Resources
Problem-Solving Courts: Is the General Public Buying-In?
by David B. Rottman and Chantal G. Bromage

The rapid increase in the number and variety of problem-solving courts owes something to the appeal they appear to hold for politicians across the ideological spectrum. Conservatives are attracted by the close monitoring of court participants and the stress on individual accountability. Liberals are attracted by the emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation in the same courts.

What does the general public think about problem-solving courts? This article marshals the findings from several public opinion surveys to look at the public’s acceptance of problem-solving principles and methods in the abstract and as manifest in a specific problem-solving court. The key research concern is the extent of public support for the problem-solving approach. The conclusion of the article reviews some implications for judicial education programs that focus or touch on the phenomenon of problem-solving courts.

Public support of the Midtown Community Court
In 1993, the Midtown Community Court opened in the Times Square area of Manhattan as a demonstration project designed to test the ability of criminal courts to forge closer links with the community and develop a collaborative problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses like prostitution and illegal vending. In early 1998, nearly five years later, telephone interviews were conducted with 562 residents of neighborhoods that the court serves. Survey respondents were asked to rate the desirability of the innovative features of the court and if they were willing to pay for those features through additional taxes. The survey generated some interesting findings:

• Only one in five Midtown residents had heard of the Midtown court, with awareness increasing by the extent of community involvement and geographic proximity to the court. However, few of those aware of the court reported being “very familiar” with its activities even after five years of intense public outreach. It appears that a community court, even one as heavily publicized as the Midtown Court, has difficulty in becoming a community institution.
• On the other hand, respondents rated the court’s innovative features as very important once a description of the court was provided. It is interesting that despite their lack of familiarity with the court, respondents rated neighborhood location as its most important feature.
• Generally, individual features of the Midtown Community Court were rated highly. Respondents were asked: “On a scale of one to seven, with one being very important and seven being not at all important, please tell me how you would rate the importance of each characteristic.” Court features such as “court located in the area it serves”, “community service compliance rigorously monitored by the court”, and “the judge has information on offender’s underlying problems and previous compliance” were rated as the most important. Court features such as “treatment and social services in court building”, “offenders arrested in Midtown area likely to face the same judge”, and “offenders spend a short time in custody after arrest before coming before a judge” were rated as the least important of the features that were presented to the survey respondents.
• However, the only features able to predict whether a resident was willing to pay more taxes to keep the Midtown Community Court open related to keeping defendants accountable for their adherence to the court’s orders.
• Accountability was indexed by features like “short time in custody before seeing the judge post-arrest”, “compliance with community service monitored”, “same judge if return to the Midtown Community Court”, and, “judge has information on previous compliance/problems.”

Please refer to Sviridoff, et al. (2001) for the complete methodology and results of this survey.

A National survey reveals the appeal of problem-solving principles to racial and ethnic groups
From March-May 2000, approximately 1,600 American adults participated in a telephone survey designed to better understand the effects of race, ethnicity, and experience with the court system on perceptions of courts. One part of the survey focused specifically on the public’s support for a change from the traditional to a problem-solving orientation on the part of the criminal courts. Specifically, respondents were asked four questions after listening to the following preamble:

“Some people think courts should stick to their traditional role of looking at the facts in a specific case and then applying the law. Other people think that it is now necessary for the courts to go beyond that role and try to solve the problems that bring people into court. I am going to read you a few statements about the role of the court. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that courts should. . .”

• Hire drug treatment counselors and social workers as court staff members?
• Order a person to go back to court and talk to the judge about their progress in a treatment program?
• Take responsibility for making sure local agencies provide help to people with drug abuse and/or alcohol problems?
• Consider what psychologists and medical doctors know about the causes of emotional problems when making decisions about people in court cases?

Respondents were overwhelmingly positive in their reactions to all four proposed changes to the traditional role of courts. African-American respondents tend to be the most supportive of change, followed by Latinos. Whites are distinctly less enthusiastic in their support of new roles for judges and courts. The lowest level of support, across all three groups, is for hiring of treatment counselors and social workers. That change also marks the sharpest racial and ethnic difference: Whites are the least supportive, although a majority still supports the change.

