Are Operations Backed by Best Practices in American Problem-Solving Courts?

Abstract

Background.

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are specialized courts offering evidence-based interventions for rehabilitating and diverting individuals from carceral institutions. PSCs allow participants to address problems influencing their behavior, such as mental health and/or substance use disorders, while remaining in the community under court supervision. PSCs are designed to serve as linkage sites to support services and research supports PSCs’ efficacy in doing so.

Objective.

Less is known about how PSC operations align with national best practices specified by All Rise (professional association of PSCs) in serving court participants.

Methods.

This study explores whether American PSCs adopt All Rise’s 10 best practice principles based on surveys from a larger study of PSC operations reported by local (n = 849) and state (n = 42) PSC coordinators.

Results.

Of the All Rise principles captured in our study, only 4% of courts adopted eight EBPs whereas 56% of courts adopted four to six EBPs. PSCs using EBPs employed diversified staff positions, collaborated with multiple treatment providers, participated in treatment trainings, offered peer navigators, used validated screening tools, used varied treatment modals, and had eligibility criteria for participants to enter PSC programs.

Conclusions.

PSCs’ operations were generally backed by some of All Rise’s best practices.

Introduction

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are a vital part of effectively implementing interventions for the success of justice-involved individuals. EBPs include research-driven programs and tools (e.g., risk assessment tools, cognitive behavioral therapy, medications for opioid use disorders) backed by empirical evidence of successful outcomes (e.g., Marlowe, 2011; Friedmann et al., 2008). Since the 1990s, justice scholars have extensively studied EBPs across various justice settings (e.g., prisons, probation, courts) and have established key features of effective treatment programs including the use of standardized assessment tools, offering various therapeutic services, and using behavioral health interventions that empower individuals to change (Andrews et al., 1990; Fletcher & Chandler, 2006; Friedmann et al., 2008; Thanner & Taxman, 2003; Taxman & Marlowe, 2006). However, there are significant variations in how justice entities operationalize and implement EBPs depending on the population of focus (e.g., youth clients, McKee & Rapp, 2014; pregnant people, Knittel et al., 2017) and their varying needs such as substance use or mental health treatment (e.g., Peeler et al., 2019 examining the use of medications for opioid use disorder among pregnant women in prison; Fadus et al., 2019 reviewing the best treatment strategies of substance use disorders among youth). Furthermore, there are variations in how EBPs manifest in different justice settings. For example, EBPs may have a limited scope when it comes to connecting individuals to certain treatment services or promoting positive social connections for individuals in controlled environments such as prisons and jails, which are far more restrictive than community supervision environments, such as probation/parole agencies or problem-solving courts (PSCs). While there are numerous studies on EBPs in probation/parole agencies (e.g., Debus-Sherrill et al., 2023; Viglione, 2017; Manchak et al., 2019), the research is noticeably limited on EBPs in PSCs (e.g., Henggeler et al., 2012; Henggeler et al., 2006).

Problem-solving courts (PSCs), also known as treatment courts or specialty courts, offer individuals charged with a crime, and often in conjunction with having a substance use disorder (SUD) and/or mental health disorder (MHD), with the option to be diverted from jail/prison incarceration. Diversion usually entails offering individuals participation in a court-based, treatment program with conditions similar to probation/parole. Individuals remain in the community and are supervised by a team of court staff comprised of a judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, treatment coordinator tasked with overseeing their treatment, among other staff (Mitchell et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2006). Depending on the PSC, individuals who successfully graduate from the program may be able to have their charge dropped entirely or have the conviction expunged from their record; in some jurisdictions, this option is not available. Since the inception of the first PSC in 1989, an adult drug court aiming to help individuals with SUDs, PSCs have expanded upon the court-intervention to try to address other social issues that may be linked to individuals’ engagement in crime (e.g., domestic violence, houselessness, reentry) and to target specific populations with high needs (e.g., veterans, youth, mental health) that become involved in the criminal legal system. PSCs overall are found to be quite similar to drug courts in terms of services offerings, staff training, and court procedures (Kaiser & Rhodes, 2019); several EBPs stemming from drug courts apply to other types of PSCs (All Rise, 2023).

