STATE STANDARDS FOR PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS INTERACTIVE MAP
If you have information that can be added or updated, please contact email@example.com.
LOOKING FOR HELP?
The NCSC problem-solving court experts include practitioners and researchers with experience in all problem-solving court models.
Services we provide
Performance measurement for PSCs
Q&A: What type of evaluation is right for your court?
Mental Health Courts Performance Measures
National Reentry Resource Center
Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends
Problem-Solving Justice Toolkit
A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center
Statewide Efforts for Problem-Solving Courts
States across the country are undertaking the challenge of developing governing documents to provide oversight and accountability for operating problem-solving courts, including best practices, guidelines, recommendations, standards, certification checklists, or rules.
Current Community Court Projects
Eugene, Oregon Community Court. NCSC is conducting a process evaluation, impact/outcome evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of the community court program in Eugene, Oregon.
Completed Community Court Projects
Red Hook Community Justice Center. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a major research report evaluating the Red Hook Community Justice Center, which concluded that the community court model can reduce crime and strengthen neighborhoods in a cost-efficient way. The report, A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, marks the third community court evaluation by NCSC researchers. Funding for the Red Hook evaluation was provided by a grant from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Process Evaluation of the Philadelphia Community Court
Dispensing Justice Locally: The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court
Dispensing Justice Locally: The Impacts, Cost and Benefits of the Midtown Community Court
Census of Problem-Solving Courts
In this project, the NCSC compiled programmatic data on all problem-solving courts nationwide. The census was the first to capture such data in order to better understand the wide array of problem-solving courts and their practices. Census questions focused on key components of problem-solving courts including: underlying social problems addressed, community collaboration, and services offered. Funded by Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mental Health Courts
Current Problem-Solving Court Projects
Adult Drug Courts
Delaware: Statewide. Conducting a three-year project to assist with the development and implementation of performance measures and standard policies and procedures for Delaware's Problem-Solving Courts.
Iowa: Statewide. Developing a performance management system for Adult Drug Courts consisting of a manual describing the performance measures, performance targets for the performance measures, and scenario-based performance management training to drug court stakeholders. Staff will also provide technical assistance to programmers to design reports to operationalize the performance management system.
Kentucky: Statewide. Implementing performance management system targets to inform strategic planning decisions and provide scenario-based training to enable the Adult Drug Courts to more effectively manage their local programs.
Maryland: Statewide. Developing a performance management system for adult drug courts consisting of a manual describing the performance measures, performance targets for the performance measures, and scenario-based performance management training to drug court stakeholders. Staff will also provide technical assistance to programmers to design reports to operationalize the performance management system.
Michigan: Ottawa County. Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the 20th Circuit Court Adult Drug Treatment Court.
Nebraska: Statewide. Conducting a two-year project to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of Nebraska Adult Drug and DUI Courts.
New Mexico: Bernalillo County. Conducting a three-year project which includes a baseline assessment and process and outcome evaluations of the Second Judicial District Court's drug court. The evaluations will result in improved practices that are consistent with NADCP Key Components and Best Practice Standards, and will lead the court to better program outcomes. Also conducting a program evaluation to enhance the overall effectiveness of the Drug Court Enhancement Healing to Wellness Pretrial Services Division in Albuquerque.
Puerto Rico: Developing and implementing a comprehensive evaluation of Puerto Rico's adult drug court programs.
Virginia: Washington County. Conducting an evaluation of Washington County's drug court program.
Juvenile Drug Court
Michigan: Statewide. Conducting a six-year project to evaluate and develop an improved program model for Michigan's Juvenile Drug Courts using evidence-based practices. Includes a baseline assessment of program operations, plan for implementation of recommendations with technical assistance, process evaluation and final outcome evaluation findings.
Virginia: Chesterfield County. Conducting baseline program assessment, process evaluation, project implementation assessment and outcome evaluation in the Juvenile Drug Court.
DUI / DWI Court
Nebraska: Statewide. Conducting a two-year project to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of Nebraska's Adult Drug and DUI Courts.
New Mexico: Bernalillo County. Conducting a three-year project to assist with the development of performance measures and integrating them with data collection into a case management system to support evaluations. Conducting process and outcome evaluations of the DWI/Recovery Drug Court, Urban Native American Healing to Wellness Court, and Community Veterans Treatment Court Program; and providing a tool to allow the specialty courts to document baseline performance and assess their performance trends over time.
