Problem Solving Courts Series #3: Embracing Quality Improvement for Transformative Justice

By: Mark A. Sherman, JD, LLM

In a previous post, I discussed the grassroots movement that led to the proliferation of problem-solving (PS) courts within the federal judiciary, a shift driven by judges seeking to transform a system often perceived as more focused on law than justice. However, as these courts began operating, a new challenge emerged: plateauing outcomes. Some courts struggled with participant recruitment, while others faced high rates of dropouts and supervision revocations. This signaled a need for advanced training, a move beyond foundational knowledge to focus on process improvement and enhanced outcomes.

“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” - W. Edwards Deming

Enter "quality improvement" (QI), a reflective, data-driven approach to analyzing team performance and implementing systematic changes. Rooted in mid-20th century industrial engineering and successfully applied in healthcare, QI offers a powerful framework for optimizing processes through experimentation. Why not, we reasoned, adapt this proven methodology to the criminal justice setting?

Our goal was to empower PS court teams to develop a self-sustaining QI process, enabling them to identify effective practices and address those requiring modification or elimination. We designed a comprehensive program: a two-day seminar led by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and expert consultants, preceded by a web conference and followed by eleven monthly webinars. The core of our approach was the "Plan-Do-Study-Act" (PDSA) cycle, a model developed by Walter Shewhart and refined by W. Edwards Deming. Each team was tasked with selecting specific process-related practices for improvement and applying the PDSA cycle – essentially, treating each change as an experiment. They would plan the change, implement it, study its effects, and then act based on the results, either adopting or discarding the modification.

This was uncharted territory for most court personnel. Judges, probation officers, prosecutors, and defenders, often lacking formal training in process improvement, were presented with a unique opportunity for professional growth. They were learning to analyze processes and understand participants in a new light, gaining the "knowledge necessary to use in Apollo 8," as Marshall McLuhan might say, adapting to the evolving landscape of 21st-century justice.

The impact of QI has been profound. For instance, teams struggling with data collection created and implemented tracking systems, leading to more informed decision-making. Recruitment challenges were addressed through targeted marketing strategies, increasing participant engagement. Data-driven insights revealed ineffective interventions, prompting the development of "customer service" questionnaires to gather participant feedback and improve program relevance. Even seemingly minor adjustments, like using a timer to manage court session lengths, resulted in more efficient processes and improved outcomes.

QI has become an extraordinary learning experience, transforming not only individual team members but also the federal judiciary as a whole. Judges, prosecutors, probation and pretial officers, and defenders gained a deeper understanding of risk-need-responsivity, evidence-based practices, and the science of addiction, mental illness, and trauma. They forged stronger team bonds and developed a renewed appreciation for procedural justice. In a system that prides itself on due process and liberty, this enhanced understanding of justice-involved individuals is a significant step towards a more humane and effective approach. By embracing QI, we are not simply improving processes; we are transforming the very fabric of the federal criminal legal system, ensuring it meets the needs of both the individuals it serves and the communities it protects.