All Rise, formerly known as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), provided 10 best practice principles for all types of PSCs that identify the core tenets of how a problem-solving court should operate, including revisions to the principles in 2018 (NADCP, 2013, 2015). These principles include: (1) identifying court participants who can be safely and effectively treated; (2) establishing the roles and responsibilities of the judge; (3) setting fair, consistent, and effective incentives and sanctions aimed at motivating behavioral change in participants; (4) using standardized treatments for participants’ substance use and/or other disorders following administration of evidence-based screeners/assessments; (5) administering regular drug and alcohol testing; (6) engaging in a continuous process of monitoring and evaluating court processes and treatment outcomes of participants; (7) ensuring equitable access to the court program and being inclusive to participants varying cultural backgrounds; (8) offering complementary services for participants to address needs that are likely to interfere with compliance and that promote success in the program; (9) maintaining a multidisciplinary team of court staff of varying roles and positions that actively participate in the court’s operations; and (10) establishing a practical caseload size of eligible participants (NADCP, 2013, 2015). While these principles were originally developed for PSCs that target participants with SUDs, contemporary versions of PSCs may not focus on SUD even though most justice-involved individuals (65% to 85%) have an SUD (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 2020). Moreover, these principles apply to treatment services beyond treatment for SUDs alone, including a multitude of participant needs such as mental health services and treatment for co-occurring disorders. All Rise is currently working to update these standards by the end of 2024 with evolving research over the last decade to make suggestions for implementing specific useful recommendations based on the evidence to apply to all types of PSCs (All Rise, 2023).

Reportedly, several other types of PSCs also embraced the same best practice principles to improve court procedures designed to bolster positive outcomes of court participants (Kaiser & Rhodes, 2019). Only a few studies have examined how PSCs actualize All Rise/NADCP’s principles in their daily operations outside of youth drug courts (e.g., Henggeler et al., 2006; Henggeler et al., 2012). PSCs are designed to link courts to community-based services and resources to improve the lives of court participants, yet relatively little is known about how their policies and procedures align with best practices. Prior studies have examined specific evidence-based substance use treatment services within PSCs (e.g., Matusow et al., 2013; Andraka-Christou, 2017; Baughman et al., 2019; Belenko et al., 2021), but no recent studies have examined how adult PSCs overall implement EBPs generally. In this study, researchers compare the reported policies and operations of PSCs to EBPs identified and promoted by All Rise in their best practice standards documents (All Rise/NADCP, 2013, 2015).

Methodology

Our parent study was designed to examine the perceptions and knowledge of state and local PSC coordinators about medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD)ⁱ used by PSC participants—a specific EBP (see Faragó et al., 2022, parent study). While our parent study sought to understand the utilization of one specific evidence-based substance use treatment in PSCs—MOUDs (e.g., naltrexone, buprenorphine, methadone), we also posed several other questions in the surveys pertaining to court participants’ demographics, court characteristics, funding opportunities, treatment collaboration, and general court procedures. These additional questions offered the context to understand other EBPs used in PSC settings. To produce a sampling frame of US PSCs, a list was compiled from various sources (i.e., American University’s National Drug Court Resource Center (https://ndcrc.org/), NADCP’s PSC directory, and publicly available information on government websites; see Faragó et al., 2022 for a discussion).

The study consisted of two surveys, one for state coordinators and one for local PSC coordinators. The surveys were informed by existing instruments on EBP utilization in justice settings such as the National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices Survey (NCJTPS; Taxman et al., 2007), the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS; D’Aunno et al., 2014), and the Opinions About MAT survey (OAMAT; Friedmann et al., 2012). Beyond surveying state coordinators, researchers contacted state coordinators (n = 50) to obtain permission to administer a survey to the local PSCs within their state, of which six state coordinators refused. The final sample consisted of 42 state coordinators and 849 local PSC coordinators from 35 states that each completed their respective survey about the utilization of MOUDs by court participants including additional contextual information on PSC operations, funding sources, state regulations, court participant demographics, and perceptions of MOUDs.

The surveys were administered from March 2019 to August 2020 to PSC coordinators using three distribution strategies: (1) online web survey; (2) computer-assisted telephone interviews, and (3) mailed survey. Informed consent procedures took approximately five minutes to complete as participants were asked to read, or were read aloud, the informed consent form and virtually, verbally, or physically via signature agreed to participate in the study. Survey administration lasted approximately 45 minutes with each respondent. Assuming that all non-responses were eligible courts means a conservative response rate was 49%, but researchers did not believe that this was accurate due to the lack of a complete PSC directory. Thus, given the number of courts that answered emails, phone calls, or mail whether to participate, ask questions, or decline participation, a more liberal response rate was 78% with the removal of non-responses.ⁱⁱ All research protocols had approval from George Mason University’s Institutional Review Board (#1388155–8) prior to data collection.

The researchers were able to measure nine All Rise/NADCP principles based on EBP usage in PSCs from 10 questions within the survey instruments, computing 11 variables total (see Table 1). The principle of equity and inclusion was not included, as discussed later.ⁱⁱⁱ Lastly, the principle of monitoring and evaluation will be discussed within the state-wide context.

Table 1.

Matched All Rise/NADCP Principles to Study Variables

All Rise/NADCP Principle	Variable	Computed or Coded
Local Coordinator Survey
Target population of participants	Eligibility criteria	Multiple choice options: 0 = None; 1 = Uses pain medications; 2 = Prior violent felony conviction; 3 = Prior non-violent felony conviction; 4 = History of diverting MOUDs; 5 = Uses psychotropic medications; 6 = Has co-occurring disorders; 7 = Other
Substance use disorder assessments and treatments	Validated substance use screeners	Multiple choice options: 0 = None; 1 = Addiction Severity Index (ASI); 2 = Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS); 3 = Michigan Alcohol Screening Tool (MAST); 4 = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT); 5 = Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen; 6 = Drug Abuse Screening Tool (DAST); 7 = Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN); 8 = Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI)
Substance use disorder assessments and treatments	Validated substance use treatment options	Multiple choice options: 0 = None; 1 = Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT); 2 = Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUDs); 3 = Motivational Interviewing (MI); 4 = Mindfulness Stress Reduction (MSR); 5 = Mindfulness Relapse Prevention (MRP)
Drug and alcohol testing of participants	Drug testing	Multiple choice options: 0 = None; 1 = Drug tests everyone at milestones; 2 = Drug tests everyone randomly; 3 = Drug tests everyone in time increments
Complementary treatment and social services offered to participants	Peer navigator assistance	Dichotomous: 1 = Yes; 0 = No
Incentives, sanctions, and treatment adjustments for participants	Sanctions	Dichotomous: 1 = Yes, sanctions match level of compliance shown by participants; 0 = No
Incentives, sanctions, and treatment adjustments for participants	Incentives	Dichotomous: 1 = Yes, incentives match level of compliance shown by participants; 0 = No
Multidisciplinary team of court staff	Total staff members	Free text response (number): Total number and type of staff members per court (range 0–50; Mdn 9)
Census and caseloads of court staff	Number of court participants	Free text response (number): Total number of participants per court (range 0–1,300; Mdn 39)
Roles and responsibilities of the judge	Ratio of participants to judge	Free text responses (numbers): Total number of participants per court/Total number of judges per court (Mdn 30)
State coordinator survey
Monitoring and evaluation of the court	State coordinator role	Multiple choice options: 1 = Evaluating court staff; 2 = Compliance and adherence to state-wide policies; 3 = Review of EBPs in PSCs; 4 = Internal evaluation; 5 = State certification; 6 = Local certification; 7 = Peer review from other PSCs

These variables were derived from survey questions such as: “What assessments are used in deciding what services participants should receive?” “What instrument(s) do you use specifically for mental health disorders?” “Are individuals with the following criteria excluded from any of your problem-solving courts?” “What proportion of participants are tested for substance use at [various intervals]?” “How many of the following staff positions are currently filled?” “Are the following [substance use or mental health] treatment services available to your problem-solving court participants?”.

