As the complexities of human behavior have made certain types of cases (substance abuse, domestic violence) particularly difficult to resolve by traditional court procedures, new approaches have been developed to address those complexities in a holistic manner. Courts that are established to look outside the traditional framework of legal proceedings for solutions to such cases are referred to as "problem-solving" courts. They include special initiatives such as drug courts, community courts, and mental health courts, as well as programs such as unified family courts. (See also the sections on drug/alcohol abuse and family courts in this book.)

"Therapeutic justice" and "balanced and restorative justice" are two of the terms associated with the holistic approach used by problem-solving courts. Therapeutic justice is the broader term and refers to judicial approaches that address the offender’s behavior as a problem requiring non-traditional sanctions and/or social services in addition to traditional sanctions. Balanced and restorative justice is more specifically based on principles of accountability (i.e., increasing the offenders’ awareness of the effect of their actions on others and offering them opportunities to repair the harm caused), competency development (i.e., providing offenders with opportunities to increase their skills so they are able to function as more productive members of society), and community protection (i.e., increasing offenders’ skills and ties to the community so they will be less likely to harm the community again).

Twenty-three bar associations or courts indicated in their 2001 survey responses that they support problem-solving courts or other therapeutic/restorative justice activities. Among the programs are the following:

In Minnesota, Ramsey and Hennepin counties formed community courts to devote more judicial attention to "livability crimes," the lower level offenses that affect a community’s quality of life. The programs involve judges, prosecutors, and others who focus on community service as a method to repair and restore neighborhoods wronged by offenders’ actions.

Several district courts in Nevada have been considering establishing a mental health court. The program would divert people charged with minor offenses who have mental health problems to the proposed court where a district judge could order mental health evaluations.

New York has established a number of problem-solving courts. The success of New York City’s Midtown Community Court in midtown Manhattan has led to the creation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a community justice center in Harlem, and plans for new community courts in other locations across the state. The court system has also created integrated domestic violence court pilots, in which a single judge hears all related matters involving domestic violence victims and their families, and begun a three-year program to institutionalize the drug treatment/family treatment court approach in every county of the state.

Additional resources on problem-solving courts are available from--

• Center for Court Innovation, John Feinblatt, Director, 520 Eighth Ave., 18^th Fl., New York, NY 10018, 212/397-3050, e-mail: info@communitycourts.org, www.communitycourts.org
• ABA Coalition for Justices’ plain-language Roadmap booklet on problem-solving courts, providing general information and specific examples of programs, 312/988-5689, http://www.abanet.org/justice/roadmaps.html (coming in late 2001)

Additional resources on restorative justice are available from the Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, Mark S. Umbreit, Executive Director, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, 1404 Gortner Ave., 105 Peters Hall, St. Paul MN 55108-6160, 612/624-4923, e-mail: rjp@tlcmail.che.umn.edu, http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp/.