Problem‐Solving Courts: A Brief Primer

Berman, Greg; Feinblatt, John

doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00107

Cited by 122 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of this concept on reshaping the delivery of legal services and fashioning a generation of lawyers has been enormous (Stolle, 2000). It is clear that problem-solving courts are part of a trend of judicial innovation that attempts to humanise and improve outcomes for litigants, victims, defendants and communities facing chronic problems (Berman and Feinblatt, 2001). These TJ courts operate under the philosophy that traditional punitive responses to criminal behaviour among the mentally ill accused are inappropriate and ineffective (Schneider et al, 2007).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liminality and Mental Health Court Diversion: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Offender Experiences: Table 1

Nordberg

2014

Br J Soc Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seriously mentally ill people are a 'revolving-door' population in criminal justice systems where they cycle in and out of courts and jails. In response and consonant with the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, mental health courts (MHCs) have flourished in North America and Western Europe in attempts to divert this population away from jail and provision them with the social services they require to avoid legal contact. Little research has focused on the perspective of the accused in MHCs and there has been little information about which aspects of the court and diversion processes contribute to therapeutic processes in MHCs. This qualitative study reports the experiences of nine successful graduates of a Canadian MHC. The data were analysed according to the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis. The marginality of the accused and their liminal experiences in mental health court diversion are discussed. Social workers have a role to play in the success of clients in diversion and the results of this study may influence service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liminality and Mental Health Court Diversion: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Offender Experiences: Table 1

Nordberg

2014

Br J Soc Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though varying by target population and problem, eligibility criteria, necessity of a plea for services, court monitoring requirements, and other aspects (Casey and Hewitt, 2001), these courts share a number of common features (Berman and Feinblatt, 2001), including:…”

Section: Principles Of Problem-solving Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rise of problem-solving courts has been attributed to breakdowns in social and community institutions that have traditionally addressed problems like addiction, mental illness, domestic violence, and quality of life crimes (Berman and Feinblatt, 2001). This state of affairs has contributed to an increase in the nation's incarcerated population and a resulting prison overcrowding (Abram & Teplin, 1991;Langan, 1991;Teplin, 1994).…”

Section: Forces Contributing To the Rise Of Problem-solving Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, a defendant may be deprived of the opportunity to exercise genuine choice in making the decision as to whether to enter a drug treatment program. Berman and Feinblatt (2001) summarize additional concerns that have been directed at problem-solving courts. They mention the worry that "this new brand of jurisprudence" may give judges the power to rule based on their own idiosyncratic views rather than the law.…”

Section: Criticisms Of Problem-solving Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resource Coordination in Problem Solving Courts of the Los Angeles County Superior Court

Marshall¹,

Rayburn²,

Schell³

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficiency and Modernization Fund (JAEMF) enacted by the California state legislature in 1997.The Trial Court Innovations Grants Program is intended to fund research to improve access, efficiency and effectiveness of the courts. This report is intended for use by the client in facilitating strategic planning. The report assumes familiarity with the general workings of the Los Angeles Superior Court system.At the request of the client, the purposes of this report were twofold: (1) to characterize the ways in which treatment resources are coordinated for offenders within the problem solving courts of the Los Angeles Superior Court system; and (2) to examine the views of various stakeholders within the court system regarding problem solving courts, with particular emphasis on the resource coordination process. Of particular interest were issues such as whether stakeholders regard alternative courts as providing equitable sanctions vis-à-vis traditional courts, whether services-based programs are perceived to work better to prevent recidivism than more traditional sanctions, and the degree to which stakeholders believe that various problems exist with provision of services in these courts.To address these issues, we conducted interviews with stakeholders. We did not independently corroborate the validity of stakeholder opinions by inspecting official court records or assessing defendant outcomes.This research was conducted within the RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE) unit. This new research unit consolidates the work of RAND Public Safety and Justice, RAND Science and Technology, and the RAND Homeland Security Center. ISE encompasses policy research and technical analyses in five areas in which RAND has long experience: homeland security; public safety and justice; occupational safety; environment, energy, natural resources, and economic development; and transportation, telecommunications and information systems. ISE's mission is twofold: to improve the development, operation, use, and protection of society's essential built and natural assets; and to enhance the safety and security of individuals in transit and in their workplaces and communities. 2 Executive SummaryIn recent years, a range of "problem-solving" courts have emerged in California and elsewhere. These specialized courts aim to address underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior. Offenders are sentenced to treatment instead of incarceration, or are diverted from the court system in exchange for completion of treatment. Within such courts, "resource coordinators" match individual defendants with appropriate services. They typically follow a case through the pre-and post-sentencing states, coordinate referrals to treatment agencies, and convey information about a client's status and progress in a program.This study describes and evaluates the resource coordinator function in a range of Los Angeles Superior Court programs intended to provide a therapeutic, problem-solving, approach to jurisprudence. Specifically, it describes how ...

show abstract

“…Variations on the original criminal courtbased adult drug court that first began in 1989 include: juvenile drug courts, driving under the influence courts, domestic violence courts, and family drug treatment courts (Berman & Feinblatt, 2001;Hora, 2002). Although an accumulation of findings has led to a general perception that adult drug courts facilitate tangible and beneficial changes in participants' lives, research pertaining to the family drug treatment court model has lagged far behind (Belenko, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Linkages Between Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Treatment: Social Functioning Improvements and Client Satisfaction in a Family Drug Treatment Court*

Bryan

Havens

2007

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes early findings regarding social functioning and client satisfaction from a longitudinal study of women receiving treatment in a family drug treatment court located in the Midwestern United States (N = 33). Drug treatment court participants were interviewed at program entry and when they had completed 6 months of treatment. Family drug court participants reported significant improvements in employment status and increases in earned income after 6 months of treatment. Respondents also reported improved social functioning and high overall levels of satisfaction with treatment. Findings and implications for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Problem‐Solving Courts: A Brief Primer

Cited by 122 publications

References 1 publication

Liminality and Mental Health Court Diversion: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Offender Experiences: Table 1

Liminality and Mental Health Court Diversion: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Offender Experiences: Table 1

Resource Coordination in Problem Solving Courts of the Los Angeles County Superior Court

Key Linkages Between Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Treatment: Social Functioning Improvements and Client Satisfaction in a Family Drug Treatment Court*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About