative to traditional models of case management in criminal and civil courts. Defying simple definition, such courts encompass a loosely related group of practice areas and styles. Courts range from those addressing criminal justice issues, such as drug courts ...
Problem Oriented Policing
He termed this new approach "problem-oriented policing" (POP). Using this approach, police manage a range of problems in the community through criminal law enforcement in tandem with civil statutes and municipal and community resources. Eck and Spelman's SARA model was developed in 1987 and expanded upon Goldstein's approach.
PDF U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
gathered in the course of a problem-solving project does not have to withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny. Where greater confidence is needed in the data, police might need expert help in using the technique. This can often be found in local university departments of sociology, psychology and criminal justice.
The Problem Analysis Triangle
The Problem Analysis TriangleWhile the SARA model is useful as a way of organizing the approach to recurring problems, it is often very difficult to figure out just exactly what the real problem is. The problem analysis triangle (sometimes referred to as the crime triangle) provides a way of thinking about recurring problems of crime and disorder. This idea assumes that crime or disorder ...
Problem-Solving Justice
Problem-solving justice seeks to go beyond processing cases to solve the problems that bring people to court. Problem-solving courts, such as drug and mental health courts, make use of innovative strategies to address the underlying conditions that bring people into contact with the legal system. Through judicial monitoring, partnership with ...
Case Study: Problem-Solving Courts in the US
In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. All 50 states have appointed a statewide drug court coordinator, and at least 13 have introduced the broader position of statewide problem-solving court coordinator (Porter, Rempel and ...
PDF Applying the problem-solving model
These "problem-solving" courts all attempt to use the authority of the judiciary in new ways and are characterized by a number of unique elements: a problem-solv-ing focus; a team approach to deci-sion making; referrals to treatment and other social services; ongoing Applying the problem-solving model outside of problem-solving courts
Problem-solving policing
9 mins read. Problem-solving policing is also known as problem-oriented policing. It's an approach to tackling crime and disorder that involves: identification of a specific problem. thorough analysis to understand the problem. development of a tailored response. assessment of the effects of the response. The approach assumes that identifying ...
The SARA Model
The SARA Model. A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The SARA model contains the following elements: Scanning: Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police. Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police. Prioritizing those ...
'Tough-on-crime' policies are back in some places that had reimagined
Stateline. In Vermont, Republican Gov. Phil Scott urged lawmakers this year to revisit criminal justice reform legislation passed a few years ago, bills that he signed into law. Among them is the state's "Raise the Age" law, which reclassified 18-year-old adults as juveniles within the criminal justice system.
Will backtracking on criminal justice reform cut crime?
FBI crime reports show that violent crimes in particular, which jumped in 2020, have come back down. In 2022, there was a 6.1% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Rape decreased 5.4 ...

Doha Declaration

Module 2: Crime Prevention

E4J University Module Series: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Case studies

Guidelines to develop a stand-alone course

This module is a resource for lecturers

SARA Approach

(Source: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Arizona State University )

Ekblom's 5Is

(For a detailed overview of the 5Is see Ekblom, 2011; see also this website)

The S.A.R.A. Model

by Kelly M. Glenn, 2020

Suggested Citation for this Article

Related Posts

National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day

5 Things Every Domestic Violence Report Should Include

Thank You to Our 911 Dispatchers

Social Sciences

Need an Account?

Criminology

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Problem-Solving Courts

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Problem-Solving Courts by Eric J. Miller LAST REVIEWED: 06 November 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 14 April 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0073

Justice Dashboard

Introduction

What does it mean for a court to be problem-solving?

What does problem-solving justice look like in practice?

Problems and impacts

Defining + Monitoring Outcomes

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts determined whether existing justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts created a system for monitoring whether new, people-centered justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Evidence-Based Solutions

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts used outcome-based monitoring (discussed in the previous section) to continuously improve these interventions and replace interventions that have proven ineffective?

Innovations + Delivery Models

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts funded their service delivery model in a sustainable way?

To what extent have problem-solving courts leveraged the following sustainable financing strategies: public-private partnerships and smart (user) contributions?

How and to what extent have regulatory and financial systems created/enabled by the government supported problem-solving courts and made it possible for this service/activity to scale?

How and to what extent have the outcomes-based, people-centered services delivered by problem-solving courts been allowed to become the default procedure?

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts stimulated (or benefitted from) investment into justice research and development?

Leadership + Pathways

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/benefited from new high-level strategies or pathways towards people-centred justice in the US?

To what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/played a role in a broader paradigm shift towards people-centered justice?

View additional information

View References

Privacy Overview

Assessment:

‘Tough-on-crime’ policies are back in some places that had reimagined criminal justice

Why some lawmakers are reworking policies

Rollbacks in Louisiana

Amanda Hernández

Related News

A new wave of 'tough-on-crime' laws aim to intimidate criminals. Experts are skeptical.

‘Restored law and order’: Crime rates prompting concern by politicians

Low-level offenses often targeted in crime crackdowns

Want to prevent crime? Make people believe they will be caught, research suggests.

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS