what does left problem solving look like in a government

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

The New Problem-Solving Skills That All Cities Need

If local governments are to effectively address our biggest global concerns, they’ll need to expand their skill sets.

• order reprints
• related stories

By James Anderson Sep. 29, 2023

Here’s a new axiom fit for the 21st century: The greater the global challenge, the more likely it is to fall to local governments to fix. But this modern reality comes with an inconvenient truth: Our public institutions are not equipped with the updated skills they need to effectively tackle the world’s ever-escalating challenges—not by a long shot.

Consider the climate crisis. Cities are home to more than half of the world’s population and, as the source of more than two thirds of the world’s carbon emissions, have the potential to solve a good percentage of those climate problems. But, even as local governments consistently take the lead in driving climate action, their ambitious, cross-sectoral efforts present distinct implementation challenges: Only a third of American cities were meeting their emissions targets in 2020 and, as of last fall, less than half of the world’s cities were tracking their progress . 

Or take the ongoing global migration wave. As a record number of refugees head to North American and European cities, the resulting divisive discourse has done little to lead to solutions. Local governments are left bearing the brunt and have, understandably, so far struggled. Asylum seekers to New York City have, in the past year alone, more than doubled the city’s shelter population—from 50,000 to more than 100,000—which has both necessitated an extraordinary and expensive peacetime mobilization and raised questions about cities’ and regions’ capacities to effectively respond.

There are, of course, lessons to be learned from the global pandemic. It was city leaders—more than state or federal officials—who stepped up to communicate risk, implement behavioral-change interventions, and find new or improved ways to reach and engage vulnerable and skeptical communities. This required a sustained emergency posture and high degrees of creativity, agility, and collaboration. In fact, I’ve argued that local governments were one of the few things that worked well during the pandemic. Yet, one need only consider the lives lost, the school time squandered, and the continued mental-health toll to know that we will need to be much better equipped next time.

Are you enjoying this article? Read more like this, plus SSIR's full archive of content, when you subscribe .

Today’s public officials are most often trained in areas of administration, policy development, fiscal analysis, and in stewarding public resources and promoting public accountability. There’s good reason for that, as these skills are foundational to the work of a well-run city. However, if public officials are to effectively address our biggest global concerns—while also managing local challenges and the interplay between the two—they’ll need to expand their skill set to include “problem-solving capabilities.”

There’s increasing discussion in the academic literature about this problem-solving orientation. In organization (large firm) theory, a “dynamic capability” positions a firm to adapt resources and efforts in the face of shocks or other change. Rainer Kattel has extended this into the public sector by introducing a synthesis of key routines: sense-making, which is about information gathering and pattern analysis; connecting, which is about boundary-spanning routines that bring new networks and coalitions to action; and shaping, which reinforces through practices and routines new directionality for an organization or policy. Quinton Mayne, Jorrit de Jong, and Fernando Fernandez-Monge have defined three categories for public problem-solving capabilities in government agencies: a reflective improvement capability (focused on defining and addressing problems), a collaboration capability, and a data-analytical capability. Tara McGuinness and Anne-Marie Slaughter position this as a new approach at problems that is distinct from traditional policy making and is people-centered, experiential, data-enabled, and designed to scale. And Demos Helsinki offers an inspiring set of values for the modern problem-solving civil servant , describing the need to equip them to infuse rules-based orientation with humility, to supplement short-term accountability with the wisdom to look to the future, to bring imagination to incrementalism, and to complement vertical responsibilities with a collaborative ethos.

For the past decade-plus, we at Bloomberg Philanthropies have, together with partners from Harvard University, the Center for Government Excellence at Johns Hopkins University, the Behavioral Insights Team, Results for America, the National League of Cities, and many other organizations, focused on strategically bolstering the problem-solving capacity of local governments, primarily through leadership development, skills-building programming, and applied learning through supported project work. This intensive work—with more than 280 mayors, data teams in nearly 300 cities, 60 innovation offices, and 600-plus other senior leaders—has provided us unique insight into what works, what’s possible, and how to build more demand when it comes to building skills at the local government level.

What has emerged from this work is something akin to a Civil Servants’ Toolkit for Public Problem Solving, which includes the skill sets, mindsets, and practices needed in four critical areas: 1) problem spotting and definition, 2) invention, 3) collaboration, and 4) agile delivery. This toolkit contains the capabilities that, our experience has found, cities need to develop if they’re to successfully toggle between day-to-day program-management concerns and the problem-solving approaches required to tackle global challenges at the local level.

Anticipate and Define a Problem

Today’s cities need to better envision and detect emergent challenges. That means developing a shared understanding of what those problems are (or will be), how to tackle them, and what success looks like. The mindset shift, here, is critical: It is no longer enough to set sights on big improvements to current services, important as that is; city leaders must invest time, energy, and resources to understand what’s around the corner. This requires a fluency with skills such as futures thinking, scenario planning, community listening, data analysis, problem definition, and benchmarking.

Singapore, for example, places such an emphasis on strategic foresight methods that it introduced scenario planning as an entry-level skill for all policy makers. Other cities, such as Wellington, New Zealand, are using digital twins to visualize future challenges and facilitate participatory planning with residents.

Imagine and Develop a Way to Make Progress

Once those problems and opportunities are identified, cities need to flex another set of muscles to develop or uncover ambitious solutions that can be tested and, when they work, scaled up. This requires both the understanding that many of the best ideas come from outside city hall and a fluency with a set of skills—including crowdsourcing, open procurement, and literature review—to invite, find, sort, and implement those ideas.

In Syracuse, New York, those capabilities resulted in, among many other innovations, the creation of a data-informed tool that empowered the city to quickly evaluate and repair approximately 55,000 feet of damaged sidewalks, which is the length of more than 150 American football fields. In Boise, Idaho, hundreds of ideas solicited from agency workers strengthened internal operations and improved results. And in Colombia, where only 19 percent of residents borrowed money from a formal financial institution in 2021, Bogotá city leaders developed a novel solution that welcomes unbanked shop owners and street vendors into the formal banking system and is on track to issue 10,000 loans by year’s end.

Collaborate With Residents and Across Boundaries

Another reality of today’s world is that its stickiest challenges seldom adhere to administrative, departmental, or geographic boundaries and, as such, they compel cities to convene and nurture robust collections of partners in order to drive toward more effective solutions. This will, again, represent a break from the past for some, requiring a change in the culture of “looking in,” to one of “reaching out.” Local civil servants will need to master the art and science of working across silos through mission making, collective action, and managing the sometimes-mismatched priorities and egos that can come with partnerships, co-creation, and co-production.

These skills helped Leuven, Belgium—named the European Capital of Innovation in 2020—develop what Mayor Mohamed Ridouani calls a “radical participation approach” to climate change: Leuven 2030 brings together more than 600 government, nonprofit, university, and business partners together under a plan to make the city carbon neutral by 2050. And in Calgary, Canada, they enabled then-Mayor Naheed Nenshi to convene a coalition of public-sector and nonprofit agencies to overhaul mental-health services , even though he had little funding or authority over the issue.

Delivering Today and in the Long-term

Local governments are in no way off the hook for service delivery. But today’s challenges call for city governments to manage this fundamental responsibility in new ways. This means doubling down on agile approaches, such as rapid prototyping, short-cycle iteration, and methods like human-centered design to keep the needs of residents at the forefront. These build trust in the context of existing service improvement and reduce risk when undertaking innovation. Data, here, takes on a new role, not just to evaluate past performance, but as a robust mechanism to get feedback, learn, adjust and pivot. Local governments have made a lot of headway in the past decade building up some of these skills. The leap forward will occur when these skills define how all of government works, rather than only data or innovation units. That’s about culture and mindset change and it starts with leadership.

That’s certainly what we’ve seen in Mexico City—where former mayor Claudia Sheinbaum, who went on to run for president, launched a people-first model for centralized innovation focused on simplifying procedures, building and deploying in-house technology to improve public policies and services, and reducing corruption. Her team launched the country’s first digital I.D., which now has more than 5.7 million users; created the world’s largest, free citywide WiFi network; and enabled more than 70 percent of all government interaction to occur digitally—enabling the kind of digital access most local governments can only dream of. They’ve made big things happen by taking one small, urgent step after the next, embodying the test, learn, adapt ethos that was first championed by then-Mayor Sheinbaum.

Together, these skills emphasize curiosity, cooperation, and creativity over bureaucratic rigidity and adherence to how things have been handled in the past. They acknowledge uncertainty about the world and emphasize humility in the way local governments approach challenges, importantly by recognizing outside expertise from the community, other sectors, or peer cities. Additionally, these skills align with the appropriately growing ambitions of local government officials around policy and program innovation. Problem-solving skills empower bureaucracies to take well-defined risks, while reflecting the unique ethical considerations of the public-sector operating environment.

Among the many insights to emerge from our continued work building these key capacities in local government are three primary learnings:

First, it works—even in the face of our most pressing global challenges. Beginning in 2019, for example, we funded partners including the National Resource Defense Council, Delivery Associates, and numerous other mission-based groups to help 25 cities cut their emissions in line with the Paris goals. In addition to funding, we provided technical support for key components of our toolkit for civil servants, including resident engagement, coalition building, prototyping, evaluation, data analysis, and establishing daily routines. Within three years, these cities were collectively on track to reduce emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which surpasses the goals of the Paris accords.

This work also paid off during the pandemic , as data officers played leading roles in creating public-education dashboards conveying threat levels and innovation offices were consistently tapped to help mayors develop quick interventions in response to ever-changing conditions on the ground. In Baltimore, this meant bucking the trend of hiring consulting firms as contact tracers and, instead, creating a home-grown team of 300—hired from among residents who lost their jobs in the first months of the pandemic—who were trusted by the community they needed to reach and, as a result, helped the city outperform the majority of its peers in COVID incidence, mortality, and vaccination rates.

The second learning: There is strong and growing demand from cities for support in building these skills. When the mayors participating in the 2023 class of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative were asked what they’d most like to improve about their organizations, their top answer was “innovation and experimentation”—ahead of more traditional goals like improving government performance and customer service for residents. Similarly, the mayors applying to participate in the City Data Alliance, an initiative aimed at helping 100 cities across North, South, and Central America set a new standard for data-informed government, indicated a shift in how they want to use data—from an emphasis on efficiency to a focus on solving complex challenges, such as climate, homelessness, and public safety.

Clearly, the ambition for advancing local solutions to complex challenges is growing in cities and among their leaders. But, as Mike Bloomberg pointed out when he opened the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University earlier this year, there’s a difference between wanting to do big things and actually being able to do them.

That difference is our third learning and what demands our attention today: Cities need help. As we continue to look to them to lead on our most pressing global challenges, we must rethink what they need to get the job done. Philanthropy has a huge role to play—not only because so many foundations focus on improving lives in cities but because these efforts can rarely achieve scale without local government leadership. We can’t just hope that cities are able to respond to ever more complex challenges, we have to build local governments that consistently can. That starts by making these problem-solving skills the norm, not the exception, in our public institutions.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by James Anderson .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Justice Dashboard

• Publications

Explore Data of Countries

Find out how people in different countries around the world experience justice. What are the most serious problems people face? How are problems being resolved? Find out the answers to these and more.

• Burkina Faso
• General population
• IDPs and host communities
• The Netherlands

Solving & Preventing

Guidelines for Justice Problems

Justice Services

Innovation is needed in the justice sector. What services are solving justice problems of people? Find out more about data on justice innovations.

The Gamechangers

The 7 most promising categories of justice innovations, that have the potential to increase access to justice for millions of people around the world.

Justice Innovation Labs

Explore solutions developed using design thinking methods for the justice needs of people in the Netherlands, Nigeria, Uganda and more.

Creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework where innovations and new justice services develop

Rules of procedure, public-private partnerships, creative sourcing of justice services, and new sources of revenue and investments can help in creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework.  

Forming a committed coalition of leaders

A committed group of leaders can drive change and innovation in justice systems and support the creation of an enabling environment.

Find out how specific justice problems impact people, how their justice journeys look like, and more.

• Employment Justice
• Family Justice
• Land Justice
• Neighbour Justice
• Crime Justice
• Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Trend Report 2021 – Delivering Justice / Case Study: Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Author: Isabella Banks , Justice Sector Advisor

Introduction

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime (Wright, no date). “Generally, a problem-solving court involves a close collaboration between a judge and a community service team to develop a case plan and closely monitor a participant’s compliance, imposing proper sanctions when necessary” (Ibid).  In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. All 50 states have appointed a statewide drug court coordinator, and at least 13 have introduced the broader position of statewide problem-solving court coordinator (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

What does it mean for a court to be problem-solving?

