{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02014098690835851, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.716216216216216, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Applying Problem-Solving Principles in Mainstream Courts: Lessons for State Courts

In recent years, an array of specialized “problem-solving courts” has emerged throughout the country in an effort to address the underlying social problems facing defendants, victims, and communities. This article presents results of an exploratory study concerning the potential to apply specialized problem-solving court practices more broadly throughout conventional court and general calendar settings. Focus groups were conducted among judges in California and New York with experience in drug courts and other problem-solving courts. Judges identified many opportunities to practice problem solving in mainstream courts, at least on a limited basis, but also discussed numerous barriers to more widespread practice. The discussion also suggested shorter- and longer-term strategies to overcome the barriers and disseminate information about problem solving among a larger cross-section of the judiciary.