Problem-solving courts operate as a collaborative community-based alternative to incarceration, focusing on reducing recidivism and rehabilitating participants. 
 
These courts aim to provide supervision of the treatment and rehabilitation of select defendants to transform their behavior. In the Commonwealth, there are 67 counties that are divided into 60 judicial districts, each of which may implement problem-solving courts of its choosing after fulfilling minimum administrative requirement . Philadelphia County established the first problem-solving court in 1997. These courts have expanded across the Commonwealth since then. 
 
Currently, there are five specified types of problem-solving courts in Pennsylvania, including: Veterans Courts, Drug Courts, DUI Courts, Juvenile Drug Courts, and Mental Health Courts. 
 
Although 136 problem-solving courts operate independently, there are no certification requirements for starting a problem-solving court in the Commonwealth. Out of those 136 courts, only 33 which are drug & DUI courts, are accredited.
 
All Rise provides recently updated best practice standards for several court models to ensure that treatment providers deliver personalized evidence-based treatment and collaboratively work with law enforcement, judges, and attorneys. Evidence-based practices exist for the purposes of credentialing, yet Pennsylvania has not established any processes to which problem-solving courts must adhere.
 
Due to the presence of numerous independent courts, many operating without certification, it raises concerns as to how each court is being operated and whether all of them ensure equal opportunity for rehabilitation. There is inadequate statistical evidence on the success of problem-solving courts across the Commonwealth, indicating a need for further research. 
 
The success of defendants in a problem-solving court often depends on the collaboration between the criminal legal system and the participant. 
 
Problem-solving court professionals have suggested that these treatment courts are effective, humane, and may save money for taxpayers instead of saturating prisons. Court programs that divert offenders away from the prison system aim to employ a holistic approach that may improve the education, employment, and financial stability of the most vulnerable. 
 
It is of utmost significance to understand the cost, operations, and impact of problem-solving courts.Pennsylvania taxpayers and defendants deserve to know how problem-solving courts may affect them and whether they are truly an effective alternative to incarceration. Because there are currently no certification nor accreditation requirements for problem-solving courts in PA, a participant’s ability to engage with the program free of discrimination and in a manner that accounts for one’s best interests turns in large part on the judicial district in which the participant lives, and the judges’ interest and willingness to participate. This kind of variance complicates — if not precludes — equal access to justice in Pennsylvania. 
 
A comprehensive study on how problem-solving courts are being used across the Commonwealth would bring Pennsylvania an important step closer to ensuring equal opportunity, economically feasible solutions, collaborative efforts and second chances.
 
We urge your support for this common-sense, nonpartisan resolution.