U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

September 2016, NCJ 249803

Census of Problem-Solving 

Courts, 2012

Suzanne M. Strong, Ph.D., and Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statisticians

Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D., Former BJS Statistician

I

n 2012, the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 

Census of Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC) 

counted 3,052 problem-solving courts in the 

United States (figure 1). The most common types of 

problem-solving courts were drug courts (44%) and 

mental health courts (11%) (figure 1). Most courts 

(53%) reported that they were established prior to 

2005, including drug (64%), youth specialty (65%), 

hybrid DWI/drug (63%), and domestic violence 

(56%) courts.

Problem-solving courts are a relatively recent 

development in the U.S. criminal justice system. These 

courts were created to address underlying problems 

that result in criminal behavior. Problem-solving 

courts are typically diversionary, meaning that a 

participant agrees to follow the guidelines of the court 

to avoid prosecution, incarceration, or other typical 

criminal justice outcomes. The criminal problemsolving court concept has been extended to civil and 

family court, such as family dependency matters, and 

to address the needs of certain populations, such as 

justice-involved veterans.

HIGHLIGHTS

 In 2012, 65% of all problem-solving courts accepted

cases after the defendant entered a guilty plea.

 More than half (56%) of problem-solving courts

in 2012 did not accept applicants with a history of

violent crime and nearly two-thirds (65%) did not

accept applicants with a history of sex offenses.

 In 38% of veterans courts and 11% of domestic

violence courts, applicants with a history of violent

crime were ineligible.

 Fifty-three percent of all problem-solving courts

active in 2012 were established prior to 2005.

 Most veterans courts (55%) were established

between 2011 and 2012.

 Participants in problem-solving courts spent a

median of 1 year in the program in 2012.

 Overall, 57% of all problem-solving courts reported

that more than half of the exits were successful

program completions.

 Twenty-one percent of youth specialty courts

reported that 100% of participants completed the

program in 2012.

 Successful program completion commonly

included dismissal of the case (61%) or a suspended

sentence (40%).

 Fewer than half (44%) of all problem-solving

courts tracked participant progress after program

completion in 2012.

0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500

Number of courts

Type of court

Otherb

Tribal wellness

Veterans

Domestic violence

DWI

Hybrid DWI/druga

Youth specialty

Family 

Mental health

Drug 1,330

337

261

244

217

183

170

133

146

31

Figure 1

Problem-solving courts, 2012

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a 

driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 

2012.

Revised October 12, 2016
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 2

The CPSC was sent to 3,633 problem-solving courts thought 

to be operational in 2012 in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. Of 

the originally targeted courts, 3,052 were in existence in 2012 

and 2,793 responded to the survey. (See Methodology for 

more information.)

On behalf of BJS, staff at the National Center for State Courts 

emailed respondents to explain the CPSC project and provided 

a hyperlink to the online questionnaire. For courts that were 

Problem-solving court definitions and distribution by state

Problem-solving courts were established to treat other 

underlying causes of crime (e.g., drug addiction, mental 

health issues, or homelessness) or to address the needs of 

specific populations (e.g., veterans).

Problem-solving courts that met each of the following 

conditions were included in the 2012 census:

 used therapeutic justice1 to reduce recidivism

 operated within the judiciary

 led by a judicial officer

 had an exclusive docket

 had participants that were admitted or that exited in 

2012, or indicated that it was operational but did not have 

eligible participants enrolled in 2012.

In the 2012 Census of Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC), 

a problem-solving court was defined as specialized 

program or docket that operates within a jurisdiction or 

set of jurisdictions. A single jurisdiction could run multiple 

problem-solving courts, or multiple jurisdictions could 

participate in a single problem-solving court. The unit of 

count for the survey was the problem-solving court. If 

a problem-solving court had participants from multiple 

jurisdictions, it was counted once. If one jurisdiction runs 

three distinct problem-solving courts, then three problemsolving courts were counted.

The CPSC identified many types of problem-solving courts. 

Often, these courts can be classified under more than one 

type. For example, a juvenile drug court in Indian country 

could also be labeled as a tribal wellness court. In these 

situations, the respondent’s self-classification was used. 

For a small number of surveys in which the respondent 

did not affirmatively indicate a primary attribute, the 

problem-solving court was classified using other responses. 

Problem-solving courts were classified using the 

following typology:

 Drug courts handle an underlying drug problem 

contributing to criminal behavior using nontraditional 

judicial proceedings and treatment with team-based 

services. These courts include adult drug courts, juvenile 

drug courts, and reentry drug courts, which could either 

address adult or juvenile populations.2

 Mental health courts divert defendants with mental 

illness, traumatic brain injury, or developmental 

disabilities into judicially supervised, community-based 

treatment. Mental health courts include adult mental 

health courts, juvenile mental health courts, and adult 

co-occurring disorder courts.

 Family problem-solving courts (referred to as family 

courts) handle juvenile or family court cases of child 

abuse or neglect, adjudication of parental rights, or 

custody and visitation, in which parental substance abuse 

is a contributing factor.

 Youth specialty courts serve juvenile offenders and 

address underlying issues that result in court involvement. 

Youth specialty courts include youth/teen courts and 

truancy courts.3

 Hybrid driving while intoxicated (DWI)/drug courts handle 

alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders who have also 

been charged with a driving offense.

 DWI courts focus on changing the behavior of the 

alcohol-dependent offender or offenders with a high 

blood alcohol content who were arrested for DWI or 

driving under the influence. DWI courts include juvenile 

DWI courts.

1Therapeutic justice focuses on rehabilitating offenders using some form of 

counseling and on minimizing punishment. 

2Although one juvenile drug court was located on tribal lands, it selfidentified as a juvenile drug court and was counted in that category and 

not as a tribal wellness court.

3Seven courts that specifically served youth ages 16 and 17 who were 

charged in adult criminal courts were classified as youth specialty courts.

unwilling or unable to complete the survey online, a paper 

questionnaire was mailed later in the data collection process 

or at the respondent’s request. The respondent was directed 

to answer one questionnaire per problem-solving court. If 

respondents had multiple problem-solving courts under 

their control, they were to complete a separate questionnaire 

for each court. (See Problem-solving court definitions and 

distribution by state text box.)

Continued on next page
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 3

 Domestic violence courts handle criminal cases that involve 

offenses against persons who are related in some way, most 

often through intimate partnership or family relationship. 

Domestic violence courts include integrated domestic 

violence courts, which combines a docket for both domestic 

violence and family issues (e.g., custody and visitation).4

 Veterans courts serve justice-involved veterans and 

sometimes active-duty personnel. These courts include 

veterans drug courts, veterans mental health courts, and 

general veterans courts.

 Tribal wellness courts are in the tribal justice system and 

incorporate the wellness concept to meet the specific 

substance abuse needs of each tribal community. Tribal 

wellness courts include Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts 

and tribal hybrid courts.

 Other courts include adult community, homelessness, 

general problem-solving (courts that address multiple case 

types and serve a variety of defendants with underlying 

problems), reentry (except reentry drug courts), parole 

violation, gambling, gun, prostitution, elder abuse, and 

other specialty courts. Because this category contains many 

types of courts, it is rarely described in this report.

The number of problem-solving courts varied by state and 

territory in 2012. California (208) and New York (188) had 

the most problem-solving courts (table 1). Vermont (6) and 

Guam (5) had the fewest.

4Two of the five courts classified as domestic violence courts were “other” 

courts that indicated they were youth domestic violence courts. Three were 

hybrid courts handling domestic violence and drug abuse cases.

Problem-solving court definitions and distribution by state (continued)

Table 1

Problem-solving courts, by state and selected U.S. territories, 2012

Jurisdiction All courts Drug

Mental 

health Family 

Youth 

specialty

Hybrid 

DWI/druga DWI

Domestic 

violence Veterans

Tribal 

wellness Otherb

Total 3,052 1,330 337 261 244 217 183 170 133 31 146

Alabama 86 54 7 8 4 0 0 8 2 1 2

Alaska 20 0 4 2 6 2 4 0 1 0 1

Arizona 70 31 7 2 7 3 1 6 2 2 9

Arkansas 55 49 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0

California 208 83 42 26 6 0 11 6 12 1 21

Colorado 85 33 6 13 14 3 8 0 1 1 6

Connecticut 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 2

Delaware 26 9 7 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 3

District of Columbia 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8

Florida 164 68 22 17 38 0 4 5 8 0 2

Georgia 93 40 15 7 1 2 15 0 2 0 11

Guam 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Hawaii 14 6 1 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0

Idaho 70 28 10 4 3 11 6 5 3 0 0

Illinois 97 45 20 1 8 0 1 9 12 0 1

Indiana 64 36 3 4 7 1 0 0 4 0 9

Iowa 34 18 2 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Kansas 15 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0

Kentucky 78 52 3 0 22 0 0 0 1 0 0

Louisiana 54 38 2 2 3 0 5 0 1 0 3

Maine 9 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maryland 52 31 3 5 9 0 3 0 0 0 1

Massachusetts 23 16 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1

Michigan 141 46 11 12 7 16 20 14 9 4 2

Minnesota 44 16 2 6 2 5 7 1 3 2 0

Mississippi 42 18 1 2 9 10 0 1 0 0 1

Missouri 137 62 9 12 3 23 19 4 4 0 1

Montana 21 9 2 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 1

Nebraska 21 13 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Continued on next page
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 4

Problem-solving court definitions and distribution by state (continued)

Nevada 54 17 4 3 1 9 9 0 4 0 7

New Hampshire 23 6 11 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2

New Jersey 27 23 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

New Mexico 57 26 6 3 1 6 7 3 1 2 2

New York 188 50 11 21 7 18 1 59 11 0 10

North Carolina 54 15 6 7 18 0 5 1 0 1 1

North Dakota 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 99 39 31 14 4 1 2 1 3 0 4

Oklahoma 72 20 13 4 2 30 1 0 0 2 0

Oregon 75 34 11 10 2 4 3 5 2 0 4

Pennsylvania 85 27 15 3 4 7 10 1 13 0 5

Puerto Rico 17 11 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0

Rhode Island 7 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 28 21 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0

South Dakota 10 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 0

Tennessee 46 24 3 1 3 10 3 0 2 0 0

Texas 153 42 10 13 16 25 13 6 10 1 17

Utah 58 25 10 16 1 4 0 0 1 0 1

Vermont 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 42 28 4 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 3

Washington 71 29 8 11 4 1 2 5 6 4 1

West Virginia 33 23 0 0 2 6 0 0 1 0 1

Wisconsin 63 18 3 2 7 8 11 1 10 2 1

Wyoming 18 9 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 1

Note: Counts of courts may vary from other sources due to categorical differences. See Methodology. aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes various specialty courts.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

TABLE 1 (continued)

Problem-solving courts, by state and selected U.S. territories, 2012

Jurisdiction All courts Drug

Mental 

health Family 

Youth 

specialty

Hybrid 

DWI/druga DWI

Domestic 

violence Veterans

Tribal 

wellness Otherb
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 5

Development of problem-solving courts

In 2012, a majority (61%) of problem-solving courts were 

located in counties with a population of 100,000 or more

The distribution of problem-solving courts varied by the type 

of court and the size of the population served. In 2012, the 

total resident population in the jurisdiction served by each 

problem-solving court ranged from 3,800 to 9,826,800.5 About 

a quarter of these courts were either in large jurisdictions with 

populations greater than 500,000 or in small jurisdictions 

with populations of 50,000 or fewer (table 2). More than a 

third (36%) were located in jurisdictions with populations 

between 100,001 and 500,000. Large jurisdictions had a 

disproportionately high number of veterans, domestic 

violence, and mental health courts, while small jurisdictions 

had a disproportionately high number of hybrid DWI/drug 

courts and a disproportionately low number of mental health, 

domestic violence, and veterans courts.

1 in 8 problem-solving courts active in 2012 were established 

in 2011 or 2012

Some problem-solving courts that were active in 2012 

reported admitting their first participants as early as 1989. 

Half of problem-solving courts (53%) reported that they 

were established prior to 2005. Nearly two-thirds of drug 

(64%), youth specialty (65%), and hybrid DWI/drug (63%), 

and more than half of domestic violence (56%) courts were 

instituted prior to 2005 (table 3). Existing youth specialty 

courts reported that they were established early in the history 

of problem-solving courts. Half (49%) of youth specialty courts 

reported that they were established before 2001, including 9% 

that were established between 1989 and 1990 (not shown). In 

comparison, veterans, DWI, and mental health courts were 

established more recently. More than half (55%) of veterans 

courts reported being established in 2011 or 2012, and 37% 

reported being founded between 2006 and 2010. More than 

half (54%) of DWI courts reported being established between 

2006 and 2010, and 18% reported being founded in 2011 or 

2012. DWI (72%) and mental health (64%) courts reported 

being established between 2006 and 2012.

Table 2

Population of problem-solving court service areas, by type of court, 2012

Type of court Total 50,000 or fewer 50,001–100,000 100,001–500,000 More than 500,000

All courtsa 100% 23.6% 15.0% 35.7% 25.6%

Drug 100% 30.0 17.5 33.6 18.9

Mental health 100% 7.7 11.3 45.4 35.6

Family 100% 16.5 13.4 43.7 26.4

Youth specialty 100% 25.0 18.0 34.8 22.1

Hybrid DWI/drugb 100% 50.2 17.1 22.1 10.6

DWI 100% 21.9 15.3 39.3 23.5

Domestic violence 100% 9.4 10.0 41.8 38.8

Veterans 100% 3.0 9.0 39.1 48.9

Otherc 100% 11.0 6.8 26.0 56.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

aExcludes tribal wellness courts because population of area served was unavailable.

bHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

cIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 and the U.S. Census Bureau.

5The resident population includes all counties served by the problem-solving 

court. Courts identified as municipal courts included the population of the city 

of the court. 

Table 3

Year problem-solving courts active in 2012 were established, by type of court

Type of court Total 1989–95 1996–2000 2001–05 2006–10 2011–12

All courts 100% 5.1% 17.0% 31.2% 34.4% 12.2%

Drug 100% 5.4 22.9 35.5 28.2 7.9

Mental health 100% 1.5 7.5 27.3 51.4 12.3

Family 100% 1.5 8.8 41.4 40.6 7.7

Youth specialty 100% 22.2 26.8 15.5 25.1 10.5

Hybrid DWI/druga 100% 2.8 17.5 42.9 29.0 7.8

DWI 100% 0.0 7.7 20.2 53.6 18.6

Domestic violence 100% 5.4 15.6 34.7 35.3 9.0

Veterans 100% 0.8 3.1 4.6 36.6 55.0

Tribal wellness 100% 0.0 18.8 31.2 34.4 15.6

Otherb 100% 4.1 7.6 24.8 37.9 25.5

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 99.4% item response rate. See appendix table 1 for standard errors.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense. 

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 6

Admissions to problem-solving courts

In 2012, most problem-solving courts admitted participants 

after a plea was entered

Problem-solving courts varied by the point at which they 

intervene in a case. Some courts took cases that had reached 

a specific processing stage, while others took on cases at 

multiple processing points. Additionally, problem-solving 

courts accepted multiple case types and identified different 

entry points for criminal or civil and family cases. In 2012, 

35% of problem-solving courts accepted a case at filing or prior 

to a plea, while 64% accepted a case after a plea was entered 

(table 4). Most (73%) domestic violence courts accepted cases 

at case filing or prior to a plea. Half (50%) of youth specialty 

courts accepted a case prior to a plea. Most (61%) family 

problem-solving courts accepted a case after a judicial order, 

which can occur at any point during a case’s life-cycle. More 

than 8 in 10 (85%) hybrid DWI/drug courts accepted a case 

after a plea was entered.

In 2012, in most problem-solving courts applicants with a 

history of violent crime or sex offenses were ineligible

Participants had to meet certain criteria to be accepted into a 

problem-solving court. In 2012, most problem-solving court 

participants with a history of violent (57%) or sex (65%) 

offenses were ineligible (figure 2). Domestic violence and 

veterans courts were exceptions to this pattern. The majority of 

domestic violence courts accepted participants with a history 

of violent crime (89%) or sex offenses (88%). The majority 

of veterans courts (62%) accepted participants with a history 

of violence.

Table 4

Point of entry into problem-solving courts, by type of court, 2012

Type of court Pre-plea or at case filing Post-plea

Post-sentence 

or post-releasea Judicial order Otherb

All courts 35.5% 65.1% 35.7% 8.5% 2.4%

Drug 27.1 73.9 44.5 2.1 0.9

Mental health 44.1 73.1 41.1 3.7 0.7

Family 43.3 16.1 12.1 60.7 10.7

Youth specialty 49.5 54.3 11.7 3.2 6.4

Hybrid DWI/drugc 24.0 85.4 40.1 1.6 0.5

DWI 14.7 68.4 41.2 2.3 1.1

Domestic violence 72.8 39.1 14.6 15.9 2.0

Veterans 46.3 81.0 27.3 2.5 3.3

Tribal wellness 29.2 83.3 54.2 16.7 0.0

Otherd 49.2 45.8 36.7 7.5 4.2

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Percentages are based on 96.6% item response rate.

aIncludes entry after violation or revocation of parole. 

bIncludes acceptance on a case-by-case basis, post-referral from outside agency, entry after child adjudicated dependent, and entry after admitting to impaired ability 

to care for child.

cHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense. 

dIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Veterans

Domestic violence

All courts

Violent oense Sex oense

Reason for ineligibility

Percent

57.3

11.2

37.7

65.1

11.8

61.5

Figure 2

Participants ineligible for selected problem-solving courts 

based on prior violent or sex offenses, 2012

Note: Percentages are based on 97.4% item response rate. See appendix table 2 for 

standard errors. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 7

Most problem-solving courts reported that the number of 

active participants was within or below their reported capacity. 

In 2012, 5% of courts with a capacity of 19 or fewer individuals 

operated over that capacity, as did 1% of courts with a capacity 

of 20 to 49 and 4% of courts with a capacity of 50 to 99 

(table 6).

Most problem-solving courts admitted fewer than 

50 participants in 2012 and did not exceed reported capacity

In 2012, courts varied in the number of participants admitted. 

About 3 in 4 courts (72%) admitted fewer than 50 individuals 

in 2012 (table 5). Among domestic violence court, 78% 

admitted 50 or more individuals and 20% admitted 500 or 

more in 2012. The large majority of tribal wellness courts 

(91%) admitted fewer than 20 individuals in 2012.

Capacity was defined as the maximum number of participants 

a problem-solving court could manage. Most problem-solving 

courts (61%) reported a capacity of 20 to 99 participants 

(appendix table 3). Most family problem-solving courts (86%) 

and tribal wellness courts (100%) reported a capacity of fewer 

than 50 individuals. Domestic violence courts were larger, with 

a majority (59%) reporting a capacity of 100 or more.

Among problem-solving courts that reported the number of 

active participants in 2012, more than half (53%) reported 

between 10 and 49 active participants (appendix table 4). 

Tribal wellness courts had the fewest active participants, 

with more than half (52%) reporting nine or fewer. Domestic 

violence courts had the most active participants, with more 

than half (53%) reporting 100 or more.

Table 5

Participants admitted to problem-solving courts, by type of court, 2012

Type of court Total 9 or fewer 10–19 20–49 50–99 100–499 500 or more

All courts 100% 19.4% 23.1% 29.8% 13.2% 11.7% 2.8%

Drug 100% 19.7 25.3 32.1 13.0 9.1 0.9

Mental health 100% 19.6 22.8 32.6 12.0 12.0 1.1

Family 100% 30.0 30.4 25.8 9.2 4.6 0.0

Youth specialty 100% 12.8 12.8 27.4 15.2 25.0 6.7

Hybrid DWI/druga 100% 16.2 27.0 40.5 10.3 5.9 0.0

DWI 100% 17.9 22.0 28.0 21.4 8.3 2.4

Domestic violence 100% 3.4 5.1 13.6 18.6 39.0 20.3

Veterans 100% 32.5 22.8 23.7 11.4 8.8 0.9

Tribal wellness 100% 45.5 45.5 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Otherb 100% 11.7 11.7 23.4 16.0 22.3 14.9

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 89.0% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense. 

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Table 6

Capacity of problem-solving courts, by number of active 

participants, 2012

Active participants 19 or fewer 20–49 50–99 100 or more

19 or fewer 95.1% 50.8% 7.7% 0.6%

20–49 3.3 47.9 50.3 5.2

50–99 1.2 0.7 38.5 27.4

100 or more 0.4 0.6 3.5 66.8

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 94.2% 

item response rate.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 8

Participation in problem-solving courts

In 2012, almost 90% of all problem-solving courts held 

preliminary reviews to discuss participant progress prior to 

the official status hearing

Problem-solving courts met periodically to monitor a 

participant’s progress through the court’s program. Depending 

on the type of court, an official status hearing was held daily, 

weekly, or monthly. The staff in most courts met prior to the 

official court review to discuss the participant’s progress. 

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of all problem-solving courts 

reported meeting at least weekly to review the progress of their 

participants (table 7). Most (91%) problem-solving courts 

required the participant to attend the court hearing. Of these 

courts, 99% reported that the judge interacted directly with the 

participant at the court hearing.

Youth specialty courts and domestic violence courts met on 

a different schedule than most other problem-solving courts. 

Twenty-one percent of youth specialty courts met weekly, 

and 30% met monthly or more than once per month but less 

frequently than weekly (34%). Forty-two percent of youth 

specialty courts reported that the participant was required to 

attend status hearings. Of these courts, 90% reported that the 

judge interacted directly with the participant. More than a 

quarter of domestic violence courts met daily (28%), and more 

than a third met weekly (35%). Eighty percent of domestic 

violence courts required the participant to attend status 

hearings. Of these courts, 98% of domestic violence status 

hearings involved direct interaction between the judge and 

the participant.

Table 7

Characteristics of status hearings, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Frequency of status hearingsa Status hearing interaction 

Type of court Daily

More than 

once per week Weekly

More than once 

per month Monthly Other

Participant 

required to attendb Judge interacted directly with participantc

All courts 4.4% 6.6% 52.1% 27.8% 6.9% 2.2% 90.9% 99.0%

Drug 2.4 6.2 59.2 26.4 3.6 2.1 97.1 99.1

Mental health 0.7 5.6 56.3 25.7 8.9 3.0 97.6 99.7

Family 0.4 4.8 62.6 29.6 1.3 1.3 96.5 99.5

Youth specialty 4.0 8.0 21.0 33.5 29.5 4.0 41.8 89.9

Hybrid DWI/drugd 2.6 6.8 53.6 32.3 4.7 0.0 97.4 100

DWI 2.2 6.7 43.6 44.7 2.8 0.0 97.2 100

Domestic violence 27.6 15.1 35.5 16.4 3.3 2.0 79.6 98.3

Veterans 2.5 2.5 49.2 30.3 13.1 2.5 95.9 100

Tribal wellness 3.8 7.7 57.7 23.1 3.8 3.8 100 100

Othere 19.0 6.6 40.5 15.7 12.4 5.8 77.5 98.9

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. 

aPercentages for frequency of status hearing are based on 98.3% item response rate.

bPercentages for participants, presence at status hearing are based on 96.9% item response rate.

cPercentages for status hearing interactions are based on 88.1% item response rate.

dHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense. 

eIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 9

Most (88%) problem-solving courts reported that staff held 

preliminary reviews of each case prior to status hearings 

(table 8). Forty percent of youth specialty courts and 

45% of domestic violence courts met to review cases prior to 

the official court hearing. Of the courts that held preliminary 

reviews, judges and service providers were present in 93% 

of these reviews, while probation agents were present in 

90%, and prosecutors and defense attorneys were present 

in 79%. Law enforcement officers were present in 40% of 

preliminary reviews.

Substance abuse treatment was the most commonly reported 

service used by problem-solving court participants in 2012

Problem-solving courts reported services used by at least 10% 

of active participants. Most (87%) problem-solving courts 

reported that they offered and participants used substance 

abuse treatment, ranging from 41% of youth specialty courts to 

97% of family courts (appendix table 6). Most (89%) problemsolving courts reported that they offered and participants used 

individual counseling sessions, ranging from 63% of domestic 

violence courts to 96% of tribal wellness courts. Almost threequarters (72%) of all courts offered and participants used some 

form of life skills training (e.g., time management), ranging 

from 40% of domestic violence courts to 92% of family courts. 

In 2012, half (49%) of all problem-solving courts offered and 

participants used anger management programs, ranging from 

26% of DWI courts to 71% of veterans courts.

Table 8

Preliminary reviews and attendance, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court

Preliminary 

review was helda Judge Prosecutor Defense attorney Service provider Probation officer

Law enforcement 

officer

All courts 87.9% 92.5% 79.0% 79.0% 92.5% 89.3% 39.7%

Drug 96.7 96.0 83.6 83.5 92.0 93.6 45.3

Mental health 93.3 89.5 78.7 81.9 96.8 86.3 22.4

Family 97.8 91.9 62.9 71.0 95.0 76.5 17.6

Youth specialtyb 40.2 54.0 39.5 32.9 76.3 55.3 26.3

Hybrid DWI/drugc 97.9 98.9 82.4 80.3 97.3 96.8 58.5

DWI 97.2 97.1 85.5 84.3 94.8 96.5 52.3

Domestic violenceb 45.4 72.5 81.2 59.4 76.8 81.2 15.9

Veterans 91.8 93.8 90.2 92.0 92.9 95.5 40.2

Tribal wellness 100 100 87.5 75.0 100 95.8 70.8

Otherd 72.5 82.8 62.1 64.4 88.5 77.0 33.3

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 5 for standard errors. Percentages are based on 85.2% item response rate.

aPercentages are based on 96.9% item response rate. 

bPercentages for officials attending preliminary reviews are based on less than 50% item response rate. Interpret with caution. 

cHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

dIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 10

Juvenile drug and mental health courts

Drug (1,330) and mental health (301) courts were divided 

into subgroups based on the population served. 

Approximately a quarter of drug courts (23%) and a tenth of 

mental health courts (11%) were designated exclusively for 

juveniles (figure 3).

6 Many court characteristics varied 

depending on whether the court served adults or juveniles.

 Juvenile problem-solving courts were smaller than 

adult courts. In 2012, nearly three-quarters of juvenile 

drug and mental health courts had fewer than 20 active 

participants, compared to roughly a third of adult drug 

and mental health courts.

 Individual counseling services were used in the majority 

of drug courts (94%) and mental health courts (95%), 

regardless of whether they served juveniles or adults.

 The average time in programs was less than 1 year in twothirds of juvenile drug courts (65%) and 1 year or more in 

two-thirds of adult drug courts (69%).

 A significantly higher proportion of juvenile mental health 

courts (59%) tracked program graduates than adult 

mental health courts (41%).

Drug and mental health courts for juveniles were 

smaller than those for adults

The differences in size among adult and juvenile drug and 

mental health courts were significant. Juvenile courts tended 

to be smaller than adult courts. In 2012, 41% of juvenile drug 

courts had a capacity of 19 or fewer participants, compared 

to 10% of adult drug courts (table 9). Conversely, a higher 

proportion of adult drug courts (50%) had a capacity of 50 or 

more participants than juvenile drug courts (11%).

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Adult

Mental health courts

Drug courts

Number of courts

Type of court

36

349

301

981

Juvenile

Figure 3

Drug and mental health problem-solving courts serving 

juveniles or adults, 2012

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

6Seventeen adult drug courts accepted juvenile cases.

Table 9

Size characteristics of drug and mental health problem-solving courts, by type of court and population served, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Court size All courts Total Adult* Juvenile Total Adult* Juvenile

Capacitya 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 or fewer 3.2 2.1 0.9 5.4** 2.0 1.5 6.5**

10–19 17.1 16.1 9.2 35.1** 17.3 14.4 41.9**

20–49 40.4 42.2 40.1 48.2** 45.8 45.5 48.4

50–99 20.1 21.7 26.8 7.7** 20.7 22.7 3.2**

100 or more 19.2 17.9 23.1 3.6** 14.2 15.9 0.0**

Active participants 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 or fewer 18.5 17.8 10.4 38.7** 16.2 13.6 38.7**

10–19 22.1 22.1 17.6 35.0** 21.8 20.6 32.3**

20–49 30.6 33.2 37.7 20.7** 38.0 39.3 25.8**

50–99 13.5 14.1 17.9 3.5** 11.6 12.5 3.2**

100 or more 15.3 12.7 16.5 2.2** 12.5 14.0 0.0**

Note: Includes data from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages for capacity are based on item response rates of 

94.9% for drug and 95.0% for mental health courts. Percentages for active participants are based on item response rates of 98.6% for drug and 97.3% for mental health 

courts. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aDefined as the amount of participants the program can treat at any one time.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 11

Results were similar for mental health courts. Nearly half 

(48%) of juvenile mental health courts had a capacity of 

19 or fewer participants, compared to 16% of adult mental 

health courts. Three percent of juvenile mental health courts 

had a capacity of 50 or more, and none had a capacity of 100 

or more. In comparison, 23% of adult mental health courts 

had a capacity of 50 or more, and 16% had a capacity of 100 

or more.

The difference in the number of active participants was also 

significant. Nearly three-quarters of juvenile drug courts 

(74%) and juvenile mental health courts (71%) had fewer 

than 20 active participants in 2012, compared to about a 

quarter (28%) of adult drug courts and about a third (34%) of 

adult mental health courts. The findings for admissions and 

exits were similar (appendix table 7).

Almost all drug and mental health courts (99%) operated 

at or below capacity (not shown). A majority of juvenile 

drug courts (65%) operated below capacity. Slightly less 

than half of adult drug courts (48%), adult mental health 

courts (44%), and juvenile mental health courts (44%) were 

below capacity.

Individual counseling was commonly used by 

participants in nearly all adult and juvenile drug and 

mental health courts

Some services were offered by drug and mental health 

courts equally for adult and juvenile participants. Individual 

counseling services were the most common and were used 

in the vast majority of drug courts (94%) and mental health 

courts (95%) for both juveniles and adults (appendix table 9).

For most services, the proportion of courts offering these 

services differed significantly between those serving adults 

and those serving juveniles. Services more common for adult 

drug courts included assistance in locating housing (56% of 

adult compared to 15% of juvenile drug courts), assistance 

in accessing benefits (48% compared to 26%), job training or 

assistance (65% compared to 41%), and use of medication 

to treat addiction (27% compared to 11%). In mental health 

courts, these services were also more commonly used by 

adults than juveniles. Conversely, cognitive behavioral 

therapy was used in a significantly higher percentage of 

juvenile mental health courts (81%) than adult mental health 

courts (72%).

Most juvenile problem-solving courts accepted cases 

after sentencing or release

Juvenile problem-solving courts intervened at different 

points in the life cycle of cases than adult problem-solving 

courts. Most adult drug (80%) and mental health (74%) 

courts accepted cases after a plea was entered but prior to 

sentencing (appendix table 11). Significantly more juvenile 

drug (59%) and mental health (68%) courts accepted cases 

after sentencing or upon release than adult drug (39%) or 

mental health (38%) courts. 

Juveniles spent less time in programs than adults

Juveniles spent significantly less time in problem-solving 

court programs than adults. The average time in programs 

was less than 1 year in about two-thirds of juvenile drug 

courts (65%) and juvenile mental health courts (70%), 

compared to about a third of adult drug courts (31%) and 

nearly half of adult mental health courts (49%).

Case dismissal was the most common benefit for 

program graduates

The most common benefit of successful completion of a 

problem-solving court program was case dismissal. Nearly 

two-thirds of all drug courts (65%) and about three-quarters 

of all mental health courts (74%) could dismiss the case 

when the program was completed successfully. About half 

of adult drug courts (47%) and adult mental health courts 

(51%) could suspend sentences, which was significantly 

higher than the proportion of juvenile drug courts (31%) 

and juvenile mental health courts (26%) that offered this 

benefit to graduates. In comparison, a significantly greater 

percentage of juvenile drug courts could expunge records 

upon successful completion (32%), compared to adult drug 

courts (25%).

Most juvenile mental health courts tracked participants 

after program completion

Nearly 6 in 10 juvenile mental health courts (59%) tracked 

program graduates. This was significantly greater than 

the proportion of adult mental health courts (41%) that 

tracked graduates. About half of adult drug courts (52%) 

and juvenile drug courts (48%) tracked participants after 

program completion.

Juvenile drug and mental health courts (continued)
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 12

Funding of problem-solving courts

Most problem-solving courts were funded by state grants or 

through the state budget in 2012

Problem-solving courts reported the percentage of their total 

budgets that came from different sources. Fewer than a quarter 

(23%) of these courts operating in 2012 reported that they 

received some federal grants to support their programs. Four 

percent reported that the court was entirely funded with federal 

grants (table 10). Sixty percent reported receiving funding from 

the state (grants or budget), and 23% reported that the court was 

entirely funded by the state. Twenty percent of problem-solving 

courts reported that up to 50% of their funding came from court 

fees or fines. (See appendix table 1.)

Exits from problem-solving courts

57% of all problem-solving courts reported that more than half 

of the exits in 2012 were successful program completions

More than half (57%) of problem-solving courts reported that 

51% of exits were successful program completions (table 11). 

Two-thirds (66%) of hybrid DWI/drug courts reported that 

51% of exits were successful program completions in 2012. 

In comparison, 62% of family problem-solving courts had 

50% or fewer exits by successful program completions. 

Tribal wellness (26%) and veterans courts (22%) reported 

that no participants successfully completed the court 

program. Veterans courts estimates were based on a low 

response rate to the question and must be interpreted with 

caution. Of the veterans courts that reported no successful 

program completions, 42% were instituted in 2012. Of the 

tribal wellness courts that reported no successful program 

completions, 33% (2 courts) were pilot programs (not 

shown). It is possible that the participants admitted had not 

yet met the requirements of the program by the end of 2012.

Table 10

Proportion of budget for all problem-solving courts, by 

source of funding, 2012

Source of funding Any 1–50% 51–99% 100%

Federal 22.5 12.1 6.2 4.1

State 60.4 19.0 18.9 22.5

Local 40.4 20.0 9.2 11.2

Fees 28.0 23.3 2.5 2.2

Other* 27.7 17.2 4.1 6.4

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 

77.9% item response rate. See appendix tables 13–17 for estimates and standard 

errors.

*Includes sources such as in-kind and other donations, fundraising, tribal 

funding, and private funding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Table 11

Successful program completion, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court

Total number 

of courtsa None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

All courtsb 2, 447 7.9% 5.5% 29.2% 32.1% 17.1% 8.2%

Drug 1,148 6.7 5.6 35.2 35.8 10.9 5.8

Mental health 268 8.9 6.5 30.0 30.8 15.8 8.1

Family 227 9.7 11.7 40.8 22.3 10.2 5.3

Youth specialty 171 2.1 2.1 8.5 19.7 46.5 21.1

Hybrid DWI/drugc 199 2.8 3.4 27.7 44.6 14.1 7.3

DWI 158 7.1 0.6 10.3 32.3 40.0 9.7

Domestic violenced 68 19.4 11.3 19.4 16.1 25.8 8.1

Veteranse 90 21.7 1.2 15.7 26.5 25.3 9.6

Tribal wellness 23 26.3 10.5 26.3 21.1 5.3 10.5

Otherf 96 12.5 5.0 20.0 28.8 16.3 17.5

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 18 for standard errors.

aBased on the weighted responses and rounded to the nearest whole number. 

bPercentages are based on 80.2% item response.

cHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

dPercentages are based on 40% item response rate. Interpret with caution.

ePercentages are based on less than 70% item response. Interpret with caution.

f

Includes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 13

In 2012, most (93%) problem-solving courts reported at least 

one benefit to participants for successful program completion. 

Sixty-one percent of these courts reported case dismissal and 

40% reported a suspended sentence as a benefit (table 12). 

Eighty percent of veterans, 78% of tribal wellness, 75% of 

youth specialty, and 74% of mental health courts reported 

case dismissal as a benefit for successful program completion. 

Twenty-two percent of courts reported that a benefit of 

successful program completion was that the record was 

expunged. Eleven percent of courts reported that a benefit of 

successful program completion was an expedited settlement of 

the case. 33% of family problem-solving courts reported this 

benefit. 

Fifty-one percent of domestic violence courts reported that the 

case was dismissed. In 2012, 50% of DWI courts reported that 

a suspended sentence was a benefit of successful completion 

of court. For veterans courts, 78% reported that case dismissal 

and 64% reported that a suspended sentence were benefits of 

successful completion of the court program. 

A majority of family problem-solving courts (58%) reported 

other benefits of successful completion. Some form of family 

reunification was the most commonly (50%) reported 

other benefit for successfully completing family problemsolving courts in 2012 (not shown). Forty-five percent 

of domestic violence courts reported other benefits of 

successful completion. Fifty percent of DWI courts reported 

other benefits of successful completion. Of these, the most 

commonly reported other benefit was partial or full driving 

privileges restored (12%) (not shown). 

In 2012, less than half (44%) of all problem-solving courts 

reported that they tracked participant progress after program 

completion (figure 4). Eleven percent of domestic violence 

courts and 59% of DWI courts tracked graduates after 

successful completion.

Table 12

Benefits of successful program completion, by type of 

problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court

Case 

dismissed

Sentence 

suspended

Record 

expunged

Expedited 

settlement Othera

All courts 61.3% 39.5% 22.4% 11.1% 34.0%

Drug 65.2 42.6 26.8 7.6 28.8

Mental health 74.1 48.6 22.1 12.1 28.3

Family 45.5 10.3 3.6 33.5 57.6

Youth specialty 75.5 11.7 36.7 4.3 18.6

Hybrid DWI/drugb 56.6 54.4 24.2 13.7 36.8

DWI 13.5 49.7 4.3 7.4 49.7

Domestic violencec 49.3 41.3 21.7 13.0 44.9

Veterans 80.0 55.0 22.5 11.7 35.8

Tribal wellness 78.3 65.2 21.7 4.3 8.7

Otherd 58.7 33.0 12.8 11.0 45.9

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. 

