| American courts have been overwhelmed in recent years with cases involving social problems such as chemical addiction, mental illness, and domestic violence. Recognizing the need to address these deep-rooted problems to improve justice outcomes, New York State has introduced problem-solving programs such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts. While these innovative specialized courts are numerous, little is known about the policy change process within the New York State court system that led to their adoption and implementation. This research explores the public-policy change process within the New York State court system toward problem-solving justice. A qualitative case study was used for the research which drew on evidence collected through interviews, observations, and documents. The research design was guided by principles of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which assumes policy change is brought about by advocates who share deep core beliefs about a particular policy direction. Seven key themes emerged as influencing the policy change: leadership, collaboration, new organizations, improved results, resources, publicity, and trial-court jurisdiction and structure. These themes can be instructive to those seeking to improve human and social conditions through innovative justice administration approaches. Although these key themes reflect lessons learned from one of the nation's largest state court systems, further research would be needed to determine the extent to which key themes uncovered in this study can be generalized to other jurisdictions. |
