The first drug court in the United States opened in Miami in 1989. This nontraditional approach dispenses with the usual sentencing-incarceration-release-rearrest cycle for low-level drug offenses. Instead, offenders are brought in front of a judge and given intensive supervision and substance use treatment, with the goal of getting them out of the criminal justice system altogether.
The model has proved so effective at reducing recidivism and lowering overall incarceration costs that today there are 3,000 drug courts nationwide, according to the National Institute of Justice. Now, criminal justice systems around the country are looking to push the drug court model further. Increasingly, specialized problem-solving courts are addressing mental health, veterans' needs or reintegration into society after incarceration.
As these courts become more common, there is increased interest in making sure they're effective, accountable and offering evidence-based services. Richard Wiener, PhD, the former director of the law and psychology program at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, is among the experts finalizing the standards for new mental health courts in Nebraska. He spoke with the Monitor about the promise of problem-solving courts in improving people's lives and keeping them out of the criminal justice system in the future.
What is the goal of problem-solving courts?
The notion rises out of therapeutic jurisprudence, the idea that the law can be used as a therapeutic agent to help people improve their psychological and social well-being. A number of people who have psychological and social problems plaguing them, such as untreated mental health disorders or substance use disorders, wind up in the criminal justice system. The goal is to solve those psychological or social problems.
The problem we currently have is a revolving-door issue, where people will come in front of a judge, pick up a sentence, and then they are back in when the sentence is over with the same problems. The philosophy of problem-solving courts is to try to use the court as an agent to solve these problems so offenders won't return.
What issues are these problem-solving courts addressing, and what approach do they take?
Mental health courts, which are nowhere near as common as drug courts, have been in existence for 15 years or so. The more recent ones are veterans' courts and re-entry courts, for people who are on post-release supervision.
All these courts look at what services people need to keep them from re-offending. If they have psychological problems, the court will try to arrange for them to receive mental health services. If they have employment problems, the court will try to find them employment training or, ultimately, a job. The problem could be education issues, it could be family or legal issues. The vision is to not just treat the symptom, but to treat the whole person.
While drug courts typically have a set progression of supervision and treatment that everybody goes through, mental health courts are much more individualized. It's a matter of the team figuring out what, specifically, each person needs. The team can include attorneys, court officers, social workers and counselors. The optimal situation is to refer that person to quality, evidence-based mental health and social services. One of the advantages of the court being involved is that the court can also vet those services.
What role do psychologists play in these courts?
It's a very exciting area with lots of opportunities for researchers and policy psychologists and clinical psychologists. Psychologists are involved at all levels: in the organization and planning, in evaluation and data collection, in data analysis and program evaluation. And psychologists are involved in direct services. Some do assessment, some do treatment, especially in the more difficult cases.
I'm on the strategic planning committee for Nebraska problem-solving courts, and we're in the process of writing standards for mental health courts. There is also a role for education. I teach students, future lawyers in law school, because they otherwise don't learn about this. You go to law school to learn to defend your client, so this is changing that legal mindset: "I'm not here only to be the protector, I'm here to guard the best interests of my clients."
How does the legal system decide who qualifies for problem-solving courts?
You want people who really have need and present risk. If a person's problems can be dealt with in less restrictive environments, or if they perhaps don't need much beyond the warning and embarrassment of being involved in the system, those are not the people who should be involved. It really should be people who have chronic problems, or more serious risk and higher needs, such as low-level offenders who continue to offend again and again.
In Nebraska, we're trying to make those decisions tied to objective assessments. We use the risk-need-responsivity principles developed by [Carleton University psychologist] Don Andrews and [clinical psychologist] James Bonta. This model matches the level of service to the risk of re-offending, assesses and targets the needs that can promote criminal behavior, and tailors the interventions to the individual.
What do you expect for the future of these courts?
One of the things happening now is increasing professionalization. There is now a big effort to develop standards and write professional guidelines for these problem-solving courts so there is a more systematic approach.
In an ideal environment, you wouldn't have people seeking mental health services through the courts, but in our realistic environment, these courts are an important avenue for people to get supervision and services that they need. There is real potential for helping people.
For more , see the National Center for State Courts: www.ncsc.org/Topics/Alternative-Dockets/Problem-Solving-Courts/Homeopens in new window .