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist across the US, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are focused on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime. This includes reducing recidivism as well as rehabilitating participants (with the exception of domestic violence courts, as elaborated below), victims and the broader community (Ibid. p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are also characterised by interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system. Dedicated staff who have been assigned to the problem-solving court work together to develop court policies and resolve individual cases in a relatively non-adversarial way. Ongoing collaboration between court staff and public agencies, service providers and clinical experts is also essential for providing appropriate treatment to problem-solving court participants (Ibid. p. 38). Because problem-solving courts aim to address the impact of crime on the community and increase public trust in justice, they also have frequent contact with community members and organisations and regularly solicit local input on their work (Ibid. p. 39).

Problem-solving courts aim to hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the broader community. For individuals with justice system involvement, this means holding them accountable for their criminal behaviour by promoting and monitoring their compliance with court mandates. In order to comply, problem-solving court participants must understand what is expected of them, regularly appear for status hearings, and have clear (extrinsic and intrinsic) incentives to complete their mandates. 

For service providers, this means providing services based on a coherent, specified and effective model, and accurately and regularly informing the court about participants’ progress. Problem-solving courts are also responsible for assessing the quality of service delivery and making sure models are adhered to (Ibid. p. 43-44). 

Lastly and perhaps most fundamentally, problem-solving courts must hold themselves to “the same high standards expected of participants and stakeholders” (Ibid. p. 44-45).  This means monitoring implementation and outcomes of their services using up-to-date data. 

What does problem-solving justice look like in practice?

Problem-solving justice comes in different forms. The original, best known, and most widespread problem-solving court model is the drug court. The first drug was created in 1989, after a judge in Miami Dade county became frustrated seeing the same drug cases cycling through her court and began experimenting with putting defendants into treatment (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). This approach (elaborated in the sections that follow) gradually gained traction, and there are now over 3,000 drug courts across the US (Strong and Kyckelhahn 2016).

This proliferation of drug courts helped stimulate the emergence of three other well-known problem-solving court models: mental health, domestic violence and community courts (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.). Mental health courts are similar to drug courts in that they focus on rehabilitation, but different in that they aim for the improved social functioning and stability of their participants rather than complete abstinence (Ibid. p. 51). Domestic violence courts are unique in that they do not universally embrace participant treatment and rehabilitation as an important goal. Instead, many – thought not all – are primarily focused on victim support and safety and participant accountability and deterrence (Ibid. p. 52). 

Community courts “seek to address crime, public safety, and quality of life problems at the neighbourhood level. Unlike other problem-solving courts…community courts do not specialise in one particular problem. Rather, the goal of community courts is to address the multiple problems and needs that contribute to social disorganisation in a designated geographical area. For this reason, community courts vary widely in response to varying local needs, conditions, and priorities” (Lee et al. 2013). There are now over 70 community courts in operation around the world (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Some are based in traditional courthouses, while others work out of storefronts, libraries or former schools. Though they typically focus on criminal offences, some community courts extend their jurisdiction to non-criminal matters to meet specific needs of the communities they serve as well (Ibid. p. 1.). Regardless of location and jurisdiction, all community courts take a proactive approach to community safety and experiment with different ways of providing appropriate services and sanctions (Wright n.d.).

Other less common problem-solving models include veterans courts, homeless courts, reentry courts, trafficking courts, fathering courts, and truancy courts (Ibid). 

The principles and practices of problem-solving justice can also be applied within non-specialised courts that already exist. In a 2000 resolution that was later reaffirmed in 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators advocated for, “Encourag[ing], where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem-solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law” (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 3). Key features of a problem-solving approach to justice – which will be elaborated in the sections that follow – include: individualised screening and problem assessment; individualised treatment and service mandate; direct engagement of the participant; a focus on outcomes; and system change (Ibid. p. iv).

Problems and impacts

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts measured and mapped the following as a first step towards people-centred justice.

• The most prevalent justice problems within the population served
• The justice problems with greatest impact on the population served
• The justice problems that are most difficult to resolve and therefore tend to remain ongoing
• The groups most vulnerable to (systemic and daily) injustices within the population served

As their name suggests, problem-solving courts emerged to address the most prevalent, impactful, and difficult to resolve justice problems within the populations they serve. The first drug (and Drinking While Driving or DWI) courts were created as a response to the increase in individuals with substance use disorders in the criminal justice system and their levels of recidivism. Similarly, mental health courts “seek to address the growing number of [individuals with mental health needs] that have entered the criminal justice system” (Wright n.d.). As one interviewee put it, “The biggest mental health provider [in Los Angeles] is the county jail” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Drug and mental health problems are among the most common issues faced by individuals responsible for both minor and more serious crime. These issues are difficult to resolve because judges – who have historically had little understanding of treatment and addiction – are inclined to hand down harsh sentences when defendants relapse or fail to complete their court mandate (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020). This trend was particularly acute in the 1980s, when the war on drugs resulted in draconian sentencing laws that reduced judicial discretion (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In order to understand and meet the needs of their unique populations, problem-solving courts track measures of problem prevalence and severity. As noted in the first section, early and individualised screening and problem assessment is a key feature of problem-solving justice. The purpose of such screenings is to “understand the full nature of the [participant’s] situation and the underlying issues that led to justice involvement.” 

For drug courts, relevant measures of problem severity may include: drug of choice; years of drug use; age of first use; criminal history; and treatment history (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 50). Mental health courts typically assess the nature and severity of their participants’ underlying mental health issues, and may also look at participant stability (in terms of health care, housing, compliance with prescribed medications, and hospitalisations) (Ibid. p. 51). 

Domestic violence courts and community courts are somewhat unique in that the primary population they serve include victims and members of the community as well as individuals with justice system involvement. Domestic violence courts focus on assessing the needs of victims of domestic violence in order to connect them with safety planning and other individualised services. Likewise, in addition to identifying the problems that impact individual participants, community courts focus on assessing the problems that impact the underserved (and also often disserved) neighbourhoods where they work. These should be identified through outreach in the relevant community but often include concentrations of lower level crimes – such as vandalism, shoplifting, and prostitution – as well as distrust of traditional justice actors (Ibid. p. 55-56).

Now that technical assistance is broadly available for problem-solving courts across the US, individualised screening and problem assessment has become increasingly data-driven and informed by validated needs assessment tools (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Over the years, problem-solving courts have also become more adept at identifying groups within the populations they serve that are particularly vulnerable to injustice. The advancement of brain science, for example, has influenced many problem-solving courts to treat participants under 25 differently and give them an opportunity to age out of crime. Young people transitioning out of foster care are particularly vulnerable to justice involvement given their sudden lack of family support. Trafficked individuals, who used to be treated as criminals, are now widely recognised as victims (Ibid). Specialised problem-solving courts, diversion programs, and training initiatives have emerged to understand the unique needs and vulnerabilities of this population (Wright n.d.).

Problem-solving courts have also become more aware of racial inequities in the populations selected to receive treatment (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Drug court participants in particular are often disproportionately white, with racial breakdowns that do not mirror the racial breakdowns of those arrested. This is largely a result of eligibility requirements tied to federal drug court funding, which has historically restricted individuals with violent criminal histories from participating. Drug courts have also been accused of cherry-picking participants who were most likely to be successful to improve their numbers and receive more funding. Both of these phenomena have had the effect of excluding disproportionate numbers of people of colour from drug treatment (Ibid). In addition to taking steps to mitigate these inequities, drug courts have increasingly come to recognise that cherry-picking low-risk cases reduces their effectiveness overall (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Defining + Monitoring Outcomes

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts researched and identified the outcomes that people in the target population expect from justice processes.

In 1993, the first community court was set up in the Midtown neighbourhood of New York City (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Inspired by the Midtown model, the Red Hook Community Justice Center was established in a particularly disadvantaged area of Brooklyn seven years later. Like the Midtown Court, the goal of the Red Hook Community Justice Center was “to replace short-term jail sentences with community restitution assignments and mandated participation in social services” (Taylor 2016). 

In the planning stages however, residents of Red Hook were not happy to learn that a new court was being introduced in their community. Though sustained community outreach, Red Hook court staff were able to change these negative perceptions and convince residents they wanted to do something different. They began by asking the community what outcomes were most important to them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).  

This early engagement helped the Red Hook planners realise that tracking outcomes related to people’s presence in the court would not be enough to assess the court’s impact in the community. They would also need to look at outcomes that were meaningful to residents, asking questions like: How can we disrupt crime hot spots? How safe does the community feel? Do residents feel safe walking to the park, or the train? At what times? (Ibid).

Although the Red Hook community court model has since been replicated in different parts of the world, the experiences of two of these international courts illustrate that identifying the outcomes that community members expect from justice processes can sometimes be a challenge.

In 2005, England opened its first community court: the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre (NLCJC). A 2011 evaluation of the NLCJC acknowledged its innovative approach and “potentially transformative effect on criminal justice” but also noted:

How and why the Centre needs to connect with the public it is charged with serving remains one of the most complex and enduring concerns for staff...how consistently and how effectively the ‘community’ was contributing to the workings of the Centre provided a constant source of uncertainty” (Mair and Millings 2011).

After eight years of operation, the NLCJC was closed in 2013. Observers have since noted that a lack of grassroots community engagement in the planning and operation of the NLCJC was among the primary reasons that it ultimately failed to take hold (Murray and Blagg 2018; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020). 

One year after the NLCJC opened in England, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) was piloted in the Collingwood neighbourhood of Melbourne, Australia. At the time, Collingwood had the highest crime rate in Melbourne, high rates of inequality, and a high concentration of services. This combination made it an ideal location for Australia’s first community court. 

Modelled on the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn and spearheaded by the State Attorney General at the time, Rob Hulls, the NJC pilot was focused on improving the community’s relationship with the justice system through local, therapeutic and procedural justice. Like Red Hook, it was designed based on evidence and an analysis of gaps in existing justice services. Despite shifting political winds –  including “tough-on-crime” rhetoric on the one hand and complaints of more favourable “postcode justice” available only for the NJC’s participants on the other – the NJC managed to secure ongoing state government support (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

Unlike the NLCJC, the NJC remains in operation today. The procedurally just design of the NJC building and approach of its magistrate, David Fanning, have earned the court significant credibility and legitimacy in the Collingwood community (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018; J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). Community and client engagement have continued to be a key feature of the NJC’s work, helping to reduce recidivism and increase compliance with community-based court orders (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018) .

In spite of its success, some observers note that the NJC’s outreach efforts have not gone as far as they could have. Early consultations with a group of community stakeholders regarding the design and governance of the NJC were discontinued in the Centre’s later years. Although the reason for this is unclear and may well have been legitimate, the result was that key representatives of the community lost direct and regular access to NJC leadership over time (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

These examples illustrate that even under the umbrella of a one-stop-shop community court, identifying expected justice outcomes in the community as a first step towards problem-solving justice – and continuing to do so even after the court is well-established – is not a given. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the approach of the particular court and its efforts to create a reciprocal and collaborative relationship with the surrounding community.

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts determined whether existing justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Problem-solving courts generally – and community courts and drug courts in particular – are created with the explicit intention to address gaps in existing justice processes. 

Community courts are typically established in communities that have been historically underserved and disproportionately incarcerated to provide a more holistic response to crime and increase trust in the justice system. 

In the early days of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the community’s deep distrust of law enforcement emerged as a key challenge for the Center’s work. Red Hook staff approached this challenge by inviting police officers into the court and showing them the data they had collected on the justice outcomes that residents were experiencing. They helped the officers understand that by not addressing the root causes of crime in the Red Hook community, they were delaying crime rather than stopping it (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Over time, the court’s relationship with law enforcement has improved. In 2016, the Justice Center launched its “Bridging the Gap” initiative, which creates a safe space for young people and police officers to get to know each other and discuss difficult topics that offer the chance to explore the other’s perspective (Red Hook Justice News 2016; Sara Matusek 2017).

Similarly, the proliferation of drug courts across the country was a response to high rates of recidivism among individuals with substance use disorders, which persisted in spite of tough-on-crime sentencing practices. During the so-called “war on drugs” in the mid-1980s, judges across the country gradually began to realise that handing down increasingly long sentences to people with substance use disorders was not working. 

One such person was the late Honourable Peggy Hora, a California Superior Court judge responsible for criminal arraignments. Like other judges repeatedly confronted with defendants grappling with substance use disorders in the 1980s and 90s, Judge Hora initially felt that incarceration was the only tool available to her. Not much research had been done on incarceration at the time, so its detrimental effects were not yet widely known (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Determined to understand why the defendants that came before her seemed to be willing to risk everything to access drugs – even their freedom and the right to see their children – Judge Hora took a class on chemical dependency. This experience brought her to the realisation that “everything they were doing was wrong.” She quickly built relationships with people at the National Institute on Drug Abuse and began engaging with drug treatment research at a national level (Ibid). 

Judge Hora eventually went on to establish and preside over the nation’s second drug court in Alameda County, California. After learning more about procedural justice and seeing evidence that early drug courts worked and saved money in the long run, she helped promote the model across the country and around the world (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts created a system for monitoring whether new, people-centered justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Outcomes monitoring is an essential component of problem-solving justice. As Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel, and Adam Manksy of the Center for Court Innovation set out in their 2010 report on universal performance indicators for problem-solving courts:

It is perhaps their focus on the outcomes generated after a case has been disposed that most distinguishes problem-solving courts from conventional courts. Like all courts, problem-solving courts seek to uphold the due process rights of litigants and to operate efficiently, but their outcome orientation demands that they seek to address the underlying issues that precipitate justice involvement (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 1.).

Measuring and monitoring people-centred outcomes was also key to problem-solving courts’ early success. Because the problem-solving approach was so different from the status quo, showing evidence that it worked was necessary for building political and financial support. This meant clearly articulating the goals of problem-solving courts and finding ways to measure progress towards them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

In their report, What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Porter, Rempel, and Mansky identify universal indicators for each of the three organising principles of problem-solving courts. They include: (under problem-solving) individualised justice and substantive education for court staff; (under collaboration) links with community-based agencies and court presence in community; and (under accountability) compliance reviews, early coordination of information, and court data systems (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 57).  Many of these problem-solving principles and practices can be (and are) applied and monitored in traditional courts. 

To ensure delivery of individualised justice for example, any court staff can engage the individuals appearing before it by making eye contact, addressing them clearly and directly, and asking if they have any questions about the charges or their mandate (Ibid). This kind of engagement can “radically change the experience of litigants, victims, and families” and “improve the chance of compliance and litigant perceptions of court fairness” (Ibid). Similarly, any court can prioritise and track its use of alternative sanctions – such as community service or drug treatment – and its efforts to link individuals to existing services in the community (Ibid).

The extent to which a particular (problem-solving or traditional) court monitors progress towards these people-centred outcomes depends on its ability to track compliance and behaviour change among participants. This can be achieved through regular compliance reviews, which provide “an ongoing opportunity for the court to communicate with [participants] and respond to their concerns and circumstances” (Ibid. p. 60-61). Investing in electronic data systems that track and coordinate information also makes it easier for a court to monitor its overall impact on case outcomes and improve the quality of its mandates (Ibid).

Successful outcomes monitoring also depends crucially on a court’s ability to develop strong relationships with researchers. Without this, early problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center would not have been able to, for example, quantify the impact of a 7-day jail stay in terms of budget, jail population, and bookings per month. Strong research partnerships also made it possible to compare successful and unsuccessful court participants, which was necessary to assess and improve the quality of the court’s services (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Outcomes monitoring at the Red Hook Community Justice Center was not without its challenges, however. Because most people who come before the court are charged with less serious crimes, their treatment mandates are relatively short. The short amount of time the Red Hook staff and service providers have to work with these participants means that outcomes related to individual progress are not likely to show a full picture of the court’s impact. The Red Hook Community Justice Center addressed this by also measuring outcomes related to the court’s impact on the community. What was the effect on social cohesion and stability when someone’s brother, father, or son was allowed to remain in the community instead of being incarcerated? (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Another challenge faced by community courts broadly is that traditional outcomes monitoring systems are not well-equipped to acknowledge the reality that everything is connected. Where does one draw the line between service providers and justice providers? If a restorative justice process facilitated under the supervision of the court fails to reconcile the parties in conflict but has a positive impact on the lives of the support people who participate, should it be considered a success or failure? 

A former Red Hook staff member involved in the court’s peacemaking initiative shared a story of a young, devout woman with a new boyfriend who mistreated her and who her children strongly disliked. When she tried to throw him out, the boyfriend would use her Christian values against her and convince her to let him stay. Eventually, he punched someone and was arrested on assault charges. His case was referred to a restorative justice circle for resolution. In the circle, the boyfriend was very aggressive and as a result, his case was sent back to court. The woman and her children asked if they could continue meeting in circle without him because they found it helpful (Ibid).

After a series of circle sessions together, the woman came to realise that her abusive boyfriend was using drugs and found the courage to kick him out. In his absence, the woman and her children were able to reconcile and reunite. The woman returned to school and her oldest son found a job. The criminal case that started the process was ultimately unresolved, but from a more holistic and common sense perspective the impact of the circles on the family was positive (Ibid). How should success be measured in this case? This is a challenge that community courts attempting to measure and monitor people-centred justice regularly face.

Evidence-Based Solutions

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts introduced interventions that are evidence-based and consistently deliver the justice outcomes that people in the target population look for.

Problem-solving courts have introduced a number of interventions that have proven to deliver people-centred outcomes for the communities they serve. Although different interventions work for different populations, direct engagement with participants and the delivery of individualised treatments are two key elements of the problem-solving orientation that all problem-solving courts share (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 29-30). 

As described in the previous section, direct engagement means that the judge speaks to participants directly and becomes actively engaged in producing positive change in their lives (Ibid. p. 30-31). This effort to ensure that participants feel heard, respected and experience the process as fair is supported by research on procedural justice. 

Individualised treatment means that the interventions delivered are tailored to the specific problems of each participant. This requires that the court offer “a continuum of treatment modalities and services to respond to the variety and degrees of need that participants present.” This service plan must be revisited by the court on a regular basis and adjusted depending on the participant’s reported progress (Ibid. p. 29-30).

Despite this shared approach to justice delivery, different problem-solving courts have identified different types of treatments and ways of monitoring whether they work that are unique to the populations they serve.

Community courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center, for example, generally work with the residents in their neighbourhood to find out what is important to them rather than imposing a predetermined set of solutions. 

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne did this through a unique problem-solving process that took place outside of the courtroom and which participants could opt into voluntarily. In a confidential, facilitated discussion based on restorative and therapeutic justice principles, participants were given an opportunity to share their perspective on the problems they were facing and empowered to become collaborators in their own rehabilitation. Important takeaways from this process would be reported back to the court’s magistrate so he could help them move forward – for example by changing their methadone (1) dose or changing the number of treatments they received per week. The collaborative nature of the sessions helped ensure that the treatment plans mandated by the court were realistic for participants. Though the content of these sessions was unpredictable and varied, the co-design process remained constant (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020; Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018).

With that said, certain interventions have proven to consistently improve outcomes for communities, victims, and individuals with justice system involvement when applied to low-level cases. These include: using (validated) screening and assessment tools (2); monitoring and enforcing court orders (3); using rewards and sanctions; promoting information technology (4); enhancing procedural justice (5); expanding sentencing options (to include community service and shorter interventions that incorporate individualised treatment); and engaging the community (6).

In 2009, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center to assess whether it was achieving its goals to reduce crime and improve quality of life in the Red Hook neighbourhood through these interventions (Lee et al. 2013, p. 2.). The evaluation found that:

The Justice Center [had] been implemented largely in accordance with its program theory and project plan. The Justice Center secured the resources and staff needed to support its reliance on alternative sanctions, including an in-house clinic and arrangements for drug and other treatment services to be provided by local treatment providers...The Justice Center’s multi-jurisdictional nature, as well as many of its youth and community programs, evolved in direct response to concerns articulated in focus groups during the planning process, reflecting a stated intention to learn of and implement community priorities (Ibid. p. 4).

Using a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the evaluation also concluded that Red Hook had successfully: changed sentencing practices in a way that minimised incarceration and motivated compliance; provided flexible and individualised drug treatment; sustainably reduced rates of misdemeanour recidivism among young people and adults; and reduced arrests in the community. 

In spite of the robust evidence supporting their approach, many community courts experience resistance to their efforts to help participants address underlying issues of substance use and mental disorders through treatment. As Brett Taylor, a Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice and former defence attorney at the Red Hook explains:

Some critics of community courts say that [this] is not the job of courts and should be handled by other entities. In a perfect world, I would agree. However, in the reality of the world today, people with social service needs continue to end up in the courts. Court systems across the country have realised that if defendants with social service needs are not given treatment options, those defendants will be stuck in the revolving door of justice and continue to clog the court system....Although it may not comport with the vision of success that many defence attorneys had upon entering this work, I can tell you that nothing beats seeing a sober, healthy person approach you on the street and hearing, ‘Thank you for helping me get my life back on track’ (Taylor 2016, p. 25).

In contrast to the broad and community-based approach to treatment taken by community courts, drug courts focus specifically on providing drug treatment. In the words of Judge Peggy Hora, drug treatment is “painful and difficult.” Because of this, drug courts start with external changes as their goal, but ultimately aim for internal change. This means appropriately matching participants with evidence-based treatment and using neutral language that assists, supports, and encourages participants along the way. Because relapse is such a common feature of recovery, drug courts focus on keeping people in appropriate treatment as long as necessary for them to eventually graduate from the program (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Drug court treatments have become increasingly evidence-based since the 1990s due to a growing movement toward performance measurement in the non-profit sector:

The emergence of drug courts as a reform of courts’ traditional practice of treating drug-addicted offenders in a strictly criminal fashion coincided with renewed interest in performance measurement for public organisations. The argument for measuring the performance of drug courts is compelling because they are a recent reform that must compete with existing priorities of the judicial system for a limited amount of resources. This makes it incumbent upon drug courts to demonstrate that the limited resources provided to them are used efficiently and that this expenditure of resources produces the desired outcomes in participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 1).

This movement was further strengthened by the development of a cutting edge performance measurement methodology known as the “balanced scorecard.” Created for the business sector, the balanced scorecard method aims to go beyond traditional measures of success and get a more balanced picture of performance by incorporating multiple perspectives. This method was adapted to create CourTools, a set of ten performance measures designed to evaluate a small set of key functions of trial courts (Ibid. p. 2). 

Because “the nature of addiction and the realities of substance use treatment require extended times to disposition for drug court participants,” many of the performance measures developed for conventional trial courts (such as reduced time to disposition) are not directly applicable to drug courts. However, the increased application of performance measurement to courts and the creation of CourTools in particular helped make way for the development of the first set of nationally recommended performance measures for Adult Drug Courts in 2004 (Ibid. p. 4).

Developed by a leading group of scholars and researchers brought together by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and published for the first time in 2006, these included four key measures of drug court performance: retention; sobriety, in-program recidivism; and units of service (Ibid. p. 5).

Retention refers to the amount of time drug court participants remain in treatment. “Longer retention not only indicates success in treatment but also predicts future success in the form of lower post treatment drug use and re-offending”  (Ibid. p. 5). Sobriety – both during and after treatment –  is another important goal of drug courts. “As the participant proceeds through the program, a trend of decreasing frequency of failed [drug] tests should occur. Research has shown that increasing amounts of time between relapses is associated with continued reductions in [drug] use” (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5). In-program recidivism is the rate at which drug court participants are re-arrested during the course of their participation. This is expected to be lowered through a combination of “judicial supervision, treatment, and rewards and sanctions” unique to drug courts (Ibid. p.5; US Government and Accountability Office, 2005). Finally, units of service refers to the dosages in which drug court treatment services – including, but not limited to substance use treatment – are delivered. These are usually measured in terms of days or sessions of service provided (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5).

Since their development, these four measures of drug court performance have been actively promoted by leading technical assistance providers like the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (Ibid. p. 6). They have since been adopted and adapted by a number of states across the US. The NCSC facilitates this process, but decisions about what specifically to measure are made by the advisory committee convened by the state-level agency responsible for drug courts (Ibid). Additional performance measures used by some states relate to, for example: accountability, social functioning, processing, interaction with other agencies, compliance with quality standards, and  juvenile drug court measures, family drug court measures, and domestic violence drug court measures (Ibid. p. 10).

In 2007, the NCSC surveyed statewide drug court coordinators from across the country about their use of state-level performance measurement systems (SPMS). Out of 45 states that completed the surveys, 58% were using a SPMS in their drug courts. Most of these were adult drug courts (Ibid. p. 14). Although the frequency with which these states reported performance measurement data varied from quarterly to annually, the majority did provide data to a central agency (Ibid. p. 15). 

The development and widespread use of SPMS have helped drug courts deliver treatments that are increasingly evidence-based in the sense of consistently delivering the outcomes that their participants need. However, the NCSC survey found that the state-level performance measures used were not entirely balanced in that they typically focused more on the effectiveness of drug courts than their efficiency, productivity, or procedural satisfaction (Ibid. p. 20). The NCSC therefore recommended that a more balanced, national and uniform set of drug court performance measures be developed to measure performance more holistically and facilitate comparisons of performance across states (Ibid. p. 18).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts used outcome-based monitoring (discussed in the previous section) to continuously improve these interventions and replace interventions that have proven ineffective?

Because of their problem-solving orientation and focus on outcomes, problem-solving courts are by their nature adaptive and capable of developing new treatment modalities to meet different kinds of needs. As Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving at the Center for Court Innovation put it, “the problem-solving court environment creates a space in which there is more room for creativity. If you were to redesign the justice system now, there wouldn’t be only courts you could go to, there would be different justice mechanisms and modalities available to treat different levels of issues. Perhaps that is why new modalities develop within problem-solving courts” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

A clear example of this creative and outcomes-based approach to improvement was the way the problem-solving dialogue process developed at the Neighbourhood Justice Center (NJC) was adapted over time to meet changing demands in the community. As Jay Jordens, a Neighbourhood Justice Office at the NJC who introduced the process explains: “different problems would arise that would demand a re-design of the court’s approach” (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

For example, the NJC began to notice that people responsible for family violence were participating in problem-solving dialogues without sharing this part of their history. In response, the NJC developed a tailored problem-solving process for people who were respondents to a family violence order in which this part of their past would be addressed from the start. The NJC also began facilitating support meetings for victims of family violence, including for example parents who were being mistreated by their children. The process was designed to solicit feedback about the new approach after victims had tried it. Eventually, it earned the support of the police in the community because it consistently delivered outcomes for a unique population (Ibid).

A second adaptation of the problem-solving process at the NJC was made when court staff noticed that many young people were opting out. Many of the court-involved young people in the Collingwood community were refugees from South Sudan who were experiencing the effects of intergenerational trauma. Realising that the process as it was originally imagined was too interrogative for this population, the NJC began holding circles with the young person, their mother, and one or two support workers. A facilitator would begin by asking humanising questions of everyone in the circle. Although the young person would often pass when it was their turn to speak, participating in the circle gave them an opportunity to listen, relax, and improve their relationships with the adults sitting in the circle with them. These problem-solving circles were designed to prioritise safety concerns and would often result in an agreement among the participants to get external support and/or attend family therapy.

Jay Jordens notes that such adaptations were possible in spite of, not because of, an operational framework of specialisation within the court that made collaboration a choice rather than an expectation among Centre staff. “We aren’t there yet where these processes are intuitive,” he explained, “we still need to actively facilitate them” (Ibid).

Because of their systematic approach to outcomes monitoring and performance measurement, drug courts have made a number of improvements to the treatment they provide as well. First and foremost, they have learned to avoid net widening: “the process of administrative or practical changes that result in a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system” (Leone n.d.).

Specifically, drug courts have learned that putting the wrong people in the wrong places results in bad outcomes. An example of this is cherry picking the easiest cases for drug treatment: a common practice among drug courts in the early years of their development that later proved to be harmful. Evidence has shown that drug courts are most effective when they focus on treating high-risk, high-needs participants who are most likely to reoffend (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Cherry picking low-risk cases in order to inflate measures of success means putting them in more intensive treatment than they need and failing to appropriately match treatments with risk. Over time, this entraps people in the criminal justice system unnecessarily and reduces drug courts’ potential to meaningfully reduce crime (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Cherry picking low-risk cases for drug treatment has also resulted in racially biased outcomes. Because of the ways racial bias is embedded in the American criminal justice system, young white defendants have historically been more likely to be assessed as low-risk and eligible for specialised treatment than participants of colour. Participants of colour who were selected for drug court programming also tended to flunk out or leave voluntarily at higher rates than white participants.

In response to these trends, drug courts developed a toolkit on equity and inclusivity to examine the data and understand why this was happening. They introduced HEAT (Habilitation Empowerment Accountability Therapy), a new drug treatment modality geared towards young black men which was recently evaluated with very positive results. They have also worked harder generally to ensure that treatments are culturally appropriate for the different populations they serve.

Drug courts have also become more sophisticated at treating different kinds of drug addiction. The Matrix Model, for example, was developed to engage a particularly difficult population – stimulant (methamphetamine and cocaine) users – in treatment. Previously considered “untreatable” by many drug courts, stimulant users treated using the Matrix Model have shown statistically significant reductions in drug and alcohol use, risky sexual behaviors associated with HIV transmission, and improved psychological well-being in a number of studies (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020; National Institute of Drug Abuse 2020).

Drug court judges who once took a “blaming and shaming” approach have shifted towards a more people-centred one, as evidenced by changes in the language used to describe participants. In response to research in the medical sector demonstrating that people who are described as addicts receive lower quality care and fewer prescriptions, drug courts have increasingly replaced the term “addiction” with “substance use disorder” (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In line with this shift, attitudes towards medically assisted drug treatment have also changed dramatically over the years. Whereas most drug courts previously did not allow the use of methadone in treatment, the field has now clearly adopted medically assisted treatment after finding that it was consistent with improved graduation rates, among other outcomes. Though not universally accepted, it is now considered a best practice supported by decades of research (Ibid).

On a more systematic level, a 2007 analysis of performance measurement data collected by the state of Wyoming provides an example of how drug courts have started to use this data to improve the quality of their treatments and overall impact. Based on results related to the key measures of drug court performance introduced in the previous section – retention, sobriety, in-program recidivism and units of service – the NCSC made a number of programmatic recommendations for drug courts across the state. First, they suggested that drug courts aim to support participants’ education and employment-related needs, as both attainment of a diploma and employment at admission to treatment were associated with increased graduation rates. They also recommended that additional resources be made available for young participants of colour, who were found to have higher rates of positive drug tests and recidivism than young white participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 17).

Innovations + Delivery Models

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts scaled their people-centered service delivery model to deliver justice outcomes for a larger population.

Many problem-solving courts across the US continue to start in the way the first problem-solving courts did: with judges deciding to do things differently. With that said, the proliferation of problem-solving courts across the country can be traced to three primary factors: science and research; technical assistance; and changes in legal education.

Research has helped bring problem-solving courts to scale by showing that the problem-solving approach to justice, if properly implemented, can be effective. Research on procedural justice and advancements in understanding of the science of addiction have been particularly important in this respect. Increased awareness of major studies in these areas have helped the field shift towards evidence-based working and helped legal professionals learn from past mistakes. More and more judges realise that relapse is part of recovery, and that mandated treatment within a drug court structure delivers positive outcomes for participants (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Once a number of problem-solving courts had been established around the country, technical assistance providers emerged to help them take a data-driven approach. This means working with communities to look at the numbers and identify the biggest crime problems they are struggling with and introducing a problem-solving court that is responsive to those issues. It also means using screening and needs assessment tools to make informed sentencing decisions and match participants to appropriate treatments. Technical assistance has helped problem-solving courts increase their impact and effectiveness and over time deliver outcomes for larger populations (Ibid).

As problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center have become better known, law students and young legal professionals have become more aware of and enthusiastic about problem-solving justice as an alternative to adversarial ways of working (Ibid). This represents a significant shift from the early days of problem-solving courts, when judges and lawyers alike were reluctant to embrace non-conventional conceptions of their roles as legal professionals. Prosecutors called problem-solving courts “hug-a-thug” programs. Defence attorneys resisted the idea of a court being a cure-all for their clients. Judges insisted that they “weren’t social workers” and shouldn’t be doing this kind of work (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Service providers were concerned too: they feared that involving the justice system in treatment would ruin their client relationships.

Over time, judges have come to see that their roles could expand without violating something sacrosanct about being a judge. In 2000, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators adopted a resolution supporting the use of therapeutic justice principles. Since then, experience presiding over a drug court has come to be seen as a positive in judicial elections (Ibid).

Despite early concerns that problem-solving courts were “soft on crime,” prosecutors and defense attorneys have largely come on board as well. Research has demonstrated that when problem-solving courts acknowledge their gaps in knowledge and defer to service providers for clinical expertise, they can be successful in supporting treatment. As a result of advances in research, the emergence of problem-solving technical assistance, and important cultural shifts, drug and mental health courts are now widely recognised as appropriate and welcome additions to the field (Ibid). This acceptance has facilitated their spread nationally and as far as Australia and New Zealand.

Court numbers are not the only relevant measure for evaluating the extent to which problem-solving courts have successfully scaled, however. In addition to horizontal scaling of courts across the country, vertical integration of problem-solving principles and practices within particular jurisdictions is an important indicator of problem-solving courts’ spread and influence (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As explained in the introduction, the principles and practices of problem-solving justice can be and are increasingly applied by traditional justice actors and in existing, non-specialised courts. Police departments across the country are learning that they can divert defendants to treatment from the get-go, without necessarily waiting for a case to be processed through the courts (Ibid). A prominent example of police-led diversion is LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) in Seattle, “a collaborative community safety effort that offers law enforcement a credible alternative to booking people into jail for criminal activity that stems from unmet behavioural needs or poverty” (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, n.d.). The Seattle LEAD model was externally evaluated and found to deliver a range of positive outcomes for individuals with justice system involvement and the community (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-a). The model has been replicated successfully and is now operating in over thirty-nine counties in the US (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-b).

Cases that do reach court are also increasingly diverted outside of it. Prosecutors and judges who are not operating within a problem-solving court can nevertheless apply problem-solving principles by linking defendants to services and making use of alternative sentences in lieu of jail time. This “problem-solving orientation” has allowed problem-solving justice to be applied in more instances and settings without necessarily setting up new problem-solving courts. One indication that problem-solving courts have already scaled “horizontally” in the US – and that this “vertical” scaling is the latest trend – is the fact that the US government’s drug courts funding solicitation in 2020 no longer includes a category for the creation of a new drug court (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Evidence of this trend towards vertical scaling can be found as far away as Australia. As a specific alternative to horizontal replication, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) has developed resources to support judges at the Melbourne Magistrates Court to adopt a problem-solving approach to their work. Over time, this court has become a “laboratory of experimentation” for problem-solving principles and practices as well as other complementary technologies (i.e. therapeutic or procedural justice approaches)  that need to be tested before broader roll-out. In a similar vein, New York City’s courts have carried the innovative principles and practices of community courts into centralised courthouses in Brooklyn and the Bronx rather than creating more Red Hooks (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts funded their service delivery model in a sustainable way?

Drug courts have been successful in obtaining large and sustainable streams of federal funding due to the strong research partnerships they developed from the start. Early data collection and evaluation persuaded funders that the problem-solving approach would deliver positive outcomes and save money by reducing incarceration costs. The fact that Florida Attorney General  Janet Reno – who set up the nation’s first drug court in 1989 – worked with Assistant Public Defender Hugh Rodham (7) in Miami Dade County also helped make drug courts a success and capture the attention of the federal government early on.

Importantly, federal funding for drug courts was often conditional upon their participation in rigorous evaluations. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the drug court model in a way that may not have been possible had the drug courts had to fund the research themselves, and justified their continued funding (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). In recent years, states and counties have become a significant source of funding for drug courts as well  (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Although the federal government has also helped fund other types of problem-solving courts, drug courts are by far the most sustainably funded. Only recently has the government made it possible for community courts to apply for direct funding, or indirect funding as subgrantees of the Center for Court Innovation. The long-term funding for many community courts is provided by local municipalities (Ibid). Funding community courts is a unique challenge because in addition to standard line items like project director and case worker salaries, they must find a way to cover less conventional expenses support for community volunteers and circle participants (often in the form of food, which the government is not willing to fund) (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Direct federal funding for other kinds of problem-solving courts is very limited. What funding has been made available to them has gone primarily towards research and the establishment of state-level coordinators and problem-solving court infrastructure. This has helped to increase awareness of the problem-solving principles and practices at the state level and encouraged their application in different areas (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Private foundations have supported various aspects of problem-solving justice initiatives in certain parts of the country, but have not yet committed to doing so in a sustained way (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts leveraged the following sustainable financing strategies: public-private partnerships and smart (user) contributions?

Community courts in New York – including the Red Hook Community Justice Center and the Midtown Community Court – have benefitted from public-private partnerships to the extent that their planning and operations have been led by the Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership between the New York court system and an NGO. Over the years, these courts have also partnered with local “business improvement districts” to supervise community service mandates and offer employment opportunities to program graduates (Ibid).