Should Courts Hire Treatment Counselors and Social Workers as Court Staff Members?

Overall, the survey establishes strong, national support for a change away from the traditional role of the courts in criminal cases. One interpretation of the findings is that problem-solving courts respond to some of the concerns that the public, and particularly minority group members, have about the performance of the state courts.

Please refer to Rottman, Hansen, Mott, and Grimes (2003) for the complete methodology and results of this survey.

A California poll shows increasing public support for features of problem-solving courts
Additional public support for problem-solving court methods may be gleaned from a recent survey sponsored by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. In May 2004, over 1,000 California adults were polled about their attitudes toward criminal punishment and rehabilitation. The results of the poll indicate that the majority of Californians favor using state funding for rehabilitative efforts both during incarceration and after a prisoner’s release.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36 with 61% of the vote, which changed state law to mandate probation and drug treatment in the place of prison time for the possession and use of illegal substances. The 2004 poll revealed that the majority of Californians likely to vote (73%) are still in favor of this policy. Finally, more Californians now believe that rehabilitation efforts outside of prison reduce the crime rate compared to when the same question was asked in a poll conducted 23 years ago.

Please refer to Krisberg, Craine, and Marchionna (2004) for the complete methodology and results of this poll.

Judicial support of problem-solving courts
Another survey affords an opportunity to compare the public’s view with those of judges. In 2001, the Center for Court Innovation surveyed 500 criminal court judges and found overwhelming support for the principles of problem-solving courts, including: treatment as an effective alternative to incarceration for addicted, non-violent offenders; the notion that the judiciary should be involved in efforts to reduce the number of drug-addicted defendants; that more information is needed about past violence when making sentencing and bail decisions in domestic violence cases; and that judges should be more attentive to neighborhood safety and quality-of-life concerns.

Please refer to Berman and Gulick (2003) for the complete methodology and results of this survey.

Implications for judicial education
All of these survey findings have implications for those charged with designing judicial education programs that deal with problem-solving courts, the problem-solving approach, or therapeutic jurisprudence (that a judge should select the option that promotes the emotional and physical well-being of litigants, consistent with due process and other legal norms).

First, problem-solving principles and practices enjoy strong support both among judges and among the general public.

Second, problem-solving practices are seen as enhancing the role of the judge by providing better information and greater leverage in ensuring compliance with court orders.

Third, problem-solving courts appear to offer a partial response to general public discontent with the courts as they are traditionally defined and especially to the estrangement of some members of minority groups from the courts.

Fourth, in the public mind, problem-solving courts are not a “soft on crime” option. The public merges a desire for more effective court intervention to change the lives of people who are repeat offenders with a trust in the ability of judges to hold offenders accountable for their participation in treatment programs.

Sources
Berman, Greg and Anne Gulick. Just the (Unwieldy, Hard to Gather but Nonetheless Essential) Facts, Ma’am: What we know and don’t know about problem-solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, March 2003, p. 1027-1053.

Krisberg, Barry, Jessica Craine, and Susan Marchionna. Attitudes of Californians toward Effective Correctional Policies. NCCD Focus, June 2004.

Rottman, David B., Randall Hansen, Nicole Mott, and Lynn Grimes. Perceptions of the Courts in your Community: The Influence of Experience, Race and Ethnicity. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/201302.pdf

Sviridoff, Michelle, David B. Rottman, Rob Weidner, Fred Cheesman, Richard Curtis, Randall Hansen, and Brian Ostrom. Dispensing Justice Locally: The Impacts, Cost and Benefits of the Midtown Community Court. Center for Court Innovation and National Center for State Courts, 2001. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196397.pdf

David B. Rottman, Ph.D., is a principal research consultant with the National Center for State Courts, where he has worked since 1987. His current interests include judicial selection, public opinion on the courts, the evolution of court structure, and the pros and cons of problem-solving courts. Rottman's most recent publication is Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, 2005, which was prepared for the California Judicial Council. It can be viewed at here.

Chantal G. Bromage, M.P.P., is a court research analyst with the National Center for State Courts. Her current project work includes the Center for Court Solutions, court safety and security, problem-solving courts, the Survey of Judicial Salaries, and the Civil Justice Survey of 2005.

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer