Front-Stage Stars and Backstage Producers: The Role of Judges in Problem-Solving Courts

Abstract

In problem-solving courts judges are no longer neutral arbitrators in adversarial justice processes. Instead, judges directly engage with court participants. The movement toward problem-solving court models emerges from a collaborative therapeutic jurisprudence framework. While most scholars argue judges are the central courtroom actors within problem-solving courts, we find judges are the stars front-stage, but play a more supporting role backstage. We use Goffman's (1959) front-stage–backstage framework to analyze 350 hours of ethnographic fieldwork within five problem-solving courts. Problem-solving courts are collaborative organizations with shifting leadership, based on forum. Understanding how the roles of courtroom workgroup actors adapt under the new court model is foundational for effective implementation of these justice processes.

Keywords:

• therapeutic jurisprudence
• judges
• problem-solving courts
• probation

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (U01-DA016213-07-A). The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions of the federal staff from NIDA, the Justice Steps (JSTEPS) research team, members of the JSTEPS project teams in the five federal U.S. districts, Faye S. Taxman, and the graduate student researchers within the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) at George Mason University who assisted with data collection for this project.

Notes

1. Courts were selected for the larger research project based on their willingness to consider the implementation of contingency management in their problem-solving courts. Two of the three districts already had established problem-solving courts at the start of the study. The courts had been running from one to five years. One district was just establishing their problem-solving court at the start of our project. We were able to observe the planning and first year of the court's implementation as part of the project.

2. Although seemingly similar in the United States, problem-solving courts at the federal and state levels are different. Considerable differences in resources, sanctions, internal coordination, and support engender these dissimilar environments. First, unlike state courts where resources for training and treatment/programs are scarce, federal problem-solving courts possess seemingly unlimited resources with advanced technical training for workgroup members. Armed with the science of evidence-based practices and garnering the power of information, federal POs assigned to problem-solving courts operate on an equal playing field with other workgroup actors. Federal problem-solving courts also hold numerous contracts with treatment facilities with no shortage of services. At the state level, treatment for participants is infamously scant. Second, state problem-solving courts navigate state criminal laws and interpret these laws in various ways, making comparisons between them difficult. At the federal level, all problem-solving courts adhere to federal laws, presenting a unique opportunity for cross-site comparison. Third, state problem-solving courts generally hire court coordinators for scheduling and various administrative services. In federal courts, POs regularly act as coordinators, giving them increased access to backstage court activity. Finally, federal courts do not operate with the same broad endorsements as state courts. They are often organized and run without official approval from the U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts.

3. Throughout our findings we use pseudonyms for study participants to protect their anonymity.