Some treatment courts do also charge a nominal participant fee, which can range from $5-$20 per week (Wallace 2019). These user contributions can be used for grant matching, among other things. Charging people for their participation in problem-solving programming is generally not regarded as good practice, however (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

More broadly, problem-solving courts and community courts in particular can be said to be financially sustainable in that they often save taxpayer money (Wallace 2019). Although it takes time to realise the benefits of the upfront costs of creating and running a drug court for example, research has demonstrated that once established, the associated cost savings range from more than $4,000-$12,000 per participant (Office of National Drug Court Policy 2011). The Red Hook Community Justice Center alone was estimated to have saved local taxpayers $15 million per year (primarily) in victimisation costs that were avoided as a result of reduced recidivism (Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo 2018). The cost savings associated with problem-solving courts have helped them to continue to be competitive applicants for federal, state and local, and sometimes private grant funding over the years and in spite of changing political winds (Wallace 2019).

• Enabling environment

How and to what extent have regulatory and financial systems created/enabled by the government supported problem-solving courts and made it possible for this service/activity to scale?

Most if not all states in the US have allowed drug courts to become part of state legislation, which makes possible their continued operation (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

How and to what extent have the outcomes-based, people-centered services delivered by problem-solving courts been allowed to become the default procedure?

Problem-solving courts have not been allowed to become the default procedure in that adversarial courts and procedures remain the standard way of responding to crime in the US. In the words of Judge Hora, “There is no question that the number of people served is growing, but this remains only a drop in the bucket. For every person served there are 6-7 who aren’t” (Ibid). However, the expanding presence of problem-solving courts has helped the justice sector shift away from the excessively punitive state sentencing laws and tough-on-crime rhetoric of the late 1980s towards a more restorative and evidence-based way of working (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Problem-solving courts have enabled cultural change by demonstrating to lawyers and judges that defendants do better when they are able to access treatment, while at the same time allowing these traditional legal players to act as intermediaries and retain a gatekeeping role. As discussed in previous sections, police, prosecutors, and judges alike have grown increasingly comfortable with diverting cases from the adversarial track to community-based treatment (Ibid).

It is a paradox that the US has developed and spread the problem-solving courts model as the country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Former Senior Advisor of Training and Technical Assistance at the Center for Court Innovation, Julius Lang, speculates that this punitive backdrop is what has allowed alternatives to incarceration to flourish in the US and become so highly developed. At the same time, countries with lower baseline penalties that have set up problem-solving courts, such as Canada and Australia, have developed creative means of engaging defendants who need treatment since there is less of a threat of incarceration (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts stimulated (or benefitted from) investment into justice research and development?

Problem-solving courts have both stimulated and benefited from investment into justice research and development. As discussed in the previous sections, the success of problem-solving courts in the US can be attributed in large part to their strong research partnerships. 

From the start, “problem-solving courts always took responsibility for their own research and their own outcomes” (Ibid). Problem-solving justice initiatives run by the Center for Court Innovation, for example, always worked directly with researchers. This produced a huge amount of evaluation literature, which was important for securing the buy-in and funding necessary to continue operating (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020). 

The fact that federal funding has incentivised high-quality evaluations has also gone a long way to build a foundation of evidence demonstrating drug courts’ effectiveness (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Leadership + Pathways

How and to what extent have justice sector leaders’ skills and collaborations enabled/hindered problem-solving courts to increase access to justice by delivering the outcomes people need at scale.

Strong leadership has been essential to problem-solving courts’ ability to deliver the treatment outcomes people need at scale. Without the leadership of visionary judges and other leaders aiming to do things differently, they would never have come into existence in the first place. 

Because of the tendency to maintain the status quo, individual problem-solving courts also rarely get off the ground without a strong champion. The reason for this can be traced to problem-solving principles and practices themselves: the goal is not to force people to change, but to make them change because they want to. In the same way, effective leaders can persuade system actors that problem-solving justice is the way to achieve common goals (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Community courts in particular require strong leadership. This can sometimes pose problems for the courts’ long-term stability. For example, a community court in North Liverpool was championed by prominent national politicians. Their leadership was important for the court’s establishment and initial funding, but changes in national leadership and the lack of local support were major factors in the court’s ultimate closure (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As mentioned above, community courts may struggle when their early champions move on. To avoid this and prepare for the eventual departure of the personalities who are driving change, it is important to put the courts’ internal ways of working into writing. As previously discussed, it is also necessary to obtain evidence that the court’s approach works, as this is a more important driver of funding than good leadership in the long-run (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Mid-level leadership within problem-solving courts also matters. Since staff are often employed and supervised by various partner agencies – rather than the director of the project as a whole – it is particularly important that they be selected with care, trained in the project’s mission, policies and practices, and incentivised to work as part of a single team (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/benefited from new high-level strategies or pathways towards people-centred justice in the US?

High-level strategies at the state level and in the form of technical assistance have benefitted problem-solving courts significantly by facilitating their replication. This is particularly true of drug courts, for which state-wide coordination mechanisms were set up at an early stage.

Recognising that substance use disorder was a major problem, and persuaded by the same research as federal legislators, state officials began to set up mechanisms that would allow them to receive federal drug court funding. This also allowed them to strategise about which counties would most benefit from drug courts (or other problem-solving courts), and which standards to impose. 

Together, state-wide coordination mechanisms created an infrastructure for the improvement and replication of drug courts nationwide, and made it easier to apply problem-solving practices and principles in new settings. Whereas trainings on brain science and what’s working in treatment used to be reserved for drug court judges, there are now few states that do not include them in judicial training for all new judges. The same can be said for trainings for prosecutors, defence attorneys, and service providers (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

The emergence of technical assistance providers specialising in problem-solving justice such as the Center for Court Innovation, Justice System Partners, the National Center for State Courts, and the Justice Management Institute have also helped problem-solving courts to coordinate and replicate in strategic ways. By developing listservs and organising conferences, these organisations have enabled people in various problem-solving courts to support each other across state and international lines. Over time, these efforts have created shared principles and legitimacy around the movement for problem-solving justice (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/played a role in a broader paradigm shift towards people-centered justice?

As mentioned in the introduction, a fifth key feature of the problem-solving orientation is system change. By educating justice system stakeholders about the nature of behavioural problems that often underlie crime and aiming to reach the maximum number of cases within a given jurisdiction, problem-solving courts seek to make broader impact within the justice system and community (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 32-33).

Since the first drug court was set up in 1989, legal professionals have become increasingly aware that many people with social problems end up in the justice system: a system that was never intended to address those problems. Problem-solving courts have contributed to a broader paradigm shift towards people-centred justice to the extent that they have helped these professionals:

• Acknowledge this issue;
• Recognise that lawyers are not equipped to deal with this issue (American law schools do not prepare them to);
• Connect with service providers in the community;
• Leverage the coercive power of the justice system in a positive way;
• Encourage success in treatment programs using procedural justice.

By taking a collaborative approach to decision-making, delivering individualised justice for each participant while at the same time holding them accountable, educating staff, engaging the broader community, and working to produce better outcomes for people, problem-solving courts have demonstrated what people-centred criminal justice can look like in the US and around the world.

View additional information

(1) Methadone is a synthetic opioid used to treat opioid dependence. Taking a daily dose of methadone in the form of a liquid or pill helps to reduce the cravings and withdrawal symptoms of opioid dependent individuals.

(2) “A screening tool is a set of questions designed to evaluate an offender’s risks and needs fairly quickly…An assessment tool is a more thorough set of questions administered before an offender is matched to a particular course of treatment or service.” Taylor 2016, p. 7.

(3) “The main monitoring tool community courts use is compliance hearings, in which participants are periodically required to return to court to provide updates on their compliance.” Taylor, 2016, p. 9.

(4) “Community courts have promoted the use of technology to improve decision-making. Technology planners created a special information system for the Midtown Community Court to make it easy for the judge and court staff to track defendants…Information that’s reliable, relevant, and up-to-date is essential for judges to make the wisest decisions they can.” Taylor 2016, p. 12-13.

(5) In community courts, “judges often speak directly to the offender, asking questions, offering advice, issuing reprimands, and doling out encouragement. This reflects an approach known as procedural justice…Its key components, according to Yale Professor Tom Tyler, are voice, respect, trust/neutrality, and understanding.” Taylor 2016, p. 15.

(6) “Community courts emphasize working collaboratively with the community, arguing that the justice system is stronger, fairer, and more effective when the community is invested in what happens inside the courthouse.” Taylor 2016, p. 22.

(7) Hugh Rodham was the brother of Hillary Clinton, who would become the First Lady a few years later.

View References

Amanda Cissner and Michael Rempel. (2005).  The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond ‘Do They Work?’ , Center for Court Innovation.

Brett Taylor. (2016). Lessons from Community Courts: Strategies on Criminal Justice Reform from a Defense Attorney . Center for Court Innovation, p. 3.

Cheryl Wright, (n.d.). Tackling Problem-Solving Issues Across the Country . National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Cynthia Lee, Fred Cheesman, David Rottman, Rachael Swaner, Suvi Lambson, Michael Rempel and Ric Curtis. (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center . National Center for State Courts, Center for Court Innovation, p.1.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Four) . Justice Speakers Institute.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part One) . Justice Speakers Institute.  

Dawn Marie Rubio, Fred Cheesman and William Federspiel. (2008). Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art . National Center for State Courts, Volume 6, p. 1.

George Mair and Matthew Millings. (2011). Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre . Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review, 27(4).

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 5, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 14, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Jay Jordens, Education Program Manager – Therapeutic Justice, Judicial College of Victoria, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Judge Peggy Hora, President, Justice Speakers Institute, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Julius Lang, Senior Advisor, Training and Technical Assistance, Center for Court Innovation, October 28, 2020.

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) , King County.

LEAD National Support Bureau, (n.d.). Evaluations . 

LEAD National Support Bureau. (n.d.). LEAD: Advancing Criminal Justice Reform in 2020 .

Mark Halsey and Melissa de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review 27 (4). 

Matthew Leone, Net widening , Encyclopaedia of Crime and Punishment, SAGE Reference.

National Institute of Drug Abuse (2020). The Matrix Model (Stimulants) , Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide

Office of National Drug Court Policy. (2011). Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice .

Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel and Adam Mansky. (2010). What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice . Center for Court Innovation, p. 1

Red Hook Justice News. (2016).  Bridging the Gap: Youth, Community and Police . 

Sarah Matusek. (2017). Justice Center celebrates Bridging the Gap birthday . The Red Hook Star Revue. 

Sarah Murray and Harry Blagg. (2018). Reconceptualising Community Justice Centre Evaluations – Lessons from the North Liverpool Experience . Griffith Law Review 27 (2).

Suzanne Strong and Tracey Kyckelhahn. (2016).  Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 . Bureau of Justice Statistics.

US Government and Accountability Office, 2005.

Table of Contents

• Case Studies:
• Casas De Justicia Colombia
• Local Council Courts in Uganda
• LegalZoom in the US
• The Justice Dialogue
• Methodology

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law Tel: +31 70 762 0700 E-mail: [email protected]

• Solving & preventing
• Justice services
• Data by country

Privacy Overview

• Contributors
• African Parliamentary Knowledge Network
• Scholarship
• Submissions

The Problem-Solving Legislature

in Legislative Operations , Opinion March 7th, 2018

Former Boston University Law Professors Ann and Robert Seidman, also conceived of law making in problem-solving terms. See, e.g., Ann Seidman & Robert B. Seidman, Instrumentalism 2.0: Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change , 5 Legisprudence 95 (2011). The Seidmans developed a “four-step, problem-solving methodology . . . [for] designing legislation aimed at ameliorating perceived social problems” Id. at 100. The eight-step methodology that I propose below bears some similarities and some differences to that of the Seidmans. The most significant difference between the two theories is focus.  The Seidmans’ methodology is focused on how a drafter can craft a piece of legislation oriented around the behaviors of relevant actors, thereby achieving desired social change. See id. at 133-140. My methodology is focusesd more on the substantive solution a legislature decides to implement, and less on the drafting of that solution into a bill. They focus on the legislative drafter. I focus on the legislative process.

To this end, I have formulated the following outline of an effective problem-solving process. These steps were inspired, in part, by the scientific method , and the Eight Discipline Problem Solving process developed by the Ford Motor Company to resolve problems in a manufacturing environment. My eight steps are:

• State the problem or goal.
• Understand the problem (gather and analyze relevant data).
• Propose, discuss, and refine prospective solutions.
• Critically assess those solutions (Considering things such as costs, value, risks, and likelihood of success).
• Select and implement the most advantageous solution.
• Measure the results of the implemented solution.
• Communicate success.
• Identify the next problem or goal to address.

These steps could be used to develop a legislative solution in the following manner:

Problem statements in the early stages may be broad, and refined, as the process proceeds, into a more specific goal.

This step would likely be completed by a legislative committee. It is important for the committee to do more than reach out to experts, interest groups, and lobbyists for opinions and selective data. The committee must identify the relevant data that it needs to understand the problem, gather that data, and critically analyze it—which may require consulting experts in statistical analysis.

With a deep understanding of the problem, the committee should generate a wide range of solutions. Creativity is particularly valuable at this stage.

• Critically assess those solutions.

The legislature should assess the potential solutions using cost-benefit analyses, addressing constitutional limitations, and analyzing questions of political viability.

At this step, the Legislature must weigh two broad categories of considerations: (1) The results of the critical assessments completed in Step 4; and (2) The critical assessments performed by other problem solvers (other committees) working to solve other problems. Budgetary constraints may not support the most ambitious solution to every problem a legislature tackles. Accordingly, the solutions selected should be the best array of solutions possible within budgetary restraints.

Designing a prospective solution requires identifying how to measure the success of that solution. This requires a method to monitor the solution after implementation.

• Communicate success [or failure].

Representative democracy benefits from an informed citizenry. Communicating the results of legislation ensures that citizens are aware of, and understand, what their government is doing and what needs to be done. Further, communicating legislative success can have a benefit within the legislature itself, by making other legislators aware of solutions that have worked to solve other problems.

Measuring and reporting the effects of new legislation informs legislators and the public, giving new insight and revealing other, related problems. These newly identified problems require the legislature to return to Step 1.

Some might argue that what I have just described is what Legislatures actually do. They identify problems, gather information, and craft bills in light of what they have learned. The difference is in the details. It seems to me that the substance of much of the legislation that gets drafted is inspired by political ideology, perceived constitutional concerns, and political deal making. Each of these considerations likely belong in the legislative process. They should not, however, limit the range of solutions that legislatures consider. Rather, legislatures should seek to consider as broad a range of potential solutions as possible. Those solutions should be inspired by rigorous research, not politics. When political or constitutional considerations drive a legislature to select one solution over another, it should be clear what solutions they are passing over in favor of the ideological or politically expedient choice.

One way to effectuate this goal is to take advantage of problem-solving methodologies from a wide range of disciplines when attempting to solve problems (draft legislation). The Seidmans’ suggestion that drafters should consider the behaviors of various individuals has a place in this methodology. Their process is not, however, the only tool that can, or should, be applied to legislative problems. In a future post, I will present a problem-solving tool from the world of manufacturing that could be usefully inserted into the legislative process as part of instituting a problem-solving mindset.

I conclude by asking what expectations we should have for legislators in a representative democracy. I submit that we should expect them to make informed decisions. We should expect them to base solutions to problems on rigorously collected and analyzed information, and to enshrine those solutions into law. The problem-solving mindset that I advocate for would help to achieve this goal.

Tagged Eight Discipline Problem Solving , evidence-based legislation , Ford Motor Company , problem solving , Professor Ann Seidman , Professor Robert Seidman

• Administrative Law (11)
• Analysis (108)
• Budget & Appropriations (13)
• Civil Litigation (2)
• Conference (3)
• Criminal Law (3)
• Education Law (1)
• Election Law (3)
• Environmental Law (6)
• Federal Legislation (70)
• Financial Law (1)
• Health Law (10)
• Housing Law (4)
• International Law (2)
• Legal Education (3)
• Legislation Abroad (2)
• Legislation in Court (22)
• Legislative Operations (14)
• Legislative Oversight (8)
• Lobbying (6)
• Local Legislation (22)
• Opinion (14)
• State Legislation (85)
• Transportation (1)
• Uncategorized (9)
• April 2024  (1)
• January 2024  (4)
• August 2023  (4)
• March 2023  (1)
• July 2022  (2)
• February 2022  (9)
• December 2021  (1)
• November 2021  (1)
• August 2021  (3)
• July 2021  (1)
• June 2021  (4)
• January 2021  (6)
• August 2020  (1)
• June 2020  (5)
• May 2020  (17)
• January 2020  (3)
• December 2019  (1)
• April 2019  (7)
• February 2019  (5)
• December 2018  (1)
• November 2018  (1)
• July 2018  (14)
• June 2018  (6)
• March 2018  (11)
• February 2018  (1)
• December 2017  (1)
• July 2017  (6)
• June 2017  (4)
• May 2017  (3)
• February 2017  (2)
• September 2016  (1)
• July 2016  (4)
• May 2016  (2)
• January 2016  (5)
• December 2015  (1)
• August 2015  (1)
• July 2015  (8)
• March 2015  (3)

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Partisan Coalitions
• 2. Views of government and the nation

Table of Contents

• 1. Views of the major problems facing the country
• 3. Views of the economic system and social safety net
• 4. Views on race and immigration
• 5. Gender, family and marriage, same-sex marriage and religion
• 6. Views of foreign policy
• 7. Domestic policy: Taxes, environment, health care
• Methodology

In broad assessments of government, the American public expresses more support for an active – rather than limited – role for government and sees a need for government regulation of business. At the same time, concerns about waste and inefficiency are widely held. Republicans and Democrats are far apart in how they view government, particularly when it comes to how large a role it should play.

Overall, 55% of U.S. adults say that government should do more to solve problems, while 43% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.

Large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78%) say the government should do more to solve problems; only 21% say it is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. Liberal Democrats (85%) are especially likely to support an active role for government; 72% of conservative and moderate Democrats also say the government should do more.

By contrast, most Republicans prefer a limited role for government: 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say that government is doing too many things better left to individuals and businesses, compared with 28% who say it should play a larger role. Eight-in-ten conservative Republicans say government is doing too many things better left to others. Views among moderate and liberal Republicans are more mixed: 58% say government is doing too many things, while 40% say it should do more to solve problems.

There are also sizable demographic differences in these views, with large shares of younger adults, blacks and Hispanics saying government should do more to solve problems.

Black and Hispanic adults both overwhelmingly say the government should do more to solve problems; at least seven-in-ten or more in each group say this. In contrast, whites are more divided: 51% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, while 48% say the government should do more to solve problems.

By about a two-to-one margin, adults under age 30 say the government should do more to solve problems (65% vs. 34%). Older adults are more likely to say the government is doing too many things, including 54% of adults 65 years of age and older.

When asked to consider other aspects of government’s role and performance, a majority of Americans say government is inefficient. However, a comparable share also says there’s an important role for government to play in regulating business.

Overall, 56% say government is almost always wasteful and inefficient, compared with 42% who say it often does a better job than people give it credit for. Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans say government is wasteful and inefficient. Views among Democrats are more divided: 47% say the government is almost always wasteful and inefficient, while about as many (51%) say it often does a better job than it gets credit for.

A majority of the public (58%) says that government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest; fewer (41%) say government regulation of business usually does more harm than good. The partisan divide in these opinions is even larger than in views of government efficiency: 75% of Democrats say government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, while 61% of Republicans say it usually does more harm than good.

Views of the reasons for America’s success

About half of U.S. adults (52%) say the United States has been successful more because of its ability to change; a slightly smaller share (46%) says the nation’s success has more to do with its reliance on long-standing principles.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 63% say reliance on principles has more to do with why the United States has been successful. Democrats and Democratic leaners take the opposite view: 64% say the country has been successful more because of its ability to change.

There are sizable differences in views within both parties by ideology. A large majority of conservative Republicans (75%) say the country’s reliance on principles has more to do with its success, while just 24% say it is more because of its ability to change. Views among moderate and liberal Republicans tilt in the opposite direction: 54% cite the country’s ability to change, while 45% point to reliance on principles.

Among Democrats, 74% of liberals say the nation’s ability to change has more to do with its success than its reliance on long-standing principles; a smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats take this view (56%).

Views also differ significantly by age. Adults under age 50 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to say the country’s ability to change has more to do with its success than its reliance on long-standing principles.

Younger adults in both parties are more likely than older people to say the country’s ability to change is the primary reason the nation has been successful.

About seven-in-ten Democrats under age 50 say the country’s success is attributable to its ability to change. This compares with 59% of Democrats ages 50 to 64 and 45% of those ages 65 and older.

Among Republicans, just 28% of those ages 65 and older say the ability to change has more to do with the country’s success. Larger shares of younger Republicans take this view, though majorities of Republicans across age groups point to reliance on long-standing principles as the bigger reason for the country’s success.

Views of the country’s ability to solve its problems

Overall, 55% of adults say that “as Americans, we can always find ways to solve our problems and get what we want.” A smaller share (44%) says “this country can’t solve many of its important problems.”

About six-in-ten Republicans (62%) are optimistic that Americans can find ways to solve their problems. However, among Democrats, about as many say the country cannot solve many of its important problems (50%) as say it can (49%).

Few Americans say other countries are better than the U.S.

Most Americans (79%) say either that the U.S. “stands above all other countries in the world” (24%) or that it is “one of the greatest countries, along with some others” (55%). About two-in-ten (21%) say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

Four-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world; another 51% say it is one of the greatest countries, along with some others. Just 9% of Republicans say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

Views among Democrats and Democratic leaners are not as positive: Just 10% say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world, and 58% say it is one of the world’s greatest countries. About three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say there are other countries that are better than the U.S. Liberal Democrats (43%) are about twice as likely as conservative and moderate Democrats (21%) to say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

Across age groups, older adults are more positive about the United States’ global standing. For instance, 91% of those 65 and older say either that the U.S. stands above all other countries (34%) or is one of the greatest countries in the world (57%). Among those ages 18 to 29, a smaller majority (63%) says the U.S. is the greatest (15%) or one of the greatest (47%) countries in the world.

Long-term opinion trends about government

In recent years, Pew Research Center has transitioned from probability-based telephone surveys to the American Trends Panel , a probability-based online panel. The transition from phone surveys conducted with an interviewer to online self-administered surveys brings with it the possibility of mode differences – differences arising from the method of interviewing.

This section includes opinion measures about government performance and regulation, as well as views of the country’s ability to solve its problems. These questions, which have long-standing telephone trends, were included on a survey conducted in September on the American Trends Panel (ATP), on which this report is largely based, and a contemporaneous telephone survey.

In the online survey, 56% say government is almost always wasteful and inefficient, while 42% say it often does a better job than people give it credit for. There is a 21 percentage point partisan gap, with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents saying that government is almost always wasteful and inefficient, compared with about half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (47%). Views in the phone survey, overall and within both partisan groups, are nearly identical.

Overall public sentiment about government efficiency has been generally stable for more than a decade, with narrow majorities consistently saying that they view the government as wasteful and inefficient. However, there has been some movement in views among partisans, generally coinciding with changes in party control of the White House.

The share of Republicans saying government is wasteful and inefficient is now somewhat lower than it was during the Obama administration. However, Republicans’ perceptions of government wastefulness during George W. Bush’s presidency were lower than they are today.

Democrats have shifted in the opposite direction since Trump took office and are now somewhat more likely to see government as wasteful and inefficient than they had been in previous years. Still, Democrats offered more critical assessments of government during George W. Bush’s second term than they do today.

Another long-standing trend (dating to 1994) asks about whether government regulation of business “is necessary to protect the public interest” or “usually does more harm than good.”

The American Trends Panel survey finds that 58% say government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, while 41% say it usually does more harm than good. In the phone survey, 48% say regulation is necessary, while 44% say it does more harm than good. The share offering no opinion is higher on the telephone survey (7%) than on the online survey (just 2%), a commonly observed mode difference.

The partisan gap is similar in the two formats (online: 37 percentage point gap in the share saying government regulation is necessary, telephone: 36-point gap). The telephone trend shows that the partisan gap in these views is relatively unchanged over the last eight years, but is substantially wider than it was in the 1990s (when the question was first asked) and early 2000s.

Overall, 55% of the public takes the view that “as Americans, we can always find ways to solve our problems and get what we want,” while 44% say “this country can’t solve many of its important problems.” On the telephone survey, 59% are optimistic about Americans’ ability to solve problems, while 37% say the country can’t solve many of its own problems.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say Americans can always find ways to solve their problems; the size of the partisan gap is similar on the telephone and online surveys.

The telephone trend shows that the partisan gap in these views has fluctuated over the last quarter century: In August of 2016, when the question was last asked, Democrats were slightly more likely than Republicans to take the optimistic view, and in 2014 there was no difference between the partisan groups on this question.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Issue Priorities
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Ideals & Systems
• Political Parties
• Political Polarization

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

State of the union 2024: where americans stand on the economy, immigration and other key issues, americans’ top policy priority for 2024: strengthening the economy, asian american voters prioritize candidates’ policy positions over their racial identity, inflation, health costs, partisan cooperation among the nation’s top problems, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 53

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Government Alone Can’t Solve Society’s Biggest Problems

• William D. Eggers and Paul Macmillan

We need a new, more collaborative economic system.

