Roles and Power within Federal Problem Solving Courtroom Workgroups

Problem solving (PS) courts (e.g., drug, family, gang, prostitution, reentry) are becoming more commonplace. Today, PS courts exist or are planned in nearly all of the ninety‐four U.S. federal districts. These courts focus on integrating therapeutic jurisprudence into the courtroom environment while emphasizing group decision‐making processes among courtroom workgroup members. In this legal setting, courtroom workgroup teams, regularly consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers (POs), and treatment providers engage a collective, case management approach to decision making with shared power among team members. However, despite the court's therapeutic and collaborative design, we find that POs wield powerful influence in decision making. Informed by sixteen months of qualitative fieldwork, including semistructured interviews, observation of courtroom workgroup meetings, and court observations in five federal PS courts in three federal districts, we find that POs exert undetected informational, technical, and relational power within the PS courtroom workgroup. This role and its accompanying power transforms POs into key decision makers, regardless of PS court type, workgroup dynamics, and decision‐making style. The POs' role makes them critical contributors to the outcomes in federal PS courts with important implications for punishment decisions in the federal justice system. With an increasing number of PS courts currently in the planning stages at the federal level, our study has implications for the structure and decision outcomes in these growing courtroom workgroups.     

Family‐Centered Practice in Adult Treatment Courts: What Can We Learn from the Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards?

Estimates suggest that upwards of 50% of participants in adult treatment courts (ATC) are parents. Previous studies point to negative impacts of unmet parenting needs on substance use treatment and criminal justice outcomes, and that family‐centered practices such as parenting classes substantially reduce recidivism among ATC participants. Judges and team members interested in adopting family‐centered practices in their ATC program may be unsure where to begin. One recent source of information regarding evidence‐based, family‐centered practices in treatment court settings is the Family Treatment Court (FTC) Best Practice Standards. The FTC Standards suggest adopting a family‐centered mission, expanding partnerships with child‐ and family‐serving agencies, discussing parenting and family roles during hearings, implementing family‐centered case management, and considering the effect of therapeutic responses on children and families. Building on the ATC Standards, the flexibility inherent in voluntary court programs, and existing community partnerships creates a pathway toward family‐centered practice in criminal settings.     

Against the Grain: Therapeutic Judging in a Traditional Family Court

The last several decades have seen a proliferation of specialized courts, including within the family court system, that deviate from the adversarial model, and that rely on therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem‐solving techniques. Whether and how traditional family courts can incorporate the best practices of these specialized courts is a largely understudied area. Drawing from ethnographic observations of a traditional urban family court, this study finds that some judges are able to transform nontherapeutic courtrooms into therapeutic ones despite obstacles. These “against the grain” actors, who act contrary to the institution's dominant norms and practices, demonstrate how therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem‐solving techniques can be utilized in traditional courtrooms.     

Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta‐Analytic Review

There has been a rapid proliferation of drug courts over the past two decades. Empirical research examining the effectiveness of the model has generally demonstrated reduced rates of recidivism among program participants. However, relatively little is known about the structure and processes associated with effective drug courts. The current study seeks to address the issues by exploring the moderating influence of programmatic and non‐programmatic characteristics on effectiveness. The methodology goes beyond previous meta‐analyses by supplementing published (and unpublished) findings with a survey of drug court administrators. Consistent with previous research, the results revealed drug courts reduce recidivism by 9% on average. Further analyses indicated target population, program leverage and intensity, and staff characteristics explain the most variability in drug court effectiveness. These findings are discussed within the context of therapeutic jurisprudence and effective interventions.     

Judges as therapists and therapists as judges: the collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in drug treatment courts

This paper explores the implications of the expansion of judicial and therapeutic roles in a drug treatment court (DTC) in Canada. Issues that are raised are: how the courtroom is framed as a therapeutic space where public appearances by participants are part of the therapeutic process; how judges have taken on therapeutic practices, effectively compromising their traditional role as neutral arbiter; how certain women resisted therapeutic interventions by judges and felt they received harsher punishments than men; and how treatment counselors in DTCs are given powers of enforcement over their clients. The collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in the DTC results in negative consequences for individuals in the specialized courts. Specifically, DTC participants are expected to engage in a therapeutic relationship with their treatment counselors and the court; however, their right to confidentiality is withheld, and their treatment counselors act as agents for the court.     

CONTEXTUAL DISPARITIES IN GUIDELINES DEPARTURES: COURTROOM SOCIAL CONTEXTS,GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE,AND EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING1

This study examines the theoretical and empirical linkages between criminal court social contexts and the judicial use of sentences that deviate from the recommendations of sentencing guidelines. Individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) are combined with county‐level measures of social context to examine predictions about the role courtroom characteristics play in judicial departures. Results from hierarchical analyses suggest that the likelihood of departure varies significantly across courts, even after accounting for variations in individual case characteristics. Several measures of courtroom social context—including the size of the court, its caseload pressure and the overall guidelines compliance rate—are significantly related to the individual likelihood of receiving a departure sentence. Moreover, the social context of the court also conditions the influence of various individual‐level sentencing considerations. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making and future directions for research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing are suggested.     

The Politics of Benchcraft: The Role of Judges in Mental Health Courts

Mental health courts (MHCs) offer community‐based treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution for chronic offenders with psychiatric disabilities, and MHC judges enjoy expanded powers to achieve the court's objectives. Because scholars know little about how judges transition into a new occupational role in the problem‐solving courtroom, this ethnographic study of four MHCs in the United States focuses on how judges learn to orchestrate their responses to treatment noncompliance in this novel court setting. The goal of this article is to examine the professionalization of MHC judges and the emergent craft of therapeutic adjudication. To achieve this goal, I investigate judicial strategies for motivating, questioning, and defending participants accused of wrongdoing. I conclude that the art and practice of problem‐solving justice requires judges to rise to the larger institutional challenges embedded in the alternative courtroom, a process I call the politics of benchcraft.     

BREAKING DOWN BUSINESS VALUATION: THE USE OF COURT‐APPOINTED BUSINESS APPRAISERS IN DIVORCE ACTIONS*

This Note advocates for greater reliance on court‐appointed business appraisers in divorce proceedings. After exploring the history of court‐appointed experts in American jurisprudence and addressing the specific problems that arise when valuing a business, this Note demonstrates how neutral business appraisers can assist courts in assessing a highly technical matter while simultaneously providing both courts and parties with an accurate, reliable source of information. The Note further provides suggestions for when the appointment of a neutral appraiser may be beneficial. The second section of this Note addresses technical matters that the court must deal with in selecting a reliable expert, including where the court derives its power to appoint a neutral expert, what standards the court should use in appointing the expert, and who should pay the cost of the expert's appointment.     

Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

Abstract

The multimethod study assesses the perceptions of specialized domestic violence courts' processes with victims' experiences as the central focus. Perceptions of the traditional courts and specialized domestic violence courts are compared among victims, courtroom police, attorneys, judges and victim advocates. Domestic violence education among attorneys, judges, and victim advocates is also compared. Despite the intended improvements with the specialized court model, victims report similar problems in both court models. Safety and victims support among respondents is mixed. Professionals from the specialized court receive no more domestic violence education than those from the general court. Victims' and courtroom police recommendations are presented.     

Dealing with mentally ill domestic violence perpetrators: A therapeutic jurisprudence judicial model

People suffering from mental illness are increasingly referred to the domestic violence court. Yet the typical diversion programs available, including batterer's intervention programs, are inappropriate for those with serious mental illness. As a result, the Miami-Dade Domestic Violence Court has developed a new approach for dealing with this population that applies mental health court techniques in domestic violence court. This article will describe and discuss this pioneering model. It also will situate this model within the context of other problem-solving courts and discuss how the court uses principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper presents some preliminary data that describe the social and legal characteristics of 20 defendants in the Domestic Violence Mental Health Court followed over a two year period between 2005 and 2007.     

Courting Compliance: Case Managers as “Double Agents” in the Mental Health Court

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.     

Juvenile Shackling Reform: The Judicial Role in Ensuring Trauma‐Informed Courts and Why States Are Rethinking Restraints

In juvenile courts around the country, youth are routinely shackled, without any evidence that these young people are a danger to anyone or likely to attempt flight. A number of states are moving away from this practice. Shackling reform initiatives are motivated by constitutional issues, emerging science around adolescent development, and a growing recognition of the need for trauma‐informed, evidence‐based courts. Judges are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the rights of the young people who appear in court, and must uphold the dignity of the courtroom. A review of jurisdictions that have adopted limits on juvenile shackling shows that these policies have not resulted in breaches of safety.     

