Roundtable: Problem Solving Courts: Implications for More Challenging Criminal Justice Involved Populations

Session Submission Type: Roundtable Session

Abstract/Description

Problem-solving courts emerged as an acknowledgment that the criminal justice system was not able to adequately address certain populations, such as those with substance use and mental health disorders. Taking a non-adversarial approach often referred to as “therapeutic jurisprudence’, these courts instead focused on healing and reintegrating offenders. While these programs have generally been found to be successful in reducing recidivism and other adverse outcomes, some of the more challenging and difficult populations are often excluded from eligibility or the programs are not designed to meet their unique needs. The result is that the most clinically vulnerable and high-risk populations often go unaddressed or fail to receive the benefits of problem-solving courts including more intensive and frequent supervision and wraparound services. We will discuss study findings and policy implications on the importance of responding to challenging populations in problem-solving courts.

Sub Unit

• Area XIV. Roundtables

Individual Presentations

• Federal Mental Health Court: Examining the Association of Co-occurring Disorders on Program Completion - Kimberly Houser, Rowan University; Matthew Hiller, Temple University; Christine Saum, Rowan University

• Drug Courts and Opioid Use Disorders: How to Achieve Success with this Challenging Population - Kimberly Houser, Rowan University; Matthew Hiller, Temple University; Christine Saum, Rowan University

• Change in Criminogenic Thinking Styles: Comparing Mental Health Court (MHC) Participants to Federal Probationers - Matthew Hiller, Temple University; Christine Saum, Rowan University; Kimberly Houser, Rowan University