Rising obesity. Human Trafficking. Re-skilling the workforce. A lack of quality education and safe water for the poor in the developing world. Whose job is it to solve these problems?

• WE William D. Eggers leads Deloitte’s public sector research and is the author of eight books. Paul Macmillan is the global Public Sector leader for Deloitte Touche Tomatsu. They are the authors of The Solution Revolution: How Business, Government, and Social Enterprises are Teaming up to Solve Society’s Toughest Problems .

Partner Center

• News & Events
• Student Design Challenge Contest

How to read the Roadmap

Start here if you are coming to the Roadmap for the first time.

The 7 Themes

Explore our framework for civics and history education.

The 5 Design Challenges

Embrace the complexity of curricular design.

Implementing the Roadmap in your classroom

Design robust curricula tailored to your students. 

• by grade level
• by driving question
• by resource type
• Take Action
• Download Report & Roadmap

Interactive Roadmap

• Learn to read the roadmap

The Seven Themes

The five design challenges.

• Educator Resources
• Design Challenge Art Contest
• Download Report & Roadmap

Home » The Roadmap » The Seven Themes

The Roadmap

The aim of the Roadmap is to provide guidance that shifts content and instruction from breadth to depth by offering an inquiry framework that weaves history and civics together and inspires students to learn by asking difficult questions, then seeking answers in the classroom through facts and discussion for a truly national and cross-state conversation about civics and history to invigorate classrooms with engaging and relatable questions.

The Seven Content Themes map out the disciplinary and conceptual terrain, as well as the skills and dispositional learning needed to support healthy civic participation.

The Five Design Challenges span the seven themes and state honestly and transparently some of the rich dilemmas that educators will encounter as they work with the content themes and instructional guidance.

• The Seven Themes ?
• The Five Design Challenges ?

Civic Participation

Our changing landscapes, we the people, a new government & constitution, institutional & social transformation, a people in the world, contemporary debates & possibilities.

This theme explores the relationship between self-government and civic participation, drawing on the discipline of history to explore how citizens’ active engagement has mattered for American society and on the discipline of civics to explore the principles, values, habits, and skills that support productive engagement in a healthy, resilient constitutional democracy.

This theme focuses attention on the overarching goal of engaging young people as civic participants and preparing them to assume that role successfully.

Overarching Thematic Questions

• How have Americans come together in groups, made decisions, and affected their communities, the country, and the world?
• How can that history inform our civic participation today?
• What are the responsibilities and opportunities of citizenship and civic agency in America’s constitutional democracy?
• How can I participate?

Key Concepts and Questions by Grade

Key concepts.

• Learn and evaluate the characteristics of leadership
• Define components of a healthy community and the rights and responsibilities of community members
• Participate in a community through building relationships, making change, and problem-solving
• Learn about civic friendship and the benefit of compromise
• Develop media literacy skills to evaluate evidence and weigh claims

History Driving Questions

History sample guiding questions, civic driving questions, civic sample guiding questions, explore resources.

Introducing kindergarteners to their new classroom community

Inquiring Minds Institute

Katharina Matro, a high school social studies teacher who grew up in Germany, explains how consistent and open education about the Holocaust has shaped her own commitment to democracy and her love of country. Matro also serves as a member of the Teaching Division of the American Historical Association's governing council.

American Historical Association

In this learning resources, students will delve into the women's suffrage movement and use different historical accounts to understand the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Students will also consider which groups were left out of the suffrage movement and the importance of voting patterns today.

New American History

Children often lack knowledge and skills necessary to interact with each other, especially when confronted with differences in mobility, hearing, sight, developmental skills or verbal skills.

Learning for Justice

This learning resources focuses on the Polio vaccination in the 1940s and 1950s and the problems this epidemic posed to public health. Students will also compare this to the current global pandemic and the debates around the COVID-19 vaccine.

• Analyze leadership through past and present examples of change-makers
• Analyze strategies and examples of civic participation, including instances of participation by those without full political rights
• Engage as active community members and examine the tensions between personal interests and civic responsibilities
• Build civic friendship through informed civil dialogue and productive disagreement
• Analyze the past and present role of the media in shaping civic participation, including the importance of using credible sources

This lesson provides students with a variety of materials to learn about the polio epidemic and it has them draw connections between that event and the current pandemic.

iCivics, Inc.

From telegraphs to television to Twitter, how, why, and when presidents address the nation and global community has changed across U.S. history. This lesson examines the messages and mediums used by presidents and asks students to engage in point of view and change over time analyses as part of their evaluation.

National Endowment for the Humanities

This activity and resource collection guides students through answering a document-based question about the March on Washington. Using 6 supporting documents/images and a page of historical background, students answer the question, "Is the March on Washington evidence of the power of grassroots organizing or of charismatic leadership?"

Smithsonian National Museum of American History

This inquiry leads students through an investigation of political issues and political parties. By exploring the compelling question about how well political parties represent individuals, students consider their own political ideology as a lens for learning about the extent to which political parties address international and domestic issues.

C3 Teachers

This theme begins from the recognition that American civic experience is tied to a particular place, and explores the history of how the United States has come to develop the physical and geographical shape it has, the complex experiences of harm and benefit which that history has delivered to different portions of the American population, and the civics questions of how political communities form in the first place, become connected to specific places, and develop membership rules.

The theme also takes up the question of our contemporary responsibility to the natural world.

• How has our geographic, social, economic, and political landscape changed over time?
• How has the land we inhabit—from our local community to states and territories to the American republic—changed over time, and how have we shaped it?
• What different perspectives are there on those changes (see History Thematic Question), and on the benefits and costs of those changes?
• What principles and values do Americans invoke in our debates about these issues?
• Examine personal, familial, and societal connections between people, place, and history
• Understand personal connections to the values and norms that define various political communities
• Understand Indigenous histories and community connections to land
• Examine how land and people shape each other

Too often we look back at the way people lived and evaluate the past in terms of the technology that dominates our lives today. We ask: Imagine life without automobiles or electric lights or running water. No refrigerators, washing machines, radio, television, or movies? No computers, CDs, cell phones or credit cards? How did they survive? If that is how you want to approach the past, ask yourself this: what invention do we not have that will make Iowans of the future look back and wonder how made it through the day?

State Historical Society of Iowa

In this lesson, students practice their sourcing, corroboration and close reading skills by examining two diary entries of Spanish explorers involved in the Portola Expedition. Students are asked to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses in using these diary accounts to understand the purpose of the expedition and life for Native Americans across California in the 18th century.

Standford History Education Group

The physical landscape shapes the food people eat, the homes they build, the way they move around and the environment they live in. Students will investigate environmental history, which involves understanding relationships — and sometimes trade-offs — people make with the landscapes around them. Students also will use the perspectives of a historian, economist, geographer and political scientist to analyze images and documents.

In this learning resource, students will engage with the different histories of Fort Monroe in Hampton Virginia. Students will interpret the multiple historical events that occurred at Fort Monroe, starting with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans to North America to its formation as a safe haven for enslaved people during the Civil War.

This is a fourth grade resource that guides students through the diverse experiences of immigrants that traveled to New York in the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth century. Students will use primary sources to form an argument to answer the question: Did the American Dream come true for immigrants in New York?

This lesson plan examines the life of Catharine Paine Blaine, missionary, schoolteacher, and women’s rights activist who traveled from Seneca Falls, New York to Washington Territory in the 1850s. Students will examine primary sources and make connections to their own experiences, mapping the route that the Blaines took to reach Seattle from Seneca Falls.

Washington State Historical Society

• Examine how borders change over time and the consequences of U.S. territorial expansion
• Compare and contrast the characteristics of political communities and societies (e.g., laws, religions, rights, economic structures, cultural norms)
• Analyze Indigenous understandings of land stewardship, economic activity, property, and prosperity
• Analyze the impact of people, policy, and cultural norms on landscape and climate

In this lesson, students will analyze the visual and literary visions of the New World that were created in England during the early phases of colonization, and the impact they had on the development of the patterns of colonization that dominated the early 17th century. This lesson will enable students to interact with written and visual accounts of this critical formative period at the end of the 16th century, when the English view of the New World was being formulated, with consequences that we are still seeing today.

This unit looks at migration patterns in the United States in from the 18th century through the 20th century. Students will look at the interactions between Native people and European settlers in the cessions of Indigenous lands. They will also engage with the forced migration of enslaved people into the South.

This learning resource uses geospatial technology to investigate how products and resources in the thirteen colonies depended on location. Students will also use the geospatial resource to follow the population growth of the thirteen colonies throughout the 1700s.

This theme explores the idea of “the people” as a political concept--not just a group of people who share a landscape but a group of people who share political ideals and institutions. The theme explores the history of how the contemporary American people has taken shape as a political body and builds civic understanding about how political institutions and shared ideals can work to connect a diverse population to shared processes of societal decision-making.

The theme also explores the challenge of e pluribus unum: forging one political people out of diverse experiences.

• Who are “We the People of the United States” and how has the nation’s population changed over time?
• What does our history reveal about the aspirations and tensions captured by the motto E pluribus unum?
• Why does constitutional democracy depend on the idea of “the people”?
• What values, virtues, and principles can knit together “We, the People” of the United States of America?
• Explore the diversity that makes up the American community
• Discuss why we have government, and explore the relationship between people and their government
• Examine definitions of citizenship
• Explore the history of inclusion and exclusion of “the people” and access to citizenship
• Learn about the conflicts and histories of oppression and power, and explore constructive ways to discuss hard histories

Students will explore what it means to be responsible in a variety of settings. These lessons will focus on how to be responsible at home, in school, in the community and in the world. Students also will work together to establish classroom/school rules and determine how to be a responsible citizen to improve their community.

A primary source set guiding students in exploring their identities.

This learning resource investigates Harriet Tubman's life and legacy through historical documents and media. Students will compare the history told in textbooks to the reality of Tubman's incredible resistance as an abolitionist.

• Explore what it means to say that “the people” rule in a constitutional democracy
• Cultivate understanding of personal values, principles, commitments, and community responsibilities
• Explore the challenges and opportunities of pluralism, diversity, and unity within the U.S. and abroad
• Examine the values, civic virtues, principles, and role of the people in creating good governance at various levels
• Analyze the impact of enslavement, Indigenous removal, immigration, and other hard histories on definitions of and pathways to citizenship
• Explore the causes and consequences of different groups’ marginalization from participation in the polity
• Evaluate the extent to which marginalized groups have won incorporation into “the people” and advanced the shared values and principles of the U.S.

Students will learn about the history of the holiday of Juneteenth, analyze text sources that reveal important symbolism and rituals in Juneteenth commemorations, and reflect upon the significance of Juneteenth as an American holiday.

The Choices Program

The African-American Civil Rights movement is typically seen as having taken place mostly in the 1950s and 60s, when a confluence of social and economic factors enabled political change. The movement, however, has much deeper roots, and thus our toolkit starts in the 19th Century, some two generations before leaders like King, Parks, and others were born. Viewing the Civil Rights movement as a generational one provides a broader perspective on the ideas and people at the foundation of this work to achieve “a more perfect union” for all Americans.

Ashbrook/TeachingAmericanHistory

We’re collecting New Deal Curricula for High School and College courses. Please contact us if you would like to contribute to our collection. We would like to help disseminate curricula and teaching aids across the country.

Living New Deal

This theme explores the institutional history of the United States as well as the theoretical underpinnings of constitutional design.

• How did the U.S. government form and how have civic participants changed its shape over time?
• What is a constitution and what is its purpose?
• What is power?
• What are rights (natural rights, human rights, civil rights, etc.)?
• What is law?
• What is constitutional democracy?
• Explore the experiences and interests of various groups before and during the American colonial period
• Analyze arguments for and against U.S. independence from Great Britain
• Examine the principles/purpose of constitutional democracy and the extent to which U.S. constitutional democracy has lived up to those principles
• Explore concepts of fairness, unfairness, freedom, and equality in classrooms, communities, and governments.
• Explore why the U.S. form of government is so complex, embracing several levels and parts of government

In this lesson, students will learn about the judicial branch and legal processes in the court room. Students will also engage in a mock trial using contentious issues in the classroom.

National Constitution Center

This lesson builds on previous lesson, continuing to develop the students’ understanding of the Constitution by examining the Bill of Rights. The narrative provides an historical background for the writing of the first ten amendments, as well as the reasons why each amendment was seen as crucial to the states accepting the Constitution.