All Rise/NADCP principles were considered to be adopted if PSC coordinators answered “Yes” to dichotomous survey items confirming implementation which applied to two principles (i.e., incentives, sanctions, and treatment adjustments; complementary treatment and social services) extracted from three variables (i.e., incentives; sanctions; peer navigator assistance). Additionally, principles were considered to be embraced if court coordinators’ responses met the median threshold for the count/ratio variables which applied to three principles (i.e., roles and responsibilities of the judge overseeing court participants; (Median (Mdn) ratio of participants to one judge: 30); multidisciplinary team (Mdn total staff: 9); census and caseloads (Mdn total participants: 39)) extracted from three variables (i.e., ratio of participants to judge; total staff members; number of court participants). Lastly, principles were considered to be adopted if court coordinators selected at least one of the responses from the multiple-choice option survey items which applied to three principles (i.e., substance use assessment and treatment; target population; drug and alcohol testing) extracted from four variables (i.e., eligibility criteria; validated substance use screeners; validated substance use treatment options; drug testing). For further information on the multiple-choice options of the survey items, see Table 1. The monitoring and evaluation principle was not included in a total count of adopted principles by individual PSCs; that question was in the state coordinator survey instead of the local coordinator survey.

Results

Four percent of PSCs adopted eight of All Rise/NADCP’s principles not including monitoring and evaluation or equity and exclusion as explained, while most PSCs (56%) adopted between four and six principles (see Table 2). Twenty-one percent of coordinators reported that their court did not embrace any of NADCP’s principles.

Table 2.

Number of All Rise/NADCP Principles Adopted by PSCs

Number of All Rise/NADCP Principles	Adopted by Courts (%)
0	175 (21%)
1	14 (2%)
2	19 (2%)
3	64 (7%)
4	135 (16%)
5	170 (20%)
6	174 (20%)
7	65 (8%)
8	33 (4%)

Of the All Rise/NADCP principles adopted most by PSCs (see Table 3), drug and alcohol testing was implemented the most frequently (78%) followed by incentives, sanctions, and treatment adjustments (69%).

Table 3.

Specific All Rise/NADCP Principles Adopted by PSCs

Specific All Rise/NADCP Principlei	Adopted by Courts (%)
Target population	499 (59%)
Roles and responsibilities of the judge	280 (33%)
Incentives, sanctions, and treatment adjustments	588 (69%)
Substance use assessment and treatment	374 (44%)
Complementary treatment and social services	325 (38%)
Drug and alcohol testing	660 (78%)
Multidisciplinary team	375 (44%)
Census and caseloads	396 (35%)

ⁱThe All Rise/NADCP principles “Equity and Inclusion” and “Monitoring and Evaluation” are not included as the researchers devoted an entire manuscript to equity and inclusion and monitoring and evaluation was asked about in the state coordinator survey instead of the local coordinator survey based on the roles of the two court coordinators being different.

Local Coordinator Perspective

Target Population

To obtain a target population within particular types of PSCs, courts screened potential participants for eligibility to enter the program. Over one-third (39%) of PSC coordinators (n = 333) indicated that potential participants were identified for eligibility shortly after arrest (i.e., within two weeks). Moreover, once participants were deemed eligible and entered a PSC program, 70% of PSC coordinators (n = 597) reported that treatment assessments (e.g., SUD screening, MHD screening) were completed within 30 days to determine their treatment needs.

Common exclusionary criteria used to identify eligible participants for PSCs (see Table 4) included: having a prior violent felony conviction (43%), using pain medications (18%), having a prior non-violent felony conviction (5%), having a history of diverting (i.e., misusing) MOUDs (8%), using psychotropic (i.e., used for MHDs) medications (6%), or having co-occurring disorders (i.e., having a MHD and SUD simultaneously; 4%). This principle was adopted by 59% of PSCs in that they used at least one exclusionary criterion to obtain their target population for the program. However, this does not include the extent of PSC coordinators’ efforts to employ strategies to include specific groups of court participants that may also be of target such as individuals who are homeless, veterans, among other populations.

Table 4.

Exclusionary Criteria Used by PSCs for Potential Participants

Exclusionary Criteria	Percentage of Courts (n = 849)
Prior violent felony conviction	43% (n = 366)
Prior non-violent felony conviction	5% (n = 43)
History of diverting MOUDs	8% (n = 66)
Uses psychotropic medications	6% (n = 48)
Uses pain medications	18% (n = 150)
Co-occurring disorders	4% (n = 38)

Roles and Responsibilities of the Judge

The roles and responsibilities of PSC judges are different than judges in traditional, criminal (adversarial type) courts. In the PSC model, judges are considered to be crucial champions for change in participants’ lives and expected to spend more time with participants, closely supervising their court and treatment progress. There was a median of 30 participants overseen by one judge (min = 0; max = 1,300). This indicates a stark contrast in the number of participants overseen in one court to the next by only one judge. However, the distinct role of the judges was not asked about because our survey respondents were PSC coordinators and not judges. We used the ratio of participants to judge as an indicator of judicial involvement in the case (part of responsibility) in that judges with smaller caseloads may have more time to work with participants. Therefore, this ratio can be an indicator of time spent with court participants, suggesting that courts with higher ratios may result in judges seeing court participants less frequently than those courts with smaller judge-to-participant ratios. A third (33%) of PSCs reported that judges oversaw 30 participants or fewer, indicating limited adoption of the All Rise/NADCP best practice standard about judges’ roles and responsibilities.

Incentives, Sanctions, and Treatment Adjustments

According to court coordinators, most PSCs implemented sanctions (72%) and incentives (71%) that “match the level of compliance shown by the participants.” Questions about the type and frequency of sanctions and incentives used were not included in the survey to reduce survey fatigue. The level of compliance indicates that the participants are sanctioned and/or rewarded based on their progress. This principle was adopted by 69% of PSCs such that they implemented both incentives and sanctions.

Substance Use Disorder Assessment & Treatment

All Rise/NADCP indicates that evidence-based SUD treatment in PSCs results in participants receiving SUD treatment based on standardized assessments of their needs (NADCP, 2018). Regarding treatment assessment, 44% of PSC coordinators (n = 376) reported using at least one validated substance use screening assessment for court participants (e.g., Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST), Addiction Severity Index (ASI), Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), TCU Drug Screen, Alcohol Drug Screen (ADS)). As for validated treatments for SUDs, 77% of PSC coordinators (n = 651) indicated that their courts used at least one validated form of treatment for SUDs (see Table 5). This principle was adopted by 44% of PSCs in that they prescribed to using both an evidence-based screening assessment and validated treatment for SUD.

Table 5.

Substance Use Treatment Offered by PSCs for Participants

Substance Use Treatments	Percentage of Courts (n = 849)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)	71% (n = 605)
Medications for Opioid Use Disorders (MOUDs)	67% (n = 570)
Motivational Interviewing (MI)	62% (n = 528)
Mindfulness Relapse Prevention (MRP)	51% (n = 436)
Mindfulness Stress Reduction (MSR)	40% (n = 341)

PSC coordinators also indicated that staff were required to participate in national trainings (40%, n = 219), state trainings (48%, n = 258), and local trainings (4%, n = 24) pertaining to SUD treatment. The available trainings included national trainings offered by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), National Drug Court Institute (NDCI; part of All Rise/NADCP), and county- or state-run trainings. Often, PSC coordinators reported that training opportunities depended on available funding and state mandates.

Complementary Treatment and Social Services

While not explicitly listed as a complementary service by the All Rise/NADCP principles for PSCs, the authors examined whether courts offered peer navigator assistance for their participants. Peer navigators are individuals with lived experience of substance use, MHDs, or justice-involvement who guide individuals through similar experiences by offering advice, knowledge of services, and emotional support. The PSC coordinators revealed that 38% of their programs (n = 325) offered peer navigator assistance to “aid with case management.” Of which 4% of courts required those peer navigators be trained or certified while 23% of courts required those peer navigators have experience or history relevant to holding the role within their PSC (e.g., formerly incarcerated, history of a SUD or MHD, former court participant). This principle was adopted by 38% of PSCs represented by the implementation of peer navigator assistance for court participants.

Drug and Alcohol Testing

All Rise/NADCP principles state that courts should implement frequent, random, and comprehensive drug and alcohol testing of participants to gauge treatment progress (NADCP, 2018). PSC coordinators reported on drug testing practices (see Table 6) indicating most PSCs drug test frequently and randomly throughout the program process, either randomly (67%), weekly (52%), monthly (51%), or other specific point in time highlighting the comprehensive nature of drug testing in PSCs. This principle was adopted by 78% of PSCs in that they employed at least one drug testing strategy for court participants.

Table 6.

Drug Testing Practices of PSCs

Drug Testing Frequency	Percentage of Courts (n = 849)
Randomly	67% (n = 570)
Weekly	52% (n = 441)
Monthly	51% (n = 433)
At entrance to PSC	67% (n = 567)
At suspected drug use	71% (n = 603)
When placed on MOUDs	55% (n = 469)

Multidisciplinary Team

The multidisciplinary nature of PSCs means that the staff comprise a “team [which] consists of a judge, program coordinator, prosecutor, defense attorney, community supervision officer, treatment representative, and law enforcement officer” (NADCP, 2018, p. 38). Most PSCs in our study operated with approximately five to 15 staff members (62%, n = 526), with a median of nine staff members. For each of the 10 staff positions of the PSC team (i.e., judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, case manager, peer navigator, treatment coordinator, probation officer, law enforcement officer, court coordinator), most courts (75%) filled each role with the exception of the peer navigator position, which was often left unfilled, if offered at all. Overall, this principle was adopted by 44% of PSCs in having at least nine staff members on the court team and showing diversity in the courts’ staff positions held.

Census and Caseloads

The median number of court participants in each PSC was 39 court participants. Just over one third (35%) of courts oversaw 39 court participants or fewer indicating adoption of the principle to ensure adequate attention is paid to each court participant by available staff and the judge. Importantly, 31% of courts were not able to provide data on their total number of court participants. In most PSCs (51%), a median ratio of four participants to every one staff member was revealed (max ratio = 371:1).

State Coordinator Perspective

Monitoring and Evaluation

Since the state coordinator’s position includes managing all local PSCs within their state, researchers asked about the role of state coordinators in the process of monitoring and evaluating the policies and practices of local PSCs (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Monitoring and Evaluation of State Coordinators of Local PSCs

State Coordinator Role	Percentage of Coordinators (n = 42)
Evaluate court staff	50% (n = 21)
Ensure compliance and adherence to state-wide policies	83% (n = 35)
Review EBPs used in PSCs	76% (n = 32)
Conduct internal evaluations	57% (n = 24)
State certifications	36% (n = 15)
Local certifications	5% (n = 2)
Facilitate peer review between PSCs	26% (n = 11)
Educating and training court staff	79% (n = 33)

Most state coordinators indicated their role consisted of ensuring compliance and adherence to rules and regulations by local PSCs (83%) and was followed up by continued education and training of local court staff (79%). Interestingly though, most state coordinators reported that they spent time reviewing whether local courts were using EBPs (76%), but to determine what this task “looks like” in practice requires further exploration as our survey did not ask for further explanation. This principle was not a contributing factor in the count of local courts who adopted EBPs since state coordinators were responsible for this information. Seemingly, based on the responses from state coordinators, state-level supervisors are requiring some form of monitoring and evaluation of local-level PSCs.