Past projects | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2004
Projects completed in 2019
Arkansas: Statewide. Conducted an outcome/impact evaluation of Arkansas' Specialty Drug Courts to include Adult Drug Courts, Juvenile Drug Courts, DWI Courts, Mental Health Courts, and Veterans Treatment Courts. The evaluation examined participant and program characteristics associated with the successful completion of program requirements and rates of recidivism as compared to a matched group of standard probationers with similar characteristics.
Illinois: McLean County. Conducted a three-year process and outcome evaluation of the Adult Drug Court and Recovery Court to broaden evidence-based practice and knowledge and lead to continuous quality improvement.
Virginia: City of Richmond. Conducted an implementation assessment of the City of Richmond Juvenile Behavioral Health Docket.
Projects completed in 2018
Virginia: City of Bristol. Conducted a four-year evaluation of the impact of grant-funded activities implemented in the Bristol Adult Drug Court.
West Virginia: Statewide. Developed statewide performance measures for West Virginia's Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts and conducted process and outcome evaluations of selected Juvenile Drug Courts.
Projects completed in 2017
Colorado: Jefferson County. Conducted an assessment of the Recovery Court's alignment with best practices and an outcome evaluation.
Michigan: Statewide. Conducted an outcome evaluation of the Adult Drug Courts, DWI and Hybrid Courts for Michigan's State Court Administrative Office.
Minnesota: Statewide. Assisted with the development of statewide Mental Health Court standards and the transition to the new standards.
Nebraska: Statewide. Developed evidence-based standards for Nebraska’s Adult Drug and DUI Courts and facilitated their implementation with fidelity by providing a supporting information infrastructure along with statewide training and/or technical assistance to drug court teams.
New Mexico: Bernalillo County. Conducted a four-year project to evaluate the impact of grant-funded activities implemented in Bernalillo County's DWI and Mental Health Courts. The performance assessment included long-term outcomes of program participants in comparison to participants enrolled in a DWI Court or Mental Health Court in another jurisdiction with a similar demographic composition.
Utah: Statewide. Developed statewide performance measures for Utah’s Adult Drug Treatment Courts, conducted a process evaluation of selected Drug Courts, and an outcome evaluation of selected courts.
West Virginia: Statewide. Developed statewide performance measures for West Virginia’s Adult Drug Treatment Courts, and conducted process and outcome evaluations of selected drug courts.
Projects completed in 2016
Colorado: Statewide. Developed statewide performance measures for Colorado's Dependency and Neglect System Reform program (DANSR), a new federal initiative.
Florida: Miami-Dade County. Conducted a three-year evaluation of the impact of grant funded activities implemented in the Miami-Dade Adult Drug Court including a randomized trauma treatment experiment and a baseline program assessment, process evaluation, project implementation assessment and outcome evaluation in the Juvenile Drug Court.
Minnesota: Statewide. Conducted an assessment of the current funding and staffing of Minnesota's problem-solving courts and developed recommendations for future funding models.
Virginia: City of Norfolk. Conducted a three-year evaluation of the impact of grant-funded activities implemented in the Norfolk Adult Drug Court, Norfolk Mental Health Court and Norfolk Re-Entry Court.
Projects completed in 2015
Arizona: Statewide. Conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the Mental Health Courts (also includes specialized probation caseloads) currently operational in Arizona.
Illinois: McLean County. Conducted a process and outcome evaluation of the McLean County, Ill., Behavioral Health Court Collaborative, encompassing an Adult Drug Court and Mental Health Court.
Illinois: Cook County. Developed an evaluation plan for the Access to Community-Based Treatment (ACT) Court in Cook County.
Indiana: Madison County. Conducted a three-year project evaluating the Madison County Adult Drug Court, Mental Health Court and Re-entry Court.
Oregon: Lane County. Conducted a Mental Health Court evaluation for Lane County, Oregon
Pennsylvania: Statewide. Conducted a statewide Veterans Treatment Court process evaluation and established performance measures for the Veterans Treatment Courts in Pennsylvania.
Texas: Statewide. Conducted a process and outcome evaluation of the West Texas Adult Treatment Court Collaborative, encompassing Re-Entry Court, DUI Court and Adult Drug Court.
Virginia: Chesterfield County. Examined program practices that impact the long-term outcomes of Chesterfield County’s Adult Drug Court. See: Cheesman, F., Graves, S., Holt, K., Kunkel, T, Lee, C.,White, M. (2016) Drug court effectiveness and efficiency: Findings for Virginia. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 34 (2). Authors: National Center for State Courts.