Percentages are based on 93.1% item response rate. See appendix table 19 for 

standard errors.

aIncludes benefits such as case closure, charge reduction, and successful completion 

of probation. 

bHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense. 

cSix percent of domestic violence courts indicated the court is mandated and 

reported no additional benefits associated with court completion.

dIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent of courts

Otherb

Tribal wellness

Veterans

Domestic violence

DWI

Hybrid DWI/druga

Youth specialty

Family 

Mental health

Drug

All courts

Type of court

44.1

50.6

42.6

42.3

27.1

50.0

58.8

11.3

41.0

39.1

32.5

Figure 4

Tracking participant progress after successful program 

completion, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Note: Percentages are based on 97.0% item response rate. See appendix table 20 for 

standard errors. 

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 14

Methodology

Survey overview

The Census of Problem-Solving Courts (CPSC) is the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) first information collection from all 

problem-solving courts in the United States, Puerto Rico, and 

Guam. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) fielded 

the survey on behalf of BJS. The survey defined problemsolving courts as those that—

 used therapeutic justice to reduce recidivism 

 operated within the judiciary 

 had a judicial officer in charge

 had an exclusive docket 

 either admitted participants, had active participants, or 

exited participants between January 1 and December 31, 

2012.

The CPSC collected information about the type of court, 

problems addressed, court capacity, cases accepted, sources of 

funding, services provided, number of admissions and exits, 

and tracking of graduates. Additional information collected but 

not presented in this report included stakeholder involvement 

in court planning, staff, training, presence of a court case 

management system, program evaluation, and demographic 

data on exiting court participants. Demographic data were 

not provided for a sufficient number of participants to provide 

reliable national estimates.

Universe identification

The universe list of problem-solving courts began with the 

National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) directory of state 

problem-solving court coordinators, which is updated every 

6 months. An initial letter was sent to each contact, asking 

them to identify all of the problem-solving courts in their 

state and to provide a court-level contact for each program. 

This file was supplemented and verified by the Council of 

State Governments, Center for Court Innovation, National 

Association of Youth Courts, NCSC, and NDCI. The final list 

was further refined using information from court websites and 

press releases.

The unit of count for the CPSC is the problem-solving court. 

If a single courthouse location operated multiple problemsolving courts, each problem-solving court was counted 

separately. A problem-solving court that sat in multiple 

locations was also counted as a single court.

The original universe list included the 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The 

Virgin Islands did not have any problem-solving courts in 

2012. The U.S. territories of American Samoa and Northern 

Mariana Islands were excluded by design.

Court response rate and court verification

The survey was sent to 3,633 problem-solving courts expected 

to be operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico in 2012. If a court did not respond to 

the survey, staff followed up with phone calls and emails to the 

respondent. The verification process included the type of court. 

If there was no response to the phone calls or emails, and if 

no other person responsible for problem-solving courts could 

confirm the existence of the court, that court was considered 

to be unverifiable and was removed from the universe list. 

After repeated follow-up, 376 nonresponding courts could 

not be verified and were eliminated, leaving 259 verified 

nonresponding courts in the universe. After reviewing 

completed surveys, an additional 204 responding courts were 

excluded because they did not meet the criteria for inclusion.

The final universe contained 3,052 problem-solving courts, of 

which 2,793 responded for an overall 92% response rate. To 

compensate for the 259 nonresponders, all courts except drug 

courts had analytic weights calculated by first stratifying by 

court type and then weighting reporting courts so that their 

weighted counts equaled the universe count of the stratum. 

Due to their large numbers, drug courts were additionally 

stratified into three substrata by the size of population served, 

and analytic weights were calculated in a similar manner 

within population strata as was done with the other court 

types. This led to a slight underestimation of the total number 

of juvenile drug courts and a slight overestimation of the total 

number of adult drug courts because the drug court strata 

did not control for the juvenile or adult distinction, and 6% of 

adult drug courts and 7% of juvenile drug courts did not 

respond. These nonresponse adjustments and the resulting 

analytical weights for each type of court are included in 

appendix table 21.

Item nonresponse

The CPSC included 44 questions. For responding courts, there 

was no discernible pattern to item nonresponse. If a majority 

of items was skipped, the respondent was identified as a 

nonresponder and included in the weighting scheme. Overall, 

the item nonresponse rate for each question was less than 10%, 

unless otherwise noted in the tables.

Accuracy of the estimates

Because the CPSC was designed to be a census of problemsolving courts and included only verified courts, any error 

should come from failure to respond to the survey. Courtlevel (or unit) nonresponse ranged from 2% missing (driving 

while intoxicated courts) to 16% missing (youth courts). To 

account for unit nonresponse, the responses are weighted as 

previously discussed. Because such weighting may introduce 

some error into the estimates, standard errors were estimated 

for every table produced for this report. The standard error 

varies by estimate and type of court. Overall, an estimate with 

a small standard error is considered to be more reliable than 

an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with larger 
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 15

standard errors are considered to be less precise and should 

be interpreted with some degree of caution. All standard 

errors were produced using SUDAAN Statistical Software for 

Analyzing Correlated Data.

Additionally, readers can use the estimates and the standard 

errors of the estimates provided in this report to generate 

a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of 

the margin of error. The following example illustrates how 

standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals:

According to the CPSC, in 2012, an estimated 27.0% of 

youth specialty courts reported that the court tracked 

successful graduates of the program (figure 5). The standard 

error of this estimate is 1.3 (appendix table 20). A confidence 

interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying 

the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, twotailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the 

distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around 

the estimate is 27.0 ± (1.3 × 1.96) or 24.5 to 29.5. In other 

words, if different samples of problem-solving courts using 

the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population 

in 2012, 95.0% of the time, 24.5% to 29.5% of youth 

courts would respond that they tracked graduates. When 

the confidence intervals for the counts of other types of 

problem-solving courts that tracked successful graduates do 

not overlap with the confidence interval for youth specialty 

courts, then those problem-solving courts can be said to 

have different tracking counts than youth specialty courts.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 16

Appendix Table 1

Standard errors table for table 3: Year problem-solving courts were established, by type of court

Type of court 1989–95 1996–2000 2001–05 2006–10 2011–12

All courts 0.14% 0.21% 0.25% 0.26% 0.18%

Drug 0.18 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.19

Mental health 0.20 0.42 0.71 0.79 0.52

Family 0.25 0.56 0.97 0.97 0.52

Youth specialty 1.21 1.29 1.06 1.26 0.89

Hybrid DWI/drug 0.38 0.91 1.19 1.09 0.64

DWI 0.00 0.30 0.44 0.55 0.43

Domestic violence 0.54 0.88 1.15 1.15 0.69

Veterans 0.22 0.44 0.54 1.20 1.24

Tribal wellness 0.00 3.17 3.71 3.82 2.90

Other 0.74 0.97 1.60 1.80 1.62

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 2

Standard errors for figure 2: Participants ineligible for selected 

problem-solving courts based on prior violent or sex offenses, 

2012

Reason for ineligibility

Type of court Violent offense Sex offense

All courts 0.27% 0.26%

Domestic violence 0.76 0.78

Veterans 1.21 1.21

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 3

Capacity of problem-solving courts, by type of court, 2012

Type of court Total 9 or fewer 10–19 20–49 50–99 100–499 500 or more

All courts 100% 3.2% 17.1% 40.4% 20.1% 16.8% 2.4%

Drug 100 2.1 16.1 42.2 21.7 16.3 1.6

Mental health 100 2.0 17.3 45.8 20.7 12.9 1.4

Family 100 3.5 34.4 44.1 12.8 5.3 0.0

Youth specialty 100 14.3 20.9 33.5 13.7 13.2 4.4

Hybrid DWI/druga 100 1.6 15.2 40.3 24.1 15.7 3.1

DWI 100 1.1 12.1 42.0 20.1 22.4 2.3

Domestic violence 100 3.0 5.3 18.2 18.9 43.2 11.4

Veterans 100 3.3 11.6 41.3 24.0 18.2 1.7

Tribal wellness 100 13.6 27.3 54.5 4.5 0.0 0.0

Otherb 100 0.9 13.6 33.6 20.9 26.4 4.5

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 94.3% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 17

Appendix Table 4

Number of active participants, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court Total 9 or fewer 10–19 20–49 50–99 100–499 500 or more

All courts 100% 18.5% 22.1% 30.6% 13.5% 13.1% 2.2%

Drug 100 17.8 22.1 33.2 14.1 11.4 1.3

Mental health 100 16.2 21.8 38.0 11.6 11.9 0.7

Family 100 36.3 29.1 23.9 7.3 3.4 0.0

Youth specialty 100 27.0 20.6 25.4 10.1 14.3 2.6

Hybrid DWI/druga 100 11.9 24.9 33.7 17.1 12.4 0.0

DWI 100 6.8 23.7 34.5 18.1 14.7 2.3

Domestic violence 100 5.5 8.9 15.8 17.1 37.0 15.8

Veterans 100 25.4 20.5 28.7 13.9 9.8 1.6

Tribal wellness 100 52.2 39.1 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0

Otherb 100 10.7 19.8 23.1 16.5 24.8 5.0

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages are based on 97.8% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 5

Standard errors for table 8: Preliminary reviews and attendance, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court

Preliminary 

review was held Judge Prosecutor Defense attorney Service provider Probation officer

Law enforcement 

officer

All courts 0.18% 0.17% 0.24% 0.24% 0.16% 0.19% 0.27%

Drug 0.14 0.15 0.28 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.35

Mental health 0.40 0.51 0.68 0.64 0.30 0.58 0.70

Family 0.30 0.56 0.99 0.93 0.44 0.87 0.78

Youth specialty 1.47 2.35 2.30 2.21 2.00 2.34 2.08

Hybrid DWI/drug 0.34 0.25 0.93 0.97 0.39 0.43 1.20

DWI 0.18 0.19 0.40 0.41 0.25 0.21 0.56

Domestic violence 1.20 1.60 1.40 1.76 1.51 1.40 1.31

Veterans 0.68 0.63 0.77 0.71 0.67 0.54 1.28

Tribal wellness 0.00 0.00 2.76 3.62 0.00 1.67 3.80

Other 1.66 1.65 2.12 2.09 1.39 1.84 2.06

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 18

Appendix Table 6

Services commonly used by problem-solving court participants, by type of court, 2012

Type of service All courts Drug

Mental 

health Family 

Youth 

specialty

Hybrid 

DWI/druga DWI

Domestic 

violence Veterans

Tribal 

wellness Otherb

Treatment

Substance abuse 86.8% 95.5% 77.1% 97.4% 40.8% 94.8% 94.4% 64.5% 95.1% 96.2% 78.0%

Integrated substance abuse and mental 

health treatment 60.4 62.5 85.5 70.9 20.7 56.8 51.1 36.8 84.4 61.5 49.2

Medication as a treatment strategy 28.1 22.5 59.9 37.9 8.2 29.2 19.7 13.2 51.6 30.8 25.4

Counseling

Individual 89.2% 94.0% 94.9% 94.7% 65.2% 95.3% 90.4% 63.2% 95.9% 96.2% 72.0%

Outpatient 59.5 56.1 97.0 62.1 28.8 51.0 44.4 51.3 89.3 61.5 63.6

Cognitive behavioral therapy 57.3 60.1 72.7 64.3 19.6 66.1 57.3 27.6 73.0 57.7 50.0

Crisis stabilization 32.2 25.8 79.5 33.9 9.2 27.6 22.5 16.4 50.0 42.3 33.9

Inpatient mental health treatment 27.6 21.1 66.3 22.5 9.8 18.2 18.0 19.1 68.0 38.5 32.2

Personal

Life skills 71.8% 73.5% 80.5% 91.6% 62.5% 73.4% 59.0% 39.5% 67.2% 73.1% 71.2%

GED class 56.7 66.8 49.2 59.0 23.4 75.5 48.3 21.1 45.9 73.1 61.0

Job training and employment readiness 

program 53.9 58.4 56.6 61.7 17.4 59.4 52.2 16.4 73.8 69.2 66.1

Transportation 50.7 48.8 76.4 74.9 20.1 46.9 51.7 11.2 64.8 65.4 50.0

Locating housing 50.3 44.8 79.8 81.1 7.6 56.3 46.1 15.8 79.5 53.8 55.1

Accessing benefits 48.5 42.2 82.2 72.7 12.0 56.8 39.3 14.5 81.1 38.5 54.2

Health education 32.3 34.2 40.1 41.9 16.8 35.9 28.1 5.3 36.1 38.5 31.4

Financial counseling 25.2 23.7 30.0 34.8 4.3 43.8 28.7 2.0 33.6 23.1 29.7

Civil legal assistance 13.7 9.8 16.8 19.4 3.3 16.1 14.6 17.1 25.4 38.5 22.9

Cultural-specific services 12.5 11.3 12.5 17.6 9.8 9.4 16.3 6.6 11.5 73.1 12.7

Victim or offender support

Anger management 49.3% 47.1% 51.9% 53.3% 54.3% 52.6% 26.4% 55.9% 70.5% 65.4% 41.5%

Batterer 14.7 6.4 10.8 27.8 2.7 9.9 4.5 88.8 32.0 26.9 9.3

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Percentages are based on 96.7% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 19

Appendix Table 7

Admissions and exits to drug and mental health problem-solving courts, by type of court and population served, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Active participants All courts Total Adult* Juvenile Total Adult* Juvenile

Admissions 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 or fewer 19.4 19.7 15.9 30.4** 19.6 18.3 30.0**

10–19 23.1 25.3 22.1 34.3** 22.8 21.5 33.3**

20–49 29.8 32.1 33.8 27.0** 32.6 32.9 30.0

50–99 13.2 13.0 15.6 5.5** 12.0 12.6 6.7**

100 or more 14.5 10.0 12.5 2.8** 13.0 14.6 0.0**

Exits 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 or fewer 31.0 29.3 23.5 45.8** 33.2 31.0 51.7**

10–19 21.9 23.0 22.3 25.3** 25.0 25.9 17.2**

20–49 25.3 29.0 30.9 23.7** 25.4 25.1 27.6

50–99 11.1 11.4 14.3 2.8** 9.3 10.0 3.4**

100 or more 10.7 7.3 9.0 2.5** 7.1 7.9 0.0**

Note: Includes data from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages for admissions are based on item response rates of 91.1% 

for drug and 88.7% for mental health courts. Percentages for exits are based on item response rates of 90.0% for drug and 86.1% for mental health courts. See appendix table 8 

for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 8

Standard errors for table 9 and appendix table 7: Characteristics of drug and mental health problem-solving courts, by type of 

court and population served, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Court size All courts Total Adult Juvenile Total Adult Juvenile

Capacity

9 or fewer 0.11% 0.10% 0.07% 0.31% 0.23% 0.21% 1.23%

10–19 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.67 0.61 0.60 2.47

20–49 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.72 0.81 0.85 2.50

50–99 0.22 0.31 0.38 0.41 0.66 0.72 0.88

100 or more 0.22 0.29 0.36 0.31 0.57 0.63 0.00

Admissions

9 or fewer 0.22% 0.27% 0.29% 0.66% 0.66% 0.69% 2.33%

10–19 0.23 0.32 0.34 0.71 0.70 0.73 2.39

20–49 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.67 0.79 0.83 2.33

50–99 0.20 0.26 0.33 0.37 0.54 0.59 1.27

100 or more 0.21 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.56 0.63 0.00

Active participants

9 or fewer 0.21% 0.26% 0.24% 0.67% 0.59% 0.58% 2.43%

10–19 0.23 0.29 0.30 0.69 0.66 0.68 2.34

20–49 0.25 0.34 0.40 0.59 0.78 0.82 2.19

50–99 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.29 0.51 0.56 0.88

100 or more 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.23 0.53 0.58 0.00

Exits

9 or fewer 0.26% 0.31% 0.34% 0.73% 0.80% 0.83% 2.58%

10–19 0.24 0.31 0.35 0.65 0.74 0.79 1.95

20–49 0.25 0.34 0.40 0.65 0.74 0.78 2.31

50–99 0.19 0.25 0.32 0.29 0.49 0.54 0.94

100 or more 0.19 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.44 0.49 0.00

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 20

Appendix Table 9

Services commonly used by drug and mental health problem-solving court participants, by type of court and population 

served, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Type of service All courts Total Adult* Juvenile Total Adult* Juvenile

Drug or alcohol treatment

Substance abuse treatment 86.8% 95.5% 96.1% 93.7%** 77.1% 77.8% 71.0%**

Integrated substance abuse and 

mental health treatment 60.4 62.5 63.8 58.8** 85.5 88.3 61.3**

Medication as a treatment strategy 28.1 22.5 26.5 11.4** 59.9 61.7 45.2**

Counseling 

Individual 89.2% 94.0% 94.2% 93.6% 94.9% 94.7% 96.8%**

Outpatient 59.5 56.1 57.5 51.9** 97.0 97.4 93.5**

Cognitive behavioral therapy 57.3 60.1 61.1 57.3** 72.7 71.8 80.6**

Crisis stabilization 32.2 25.8 26.9 22.8** 79.5 81.2 64.5**

Inpatient mental health treatment 27.6 21.1 20.1 23.7** 66.3 68.4 48.4**

Other 20.8 19.0 16.6 25.7** 23.6 21.9 38.7**

Personal support

Life skills 71.8% 73.5% 73.4% 74.0% 80.5% 79.7% 87.1%**

GED class 56.7 66.8 69.9 58.2** 49.2 50.8 35.5**

Job training and employment 

readiness program 53.9 58.4 64.7 40.9** 56.6 60.5 22.6**

Transportation 50.7 48.8 48.0 51.0** 76.4 79.3 51.6**

Locating housing 50.3 44.8 55.6 14.5** 79.8 86.5 22.6**

Accessing benefits 48.5 42.2 48.1 25.7** 82.2 88.0 32.3**

Health education 32.3 34.2 35.5 30.4** 40.1 42.1 22.6**

Financial counseling 25.2 23.7 29.5 7.6** 30.0 33.1 3.2**

Financial assistance 20.2 15.9 20.2 3.8** 36.4 40.2 3.2**

Civil legal assistance 13.7 9.8 11.3 5.4** 16.8 18.4 3.2**

Culture-specific services 12.5 11.3 9.8 15.6** 12.5 12.8 9.7**

Other 39.5 36.1 42.5 18.0** 42.1 44.0 25.8**

Victim or offender support

Anger management 49.3% 47.1% 45.9% 50.6%** 51.9% 52.3% 48.4%

Batterer 14.7 6.4 8.5 0.3** 10.8 11.7 3.2**

Other 18.1 9.5 9.6 9.5 11.4 10.9 16.1**

Note: Detail sums to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. Percentages are based on item response rates of 96.9% for drug and 95.6% for mental health 

courts. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 21

Appendix Table 10

Standard errors for appendix table 9: Services commonly used by drug and mental health problem-solving court participants, by 

type of court and population served, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Type of service All courts Total Adult Juvenile Total Adult Juvenile