Discussion

Based on surveys from state and local court coordinators in the US, some PSC operations reflect the All Rise/NADCP’s best practices. To begin the PSC process, participants were usually screened for entrance to determine their needs and were sometimes excluded from the program for having histories of certain behaviors and disorders. Court participants were typically overseen by one judge, regardless of the number of participants in the program concurrently. Additionally, participants were sanctioned or incentivized based on behavioral alignment with the rules and regulations of the PSC. Surprisingly, less than half of PSCs used valid substance use screeners to assess whether participants had a SUD but well over half of the PSCs authorized the use of valid substance use treatments for participants. The discrepancy between screening for a disorder and providing treatment for a disorder is perplexing and future qualitative research is necessary to garner a better understanding of this trend. Court coordinators also reported drug testing participants frequently and randomly. In addition, a little over one third of courts offered peer navigators to assist participants with their recovery and court processes.

The limitations of this study include the scope of our survey questions related to EBP principles, as well as the limited responses received by court coordinators on the principles asked about in the survey. There was only one question related to a All Rise/NADCP principle in the state coordinator survey—monitoring and evaluation—which is generally a state coordinator’s role. While accordance with All Rise/NADCP principles was not directly asked, researchers were able to determine whether local court coordinators generally prescribed to All Rise/NADCP principles in their PSCs. Researchers were not able to truly grasp the extent to which EBPs were implemented effectively and carried out efficiently in PSCs. Lastly, researchers were unable to assess the degree of equity and inclusion efforts in PSCs because relatively few court coordinators were able to provide demographic information of court participants because the data was not readily available upon request. In a prior study comparing PSCs and probation, researchers examined equity and inclusion regarding the gender, race, and ethnicity of court participants and determined that PSC courts did not fully embrace the principle of equity and inclusion as most courts serviced primarily white individuals. Plus, when compared to probation, more women participated in PSCs in proportion to men (Smith & Taxman, 2022).

PSCs embrace some of the All Rise/NADCP principles through EBPs, but the processes and procedures to carry them out routinely in PSCs’ operations have not been fully implemented or assessed. Our results highlight that PSCs may face a multitude of barriers in implementing All Rise/NADCP best practice principles. Several PSCs do not report successful implementation of certain EBPs, particularly complementary treatment and social services and substance use disorder screenings which is perhaps explained by limited funding available to PSCs. Furthermore, few PSCs could accurately track their use of EBPs. For instance, while researchers directly asked for numbers on court participants’ demographics, relatively few court coordinators could provide such data which highlights a larger issue of data management at the individual court level. Ultimately, the implementation of some EBPs in PSCs is a step in the right direction towards improving court participants’ success in PSC programs. However, more effective implementation of EBPs in PSCs will require better data collection and access to information by court staff as well as continued evaluations of specific EBPs by researchers. In the future, research studies should further unpack how EBPs are implemented as policies that are enforced and procedures that are executed daily across US PSCs. In the interim, PSCs can and should take advantage of the countless resources (e.g., “The BeST Practices Self-Assessment Tool”) offered by All Rise as well as the scholars producing the evidence base to improve EBP uptake in PSCs. All Rise offers numerous workshops and trainings that are court type specific (e.g., DWI courts, veterans treatment courts) as well as equity and inclusion focused. Taking advantage of the available resources meant to aid PSC coordinators and their staff to improve their service provision efforts for court participants’ benefit promotes and actualizes the purpose behind the court innovation 35 years ago.