Problem-Solving Courts Report

Starting in 2021, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and the Urban Institute surveyed prosecutors’ offices across the country about any prosecutor-led diversion programs they currently run. The results of the survey are available at diversion.ndaa.org and displayed as a national map of prosecutor-led diversion programs. Since the survey closed, prosecutors’ offices have continued to submit information about their programs to the map through the Mapping Prosecutor-led Diversion website.

As of September 30, 2023, responding offices had submitted information on 496 programs. About a quarter (24 percent, or 121 out of 496) of those programs indicated that their program was a problem-solving or treatment court.

Problem-solving courts are one alternative to traditional prosecution. Problem-solving courts are approaches to addressing offenses that concentrate on only one type of offense or type of person committing the offense. For example, they can include drug courts, mental health courts, or veterans’ courts.

While problem-solving courts involve a team from across several types of offices (such as judges, prosecutors, defense, and service providers), prosecutors play a pivotal role in the approach. This includes determining which cases go to a problem-solving court and pushing for effective sanctions and incentives if person is not in compliance. These programs started with deferred prosecution and suspended sentence approaches and have evolved to include therapeutic components. The goal of a problem-solving court is to better manage cases and address addiction or other core problems related to the offense.

Outcomes from studies of problem-solving courts show they have a positive impact on reducing a person’s likelihood of drug relapse and committing further crimes . These studies also note that the result is influenced by the types of people who are participating in the problem-solving court, the quality and details of the treatment, and how the costs and benefits are measured. Experts on problem-solving courts also warn that racial disparities are present in both program retention rates and admission rates.

Prosecutors should work with local stakeholders to understand local community needs in structuring alternative approaches to handling cases, which could include problem-solving courts. Some lessons learned from the survey as well as people interviewed as part of this project include:

• Be mindful that treatment courts have an inherent punitive aspect that will run up against the likelihood that people will relapse during their path to recovery. Rely on experts in the field to design and help implement programming.
• Consider treatment courts as part of a continuum of diversion options, as they have some benefits but also some costs. Diversion approaches should generally seek to avoid using court resources and limit court involvement. While problem-solving courts are different than traditional prosecution, they still use court resources and there are other effective ways to find sustainable community resources for treatment.