Drug or alcohol treatment

Substance abuse treatment 0.19% 0.14% 0.16% 0.33% 0.68% 0.71% 2.27%

Integrated substance abuse and 

mental health treatment 0.26 0.35 0.40 0.71 0.57 0.55 2.43

Medication as a treatment strategy 0.24 0.31 0.38 0.45 0.79 0.83 2.49

Counseling 

Individual counseling 0.18% 0.18% 0.20% 0.37% 0.35% 0.38% 0.88%

Outpatient mental health 

treatment 0.26 0.36 0.42 0.72 0.28 0.27 1.23

Cognitive behavioral therapy 0.26 0.36 0.41 0.71 0.72 0.77 1.97

Crisis stabilization 0.24 0.32 0.38 0.61 0.65 0.67 2.39

Inpatient mental health treatment 0.23 0.30 0.34 0.61 0.76 0.79 2.50

Other 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.64 0.69 0.71 2.43

Personal support

Life skills 0.25% 0.32% 0.38% 0.63% 0.64% 0.69% 1.68%

GED class 0.26 0.35 0.39 0.71 0.81 0.85 2.39

Job training and employment 

readiness program 0.26 0.36 0.41 0.71 0.80 0.83 2.09

Transportation 0.26 0.36 0.42 0.72 0.69 0.69 2.50

Locating housing 0.25 0.36 0.42 0.50 0.65 0.58 2.09

Accessing benefits 0.25 0.36 0.42 0.63 0.62 0.55 2.34

Health education 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.66 0.79 0.84 2.09

Financial counseling 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.37 0.74 0.80 0.88

Financial assistance 0.21 0.27 0.34 0.27 0.78 0.84 0.88

Civil legal assistance 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.60 0.66 0.88

Culture-specific services 0.18 0.24 0.26 0.53 0.53 0.57 1.48

Other 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.56 0.80 0.85 2.19

Victim or offender support

Anger management 0.28% 0.37% 0.42% 0.72% 0.81% 0.85% 2.50%

Batterer 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.07 0.50 0.55 0.88

Other 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.42 0.51 0.53 1.84

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 22

Appendix Table 11

Adult and juvenile drug and mental health problem-solving court programs, by case characteristics and outcomes, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Case characteristic and outcome All courts Total Adult* Juvenile Total Adult* Juvenile

Point of entrya

Pre-plea or case filing 35.5% 27.1% 26.8% 27.8% 44.1% 44.7% 38.7%**

Post-plea 65.1 73.9 79.6 58.1** 73.1 74.4 61.3**

Post-sentence or release 35.7 44.5 39.4 58.9** 41.1 38.0 67.7**

Judicial order 8.5 2.1 1.5 4.1** 3.7 3.0 9.7**

Other 2.4 0.9 0.7 1.6** 0.7 0.8 0.0**

Time in programb,c

All 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 months or less 20.6 12.6 11.5 15.4** 16.2 16.6 13.0

6–11 months 27.9 28.1 19.7 50.0** 35.3 32.6 56.5**

12–23 months 44.5 49.0 55.2 32.9** 43.1 44.8 30.4**

24–35 months 5.3 7.6 10.1 1.3** 4.9 5.5 0.0**

36 months or more 1.7 2.7 3.5 0.4** 0.5 0.6 0.0**

Percent of participants successfully 

completing programb

All 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

None 7.9 6.7 6.5 7.2 8.9 9.4 4.2**

1–25% 5.5 5.6 5.1 6.9** 6.5 6.7 4.2**

24–50% 29.2 35.2 35.3 35.1 30.0 29.6 33.3

51–75% 32.1 35.8 37.0 32.4** 30.8 29.1 45.8**

76–99% 17.1 10.9 11.4 9.4** 15.8 16.6 8.3**

100% 8.2 5.8 4.7 9.0** 8.1 8.5 4.2**

Benefit of successful completiona

Case dismissed 61.3% 65.2% 64.7% 66.4%** 74.1% 74.5% 71.0%

Sentence suspended 39.5 42.6 46.7 31.3** 48.6 51.4 25.8**

Record expunged 22.4 26.8 24.9 32.3** 22.1 22.0 22.6

Expedited settlement 11.1 7.6 7.7 7.4 12.1 13.1 3.2**

Other 34.0 28.8 29.9 25.9** 28.3 25.9 48.4**

Track after exit

Yes 44.1% 50.6% 51.8% 47.5%** 42.6% 40.6% 59.4%**

Note: Percentages for point of entry are based on item response rates of 96.8% for drug and 95.5% for mental health courts. Percentages for successful completion are based 

on item response rates of 86.3% for drug and 79.5% for mental health courts. Percentages for benefits of completion are based on item response rates of 93.6% for drug and 

93.2% for mental health courts. Percentages for tracking after exit are based on item response rate of 97.3% for drug and 95.8% for mental health courts. See appendix table 12 

for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aDetail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. 

bDetail may not sum to total due to rounding. 

cPercentages are based on item response rates of 69.5% for drug and 65.6% for mental health courts. Interpret with caution.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 23

Appendix Table 12

Standard erros for appendix table 11: Adult and juvenile drug and mental health problem-solving court programs, by case 

characteristics and outcomes, 2012

Drug courts Mental health courts

Case characteristic and outcome All courts Total Adult Juvenile Total Adult Juvenile

Point of entry

Pre-plea or case filing 0.27% 0.33% 0.38% 0.65% 0.80% 0.85% 2.43%

Post-plea 0.25 0.32 0.34 0.71 0.72 0.74 2.43

Post-sentence or release 0.25 0.36 0.41 0.71 0.79 0.83 2.34

Judicial order 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.27 0.30 0.29 1.48

Other 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.00

Time in program

5 months or less 0.27% 0.28% 0.32% 0.59% 0.72% 0.77% 1.95%

6–11 months 0.30 0.39 0.40 0.82 0.93 0.97 2.88

12–23 months 0.32 0.43 0.50 0.77 0.96 1.03 2.67

24–35 months 0.14 0.23 0.30 0.20 0.42 0.47 0.00

36 months or more 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.00

Percent of participants successfully 

completing program

None 0.16% 0.19% 0.22% 0.38% 0.50% 0.54% 1.13%

1–25% 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.38 0.44 0.47 1.13

24–50% 0.27 0.37 0.43 0.73 0.81 0.85 2.68

51–75% 0.28 0.37 0.44 0.73 0.82 0.85 2.83

76–99% 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.45 0.65 0.69 1.57

100% 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.42 0.48 0.52 1.13

Benefit of successful completion

Case dismissed 0.27% 0.35% 0.41% 0.69% 0.72% 0.75% 2.27%

Sentence suspended 0.26 0.37 0.43 0.66 0.82 0.86 2.19

Record expunged 0.24 0.33 0.37 0.68 0.68 0.72 2.09

Expedited settlement 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.37 0.53 0.58 0.88

Other 0.26 0.34 0.40 0.64 0.74 0.76 2.50

Track after graduation

Yes 0.27% 0.37% 0.43% 0.71% 0.80% 0.84% 2.42%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 24

Appendix Table 13

Percent and standard errors of total budget from federal grants, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

Type of court Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

All courts 77.5% 0.25% 7.3% 0.16% 4.8% 0.13% 3.6% 0.11% 2.6% 0.10% 4.1% 0.13%

Drug 75.4 0.36 9.1 0.24 5.7 0.20 3.6 0.15 2.6 0.13 3.5 0.16

Mental health 79.5 0.74 6.1 0.44 3.1 0.32 5.7 0.43 2.2 0.27 3.5 0.34

Family 73.8 0.99 3.8 0.43 5.5 0.51 3.8 0.43 6.6 0.56 6.6 0.56

Youth specialty 92.3 0.88 3.9 0.64 1.9 0.45 0.0 0.00 0.6 0.26 1.3 0.37

Hybrid DWI/druga 80.3 1.01 9.2 0.73 5.2 0.56 2.3 0.38 1.7 0.33 1.2 0.27

DWI 75.2 0.52 5.9 0.28 5.2 0.27 4.6 0.25 3.3 0.21 5.9 0.28

Domestic violence 85.5 1.00 4.5 0.59 1.8 0.38 1.8 0.38 0.0 0.00 6.4 0.69

Veterans 70.0 1.33 6.7 0.72 6.7 0.72 6.7 0.72 4.4 0.60 5.6 0.66

Tribal wellness 35.0 4.37 10.0 2.75 5.0 2.00 20.0 3.66 10.0 2.75 20.0 3.66

Otherb 79.8 1.69 6.4 1.03 4.3 0.85 1.1 0.43 1.1 0.43 7.4 1.10

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages based on 77.9% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 14

Percent and standard errors of total budget from state sources, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

Type of court Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

All courts 39.6% 0.30% 9.8% 0.18% 9.2% 0.17% 9.1% 0.17% 9.8% 0.18% 22.5% 0.26%

Drug 27.9 0.37 11.5 0.27 10.9 0.25 10.8 0.25 12.0 0.26 26.8 0.36

Mental health 57.2 0.91 7.0 0.47 4.8 0.39 7.0 0.47 8.3 0.51 15.7 0.67

Family 41.5 1.11 10.9 0.70 10.9 0.70 7.7 0.60 5.5 0.51 23.5 0.95

Youth specialty 61.3 1.61 4.5 0.69 5.8 0.77 3.2 0.58 7.7 0.88 17.4 1.25

Hybrid DWI/druga 19.7 1.01 11.0 0.79 15.0 0.91 19.1 1.00 17.3 0.96 17.9 0.97

DWI 36.6 0.58 17.0 0.45 13.7 0.41 7.8 0.32 11.8 0.39 13.1 0.40

Domestic violence 50.9 1.42 0.9 0.27 1.8 0.38 4.5 0.59 0.9 0.27 40.9 1.40

Veterans 64.4 1.39 10.0 0.87 4.4 0.60 2.2 0.43 4.4 0.60 14.4 1.02

Tribal wellness 95.0 2.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 2.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00