Speaking of Rights: The Influence of Law and Courts on the Making of Family Migration Policies in Germany

The impact of the judiciary on immigration policies has been simultaneously overestimated and underestimated. Migration scholars broadly assume that courts have forced liberal states to admit unwanted migration. Based on an analysis of family migration policy making in the Federal Republic of Germany (1975‐90), I show that the direct policy impact of court rulings was limited, as courts were reticent to impinge upon democratic sovereignty. However, the indirect impact of the courts was substantial. Political actors amplified the implications of rulings by interpreting the jurisprudence selectively and expansively. Thus, they turned speaking of rights into a powerful political resource.     

The Drug Court as Postmodern Justice

The drug court is far more than a new version of the old drug-diversion idea. It is a fundamental embodiment of postmodern justice and represents a paradigm shift from criminal court practices. This article compares the drug court to the criminal court in terms of the dimensions of the modernism-postmodernism debate as specified in legal research and public policy scholarship. First, the courts are differentiated in terms of their worldviews, ideas on the nature of society, definitions of truth, and conceptions of the foundation of law. Next, the drug court and criminal court jurisprudence are juxtaposed. Specific dimensions include their collaborative versus adversarial systems and the individualized versus the due process framework. Finally, the two courts are considered in terms of their divergent visions of the drug user. Upon analysis, it appears that the two courts are in an intractable ideological disagreement framed by competing modern versus postmodern intellectual dispositions.     

The “Production” of Corruption in China's Courts: Judicial Politics and Decision Making in a One‐Party State

Despite its rampant presence, judicial corruption in China has often been regarded as the idiosyncratically deviant behavior of a few black sheep eluding prescribed judicial conduct. This entrenched assumption has both discouraged in‐depth investigation of the phenomenon of judicial corruption and inhibited proper understanding of the functioning of China's courts. This article, based on an empirically grounded examination of the processing of court rulings tainted by corruption, showed that judicial corruption in China is an institutionalized activity systemically inherent in the particular decision‐making mechanism guided by the Chinese Communist Party's instrumental rule‐by‐law ideal. In investigating what has contributed to the institutionalization of judicial corruption, the interplay between law and party politics in China's courts was also examined. The findings, therefore, also shed light on behind‐the‐courtroom judicial activities and on the enduring perplexity of the gap between the law in the book and the law in action.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

Achieving justice for children: public defenders in Israel's juvenile courts

In 1999, public defender (PD) representation of defendants appearing before Israel's juvenile courts began to be phased in. This article reports some of the major findings of a study that examined the impacts of the introduction of PDs. Analysis of interviews with 14 PDs yielded four major themes concerning the impact of the "arrival" of PDs, nature of the court, PDs' role, and PDs' interactions with other court actors. Analysis of interviews with eight prosecutors yielded seven themes concerning the need for PDs, PD as state agent, PDs' role, harms of legalization, disruption of the court, compromising the therapeutic value of the court hearing, and changes in court process. More generally, both PDs and prosecutors placed uncritical store in the value of rehabilitation alternatives. Indeed, the welfare model continues to shape their roles. The findings can largely be explained in terms of Eisenstein and Jacob's courtroom workgroup model.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

Does a therapeutic court context matter?: The likelihood of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders sentenced in problem-solving courts

A key aspect of the focal concerns perspective of sentencing is that time and information restrictions within the courtroom create the conditions under which perceptual shorthands may impact sentencing determinations. These shorthands are based stereotypes related to offender characteristics including minority group statuses (i.e. ethnicity, race, Indigenous status) (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). To date, sentencing scholars drawing on the focal concerns perspective have only considered the impact of minority group statuses on sentencing in the mainstream courts (Mitchell, 2005; Spohn, 2000). Utilizing multiple regression techniques the current paper explores the impact of Indigenous status on the decision to imprison in the problem solving courts of South Australia. Unlike the mainstream courts, sentencing determinations within the therapeutic problem-solving court environment involve a more extensive examination of offenders and their cases and by extension, perceptual shorthands should be less influential. Evidence supporting this argument is provided by the current research. Results show a direct relationship between Indigenous status and the likelihood of imprisonment, with leniency being extended to Indigenous offenders.     

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.