Wisconsin: Statewide. Developed a statewide performance management system for Adult/Hybrid Drug Courts consisting of a manual describing the performance measures selected by Wisconsin, performance targets for the performance measures, and scenario-based performance management training to drug/hybrid court stakeholders. Staff also provided technical assistance to programmers to design reports to operationalize the performance management system.
Projects completed in 2014
Kansas: Wyandotte County. Conducted a process and outcome evaluation of Wyandotte County’s Juvenile Diversion program.
Kansas: Wyandotte County. Conducted a process and outcome evaluation of Wyandotte County’s Adult Drug Court.
New Jersey: Statewide. Conducted a multi-year process and outcome evaluation of the Morris/Sussex Vicinage family drug courts.
Virginia: Statewide. Conducted a statewide impact and cost-benefit evaluation of Virginia’s DUI Courts.
Washington: Snohomish County. Conducted a three-year process and impact evaluation of Snohomish County. Washington’s Reclaiming Futures initiative.
Projects completed in 2013
Illinois: McLean. Court worker, probation officer, and treatment provider training, and the development and expansion of Behavioral Health Treatment Court Collaboratives for McLean County Court Services.
Research to Practice Project
Arkansas: SWIFT Court Implementation Assessment
New York: Red Hook Community Justice Center Evaluation
Projects completed in 2012
National: MHC Curriculum Development. The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has produced an interdisciplinary curriculum, Developing a Mental Health Court, which brings together national experience and expertise to introduce key concepts for mental health courts and other collaborations between criminal justice and behavioral health systems.
District of Columbia: Superior Court DUI and Prostitution Court.
Virginia: Chesterfield County. Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Video Project
Virginia: Statewide. Adult Drug Court Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis
Projects Completed in 2011
Puerto Rico: Evaluation of the Drug Court Management Information System for the Office of Courts Administration.
Projects completed in 2010
National: Mental Health Court Performance Measures (MHCPM) is a set of 14 performance measures that offers court managers and administrators a tool to monitor the performance of mental health courts.
Kansas: Adult Drug Court Feasibility Study
Minnesota: District Court’s New Beginnings Program at Elk River, Sherburne County
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Community Court Evaluation (Draft report)
Projects completed in 2009
National: Based on a review of seven mental health courts across the nation, the NCSC developed a communication model that effectively integrates the concerns of all members of the MHC team, both internal and external to the court. The project resulted in a set of best practices that foster better managed MHCs, generates cultural changes suitable for MHCs within the criminal justice system, and encourages multi-disciplinary trust and cooperation among the MHC team.
Mental Health Court Culture: Leaving Your Hat at the Door. Executive Summary | Full report
District of Columbia: Process Evaluation of the Fathering Reentry Court
Nebraska: Develop Statewide Performance Measures for Drug Courts
Pennsylvania: Develop Statewide Drug & DUI Court Performance Measures
Projects completed in 2008
National: Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art (2008). This Statewide Technical Assistance (TA) Bulletin updates the volume published in 2004 that described the methodology used by the National Center for State Courts to develop Statewide Performance Measurement Systems for the drug courts of several states.
Colorado: Performance Measures for Teen Court
Delaware: Strategies to Strengthen Juvenile Drug Courts
Florida: Plan for the Statewide Evaluation of Florida’s Drug Courts
Kentucky: Statewide Adult Drug Court Performance Measures
Michigan: Statewide Standards for Drug Courts
North Dakota: Statewide Treatment Standards for Juvenile Drug Courts
Oregon: Long-term Administration and Evaluation Plan for Drug Courts
Projects Completed in 2007
Hawai’i: Statewide Drug Courts Evaluation, Phase 2
North Carolina: Outcome Evaluation of Cumberland County Safe-Link Integrated Domestic Violence Court for the Administrative Office of the Courts
Wyoming: Drug Court Evaluation Plan for the Department of Health Substance Abuse Division
Projects Completed in 2006
Hawai’i: Statewide Drug Court Process Evaluation, Phase 1
Missouri: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Drug Court Evaluation
Projects Completed in 2004
National: Drug Court Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Development of Training Programs on Drug Court Evaluation Concepts and Strategies
Colorado: Evaluation of the DUI/DWAI System
Georgia: Evaluation of the Carroll County Drug Court
Michigan: Establishment of Evaluation Criteria and development of an RFP for the Adult Drug Treatment Court in the 6th Judicial Circuit of Oakland County
Michigan: Drug Court Case Management System RFP for the Administrative Office of the Courts