Otherb 61.7 2.04 6.4 1.03 3.2 0.74 6.4 1.03 4.3 0.85 18.1 1.62

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages based on 77.9% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 25

Appendix Table 15

Percent and standard errors of total budget from local sources, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

Type of court Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

All courts 59.6% 0.31% 12.8% 0.20% 7.2% 0.16% 5.0% 0.14% 4.2% 0.14% 11.2% 0.21%

Drug 61.4 0.40 14.2 0.28 8.4 0.23 5.7 0.20 4.4 0.18 5.9 0.20

Mental health 55.5 0.91 11.8 0.59 7.4 0.48 3.5 0.34 2.6 0.29 19.2 0.72

Family 59.6 1.10 10.4 0.69 8.7 0.63 4.4 0.46 6.0 0.53 10.9 0.70

Youth specialty 48.4 1.65 7.1 0.85 7.7 0.88 6.5 0.81 6.5 0.81 23.9 1.41

Hybrid DWI/druga 59.0 1.25 23.7 1.08 7.5 0.67 3.5 0.46 2.3 0.38 4.0 0.50

DWI 59.5 0.59 17.6 0.46 3.9 0.23 6.5 0.30 2.6 0.19 9.8 0.36

Domestic violence 76.4 1.21 3.6 0.53 0.9 0.27 3.6 0.53 1.8 0.38 13.6 0.98

Veterans 53.3 1.45 12.2 0.95 7.8 0.78 5.6 0.66 4.4 0.60 16.7 1.08

Tribal wellness 85.0 3.27 5.0 2.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 10.0 2.75 0.0 0.00

Otherb 54.3 2.09 2.1 0.61 4.3 0.85 2.1 0.61 6.4 1.03 30.9 1.94

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages based on 77.9% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 16

Percent and standard errors of total budget from fees or fines, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

Type of court Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

All courts 72.0% 0.26% 19.8% 0.23% 3.5% 0.11% 1.3% 0.06% 1.2% 0.06% 2.2% 0.10%

Drug 65.4 0.38 25.4 0.35 4.3 0.16 1.7 0.10 1.4 0.09 1.6 0.10

Mental health 90.4 0.54 7.0 0.47 1.7 0.24 0.4 0.12 0.4 0.12 0.0 0.00

Family 90.7 0.65 6.0 0.53 2.2 0.33 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.1 0.23

Youth specialty 78.7 1.35 14.2 1.15 1.9 0.45 0.6 0.26 0.0 0.00 4.5 0.69

Hybrid DWI/druga 46.8 1.26 41.0 1.25 5.2 0.56 2.9 0.42 2.3 0.38 1.7 0.33

DWI 54.9 0.60 27.5 0.53 5.9 0.28 2.6 0.19 4.6 0.25 4.6 0.25

Domestic violence 86.4 0.98 5.5 0.65 2.7 0.46 0.0 0.00 0.9 0.27 4.5 0.59

Veterans 83.3 1.08 10.0 0.87 2.2 0.43 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4.4 0.60

Tribal wellness 80.0 3.66 15.0 3.27 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 2.00

Otherb 87.2 1.40 7.4 1.10 2.1 0.61 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 3.2 0.74

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages based on 77.9% item response rate.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 26

Appendix Table 17

Percent and standard errors of total budget from other sources, by type of problem-solving court, 2012a

None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

Type of court Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

All courts 72.3% 0.28% 12.7% 0.21% 4.5% 0.14% 1.5% 0.08% 2.6% 0.10% 6.4% 0.16%

Drug 76.4 0.34 13.3 0.27 3.8 0.16 1.0 0.09 2.7 0.13 2.8 0.13

Mental health 61.6 0.89 13.5 0.63 4.4 0.38 0.9 0.17 3.5 0.34 16.2 0.68

Family 71.0 1.02 12.0 0.73 5.5 0.51 1.6 0.29 2.7 0.37 7.1 0.58

Youth specialty 63.9 1.59 11.0 1.03 10.3 1.00 2.6 0.52 3.2 0.58 9.0 0.95

Hybrid DWI/drugb 71.7 1.14 16.8 0.95 4.0 0.50 2.9 0.42 2.3 0.38 2.3 0.38

DWI 71.9 0.54 14.4 0.42 5.9 0.28 0.7 0.10 0.7 0.10 6.5 0.30

Domestic violence 81.8 1.10 0.9 0.27 1.8 0.38 0.0 0.00 1.8 0.38 13.6 0.98

Veterans 68.9 1.34 8.9 0.83 4.4 0.60 3.3 0.52 3.3 0.52 11.1 0.91

Tribal wellness 40.0 4.49 30.0 4.20 5.0 2.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 2.00 20.0 3.66

Otherc 75.5 1.81 11.7 1.35 2.1 0.61 3.2 0.74 2.1 0.61 5.3 0.94

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percentages based on 77.9% item response rate.

aOther sources of funding included Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, donations, civic organizations, board of mental health, Medicaid, United Way, bar association, tribal funding.

bHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

cIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 18

Standard errors for table 11: Successful program completion, 

by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court None 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100%

All courts 0.16 0.14 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.18

Drug 0.19 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.17

Mental health 0.50 0.44 0.81 0.82 0.65 0.48

Family 0.63 0.68 1.04 0.88 0.64 0.48

Youth specialty 0.50 0.50 0.96 1.37 1.72 1.41

Hybrid DWI/drug 0.42 0.45 1.12 1.25 0.87 0.65

DWI 0.31 0.10 0.36 0.56 0.58 0.35

Domestic violence 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.39 1.66 1.03

Veterans 1.25 0.33 1.10 1.33 1.31 0.89

Tribal wellness 4.14 2.88 4.14 3.83 2.10 2.88

Other 1.51 0.99 1.82 2.06 1.68 1.73

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 | SEPTEMBER 2016 27

Appendix Table 19

Standard errors for table 12: Benefits of successful program completion, by type of problem-solving court, 2012

Type of court Case dismissed Sentence suspended Record expunged Expedited settlement Other

All courts 0.27% 0.26% 0.24% 0.18% 0.26%

Drug 0.35 0.37 0.33 0.19 0.34

Mental health 0.72 0.82 0.68 0.53 0.74

Family 1.01 0.62 0.38 0.96 1.00

Youth specialty 1.29 0.96 1.44 0.60 1.17

Hybrid DWI/drug 1.22 1.23 1.06 0.85 1.19

DWI 0.40 0.58 0.24 0.30 0.58

Domestic violence 1.27 1.25 1.05 0.85 1.26

Veterans 1.01 1.25 1.05 0.81 1.21

Tribal wellness 3.52 4.07 3.52 1.74 2.41

Other 1.92 1.83 1.30 1.22 1.94

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 20

Standard errors for figure 4: Tracking participants after 

successful program completion, by type of problem-solving 

court, 2012

Type of court Tracks graduates

All courts 0.27%

Drug 0.37

Mental health 0.80

Family 1.00

Youth specialty 1.33

Hybrid DWI/drug 1.20

DWI 0.55

Domestic violence 0.77

Veterans 1.23

Tribal wellness 4.17

Other 1.74

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.

Appendix Table 21

Stratification and weighting of problem-solving courts, 2012

In-scope Scope unknown

Stratum Total Number Percent Number Percent Weight

All strata 3,052 2,793 91.5% 259 8.5% ...

Drug 1,330 1,244 93.5 86 6.5 ...

Drug (small population) 443 419 94.6 24 5.4 1.057

Drug (medium population) 444 420 94.6 24 5.4 1.057

Drug (large population) 443 405 91.4 38 8.6 1.094

Mental health 337 311 92.3 26 7.7 1.084

Family 261 237 90.8 24 9.2 1.101

Youth specialty 244 203 83.2 41 16.8 1.202

Hybrid DWI/druga 217 193 88.9 24 11.1 1.124

DWI 183 179 97.8 4 2.2 1.022

Domestic violence 170 155 91.2 15 8.8 1.097

Veterans 133 123 92.5 10 7.5 1.081

Tribal wellness 31 26 83.9 5 16.1 1.192

Otherb 146 122 83.6 24 16.4 1.197

Note: Courts were stratified by type. Drug courts were further stratified by population of service area, as follows: Drug (small population) included drug courts in counties with 

populations of 55,200 or fewer; Drug (medium population), populations between 55,201 to 219,992; and Drug (large populations), populations greater than 219,993.

...Not available.

aHandles alcohol- or drug-dependent offenders also charged with a driving offense.

bIncludes other courts not shown.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ 249803

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal 

federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal 

offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal 

and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, 

analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems 

in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice 

information systems, and participates with national and international organizations 

to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is 

Acting Director.

This report was written by Suzanne M. Strong, Ramona R. Rantala, and Tracey 

Kyckelhahn. Ramona R. Rantala, Suzanne M. Strong, and Marshay Lentini verified 

the report.

The late Donald J. Farole, BJS Statistician, conceptualized the Census of ProblemSolving Courts project.

Nicole Waters, National Center for State Courts, carried out data collection and 

processing with assistance from Jennifer Elek, Deborah Smith, Kathryn Holt, and 

Shauna Strickland.

Irene Cooperman, Brigitte Coulton, and Jill Thomas edited the report, and 

Barbara Quinn produced the report.

September 2016, NCJ 249803