This lesson will help students understand why the Founders thought a republican form of government was best. Students will also learn about civic virtue and the common welfare.

Center for Civic Education

Using the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul as a landmark, students will analyze the structure as the primary source for learning about its significance. The lesson will combine writing, art, and historical context.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania

In this lesson, students will examine some of the fundamental ideas about government that are contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. When they have completed this lesson, students should be able to explain those ideas and identify which ideas the class holds in common.

• Analyze the ideas and debates about rights, power, civic participation, and decision-making that shaped the Revolution and the framing of the Constitution
• Evaluate the changing relationship between the U.S. Constitution and treaties with Indigenous nations
• Explore past and present efforts to adapt and redesign the U.S. Constitution and political institutions over time
• Explore the relationships between equality, equity, justice, freedom, and order in American constitutional democracy
• Develop an understanding of the purpose, processes, strengths, and weaknesses of U.S. government and politics
• Analyze the role of groups without formal decision-making power in influencing change in the U.S. government

This lesson outlines a role-playing activity intended to help students better understand the perspectives of individual delegates at the critical point when they were debating representation at the Constitutional Convention.

George Washington's Mount Vernon

A lesson plan that facilitates discussion amongst students about the challenges George Washington faced as the first President of the United States.

Students will investigate the powers of the Presidency in the Constitution, as outlined in the "Federalist Papers".

In this lesson, students learn about the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison and its lasting ramifications for judicial review by analyzing and discussing segments of John Marshall's opinion.

Students will be able to identify and explain aspects of the Equal Rights Amendment debate including various legal and societal considerations.

C-SPAN Television Networks/C-SPAN Classroom

Institutional & social transformation - a series of refoundings.

This theme explores how social arrangements and conflicts have combined with political institutions to shape American life from the earliest colonial period to the present, investigates which moments of change have most defined the country, and builds understanding of how American political institutions and society changes.

• Is the American Revolution ongoing?
• How and why has the United States transformed its basic political, legal, economic, and social arrangements over time?
• How do you evaluate when changes are significant enough to count as a refounding?
• What is a just society?
• How do laws and social structures change?
• How can the Constitution be changed formally and informally? (and how can your state constitution or other charter be changed?)
• What political and economic ideas have contributed to these changes?
• Analyze why and how communities change and the causes and consequences of conflict.
• Examine people's role in social & institutional transformation
• Examine the institutional and extra-institutional strategies that people have used to make changes to society
• Explore the impact of American pluralism and unity on rules and institutions

An inspiring story about a black, female journalist breaking barriers while seeking truth, justice and equality. This book highlights Ethel's journey from young journalist to White House correspondant, and her legacy of asking the tough questions that mattered most in the fight for Civil Rights.

National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

• Explore the extent to which the U.S. has made progress in expanding rights and legal statuses for various groups over time, including changes to the Constitution and other charters
• Examine the historic and current relationships between formal politics and social movements, including the relationships between political, economic, and civil rights
• Evaluate specific moments of change as examples of refounding the United States
• Explore formal and informal revisions to America’s constitutional system, and the sources of such changes

This lesson plan attempts to dissolve the artificial boundary between domestic and international affairs in the postwar period to show students how we choose to discuss history. Students will examine a variety of primary source documents used inside the United States and abroad during the Cold War and the concurrent civil rights movement, to see how these documents can be used as evidence for both Cold War and civil rights issues in several different ways.

This online presentation highlights the fight over a woman’s right to vote by illustrating the arguments made by suffragists and their opponents.

Massachusetts Historical Society

This theme explores the place of the U.S. and the American people in a global context, investigating key historical events in international affairs,and building understanding of the principles, values, and laws at stake in debates about America’s role in the world.

• What does it mean to be a nation among nations?
• How has the United States dealt with different types of external relationships (conflictual and cooperative) across its history?
• What is our influence in the world—diplomatic, economic, military, and cultural—and how has the wider world shaped the United States?
• How do American constitutional principles influence the conduct of foreign policy?
• How has United States foreign policy changed across our history?
• How was the role of the executive branch changed across our history?
• Examine the causes and consequences of U.S. cooperation and conflict with other nations (past and present)
• Develop capacity to see international conflicts and their consequences from multiple perspectives
• Analyze various strategies for working with or against other nations (e.g., international orgs, military intervention, diplomacy)

This primary source set can be used in conjunction with other secondary sources to gain a complete picture of Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor and the immediate response of American sailors, airmen, divers, and nurses.

Emerging America - Collaborative for Educational Services

In this lesson, students analyze primary source archival footage to explore the politics of the atomic bomb and the policy of containment, propagated paranoia related to the spread of communism, the nuclear arms race and détente, as well as the fall of the Berlin Wall and decline of the USSR.

Texas Archive of the Moving Image

This unit plan highlights how patterns of immigration are both similar and different for immigrant groups coming to America, using a diagram and PowerPoint Presentation that details the progression of the immigrant experience that serves as a model for a variety of immigrant groups. Included in the set is a Universal Design for Learning chart and an extensive annotated list of primary source documents from the Library of Congress provide a visual reinforcement of the immigrant journey both before, during, and after their arrival in the United States.

• Analyze various strategies for working with or against other nations (e.g., international agreements, diplomacy, international trade, protectionism, war)
• Examine the roles of national interest, human rights, and notions of justice when countries interact
• Explore how the U.S. has acquired and used its power and influence in the world, both positively and negatively
• Analyze how America’s founding principles and constitutional structures, and revisions to these over time, shape foreign policy
• Develop understanding of contemporary debates about how the U.S. should exercise its power and influence around the world and balance domestic and international interests

In this lesson, students will investigate the the confluence of factors, including the quickening pace of industrialization, urbanization, increasing immigration, and a growing presence on the world stage that faced America in the late 19th Century. These pressures gave rise to various political movements, each seeking to provide answers to the most serious questions of the day. Overall, Americans found answers to these issues in the ideas of the Progressives. From both major political parties, the Progressives offered solutions to economic, social, and political problems, in some ways using and in others changing the American system of government that had existed for a century at that point.

Through the use of primary and secondary sources, students will understand the impact that World War I had on Arkansas.

Arkansas Digital Archives

In this lesson, students learn about the events surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, simulate the Senate's debate about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and ultimately consider overarching questions about presidential power and decision-making in American foreign affairs.

A People with Contemporary Debates & Possibilities

This theme explores the contemporary terrain of civic participation and civic agency, investigating how historical narratives shape current political arguments, how values and information shape policy arguments, and how the American people continues to renew or remake itself in pursuit of fulfillment of the promise of constitutional democracy.

• How does knowledge of the American past—including of our constitutional forms and principles, as amended—help us to think about important political and economic debates today, including climate change and conservation, mass incarceration, individual rights and liberties, property and taxation, societal health and order, and political polarization?
• What are key current events and policy debates in our constitutional democracy?
• What values and principles underpin different positions on them? How do people engage with issues they care about?
• How can we ensure our sources of information about these questions are accurate and fair? What effects can misinformation have on contemporary debates?
• Explore elections and understand the reasons why individuals run for office
• Understand contemporary debates around the purpose and role of government and civic participation, including voting
• Explore debates and perspectives on how we tell our personal, community, and national histories and why they are important
• Analyze the relationship between individual perspectives and public debates
• Explore the relationships between hard histories and contemporary debates
• Cultivate an understanding of personal interests, motivations, and decisions as civic agents
• Build strategies for learning about current events, issues, and debates
• Explore the role of bias, truth, and the media in becoming informed civic participants
• Understand how fundamental American principles—and continuing debates about them—shape current policy debates

Don't have an account yet? Register

Already registered? Login

Download the Roadmap and Report

Download the Educating for American Democracy Roadmap and Report Documents

Get the Roadmap and Report to unlock the work of over 300 leading scholars, educators, practitioners, and others who spent thousands of hours preparing this robust framework and guiding principles. The time is now to prioritize history and civics.

Your contact information will not be shared, and only used to send additional updates and materials from Educating for American Democracy, from which you can unsubscribe.

What kinds of issues do local governments solve?

Local governments have a host of issues to solve on an ongoing basis. Municipal governments are made up of many different departments including housing, roads and transportation, library, building and zoning, planning, public works, police, fire, water, sewage, education and more. Councils do their best to stretch the tax dollars so that they do the most good for the most people. In today's world, it's necessary for local governments to look for ways to increase efficiency.

One of the most viable ways to increase efficiency at the local level is to be innovative in how they can use technology to best meet the needs of the community.

How Much Do Citizens Rely on Technology?

Local citizens have come to rely on technology to manage nearly every facet of their lives. Most people do their banking and pay their bills online. They check in with the children's activities and school programs online. It's becoming more common for people to use technology for dating, entertainment, and socializing.

Would you believe that YouTube users upload over 300 hours of content every minute? Twitter sends out approximately 6,000 tweets every second and Google processes around 40,000 search queries every second!

These statistics call to mind, 'What kind of problems would local governments try to solve if they only had the right technology?'

Dr. Stephen Goldsmith is employed by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government where he works as the Daniel Paul Professor of the Practice of Government and the Director of Innovations in American Government Program.

Goldsmith current directs Data-Smart City Solutions which is a project that features the efforts of local governments to use technology to connect big data analytics with input from the community to encourage citizen engagement. Goldsmith is also the author of 'The Responsive City: Engaging Communities Through Data-Smart Governance and director of Data-Smart City Solutions.' Goldsmith believes that budget-strapped local governments can be revolutionized by the power of data.

'Cities are facing more demands for services ever and there are fewer resources to provide those services,' Goldsmith said. 'Yet at the same time, the technological breakthroughs are at a scale we did not even see four or five years ago. With the combination of the use of big data, wireless tools and other technological changes made available to local and state governments, there is an ability to transform services.'

Examples of Problems that Local Governments Solved Using Technology

Innovative local governments have already found ways to tap into technology to solve some of the problems in their communities.

As you enter any public space, you're likely to find a host of teens and adults with their heads bent down and their noses in their mobile phones. Over 90% of United States citizens own a mobile device with texting capabilities and over 60% of the population own smartphones. Believe it or not, the average smartphone user checks their phone over 100 times per day.

Overall, text messaging it the easiest way for local government to reach a specific population and it's an efficient way to increase citizen engagement.

For example, the city of Boston had a major problem with potholes that were damaging cars. The city implemented an electronic app where citizens could report the location of a pothole via an app on their iPhones.

Citizens simply take a photo of the pothole on their iPhone and use the app to send it the public works department. Public works employees receive a copy of the pothole and make a plan to fix it. They can also send a notice to a tracking mechanism at the City Hall office to ensure that it gets repaired. Citizens automatically receive a message that the city received their request. Citizens can also use the app to find where the pothole was located and when it got fixed.

In Seattle, the King County Parks Department also found a way to use technology to create efficiency. They implemented a mobile app that allows hikers to get access to park maps that they can access on any electronic device, anyplace, and at any time.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Michigan has a program where hunters can text in and find information about the nearest check location. The system even works without smartphones and the internet. It works great for hunters and the DNR can more efficiently control the deer population.

In a whitepaper called ' Top Challenges and Solutions by State and Local Governments ' by govloop.com, it describes an example of how an electronic app could be used to re-route bus riders. A local government could use an app for all people with bus passes. If they need to re-route people due to road construction, weather conditions, or some other reason, they could simply text people who have bus passes, tell them their normal route isn't available and outline the alternate route. The government could also ask for feedback such as whether their new route was successful, whether the alert was helpful, and how it impacted their commute. This is a prime example of how citizen feedback can help inform local government decision-making.

Starting with a Transparency Portal: Basic Technology that Every Local Government Needs

Implementing the Transparency portal by iCompass is the best first step your local government can take to engage in the community through innovation and technology.

Local governments are already hosting a vast amount of data and citizens regularly ask for some of it through FOI requests. With a portal that seamlessly integrates with your municipal government website, citizens won't even be aware that the portal is a separate online space that was created just for their use.

The portal will soon become their 'go-to' place where they can do a simple search and automatically retrieve FOI documents they want and are legally entitled to have. While using the portal, they may just pull up the last set up council meeting agenda and meeting minutes. The site also directs them to a YouTube channel where they can watch current and past council meetings in progress, complete with timestamps so they can quickly find the information they're looking for.

iCompass is the 'go-to' company that can answer your questions about how technology can solve problems as the local government level.

Solutions Solutions

• Board Management
• Enterprise Risk Management
• Audit Management
• Market Intelligence

Resources Resources

• Research & Reports

Company Company

Your data matters.