HR 133 — A Resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study of problem-solving courts in this Commonwealth.

PRINTER'S NO.   1044

                   THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA



           HOUSE RESOLUTION
              No. 133
                                                Session of
                                                  2025

     INTRODUCED BY RABB, FLICK, KHAN, WAXMAN, HILL-EVANS,
        SCHLOSSBERG, OTTEN, MADDEN, KENYATTA, SANCHEZ AND DEASY,
        MARCH 19, 2025

     REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MARCH 19, 2025


                                A RESOLUTION
 1   Directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a
 2      study of problem-solving courts in this Commonwealth.
 3      WHEREAS, Problem-solving courts aim to provide supervision of
 4   the treatment and rehabilitation of select defendants to
 5   positively transform their behavior; and
 6      WHEREAS, Nearly 150 independent problem-solving courts
 7   operate in this Commonwealth; and
 8      WHEREAS, Gaps in credentialing requirements and studies
 9   conducted on problem-solving courts present an opportunity to
10   assess the cost, operation and impact of those courts to ensure
11   that they offer equal access, meaningful second chances and
12   economically feasible solutions; therefore be it
13      RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives direct the Joint
14   State Government Commission to conduct a study of problem-
15   solving courts in this Commonwealth; and be it further
16      RESOLVED, That the study include:
17          (1)   a description of each type of problem-solving court
 1      being utilized in this Commonwealth;
 2             (2)   the process by which problem-solving courts are
 3      established in this Commonwealth;
 4             (3)   the number of accredited courts in this Commonwealth
 5      by type of court; and
 6             (4)   the accreditation process for each type of problem-
 7      solving court;
 8   and be it further
 9      RESOLVED, That the study include data collected from each
10   type of problem-solving court, including:
11             (1)   the number of cases referred to each type of
12      problem-solving court;
13             (2)   the process by which defendants are granted
14      admission to, assigned to and discharged from the various
15      kinds of courts, including data on the key decision makers
16      and, if applicable, risk assessment factors involved in
17      admissions decisions; and
18             (3)   the age, gender, race, ethnicity and other available
19      demographics of defendants involved in problem-solving
20      courts;
21   and be it further
22      RESOLVED, That the study include data on the funding and
23   costs of operating problem-solving courts compared to the
24   funding and costs of traditional courts, including the cost to
25   defendants of participating in such courts and the cost of the
26   services as compared to the costs of incarceration; and be it
27   further
28      RESOLVED, That the study include an analysis of how the
29   outcomes of problem-solving courts are measured compared to the
30   outcomes of traditional courts, including:

20250HR0133PN1044                     - 2 -
1          (1)   recidivism rates; and
2          (2)   where documented and applicable, the impact that
3      completing problem-solving court obligations has on an
4      individual's financial, educational, health and employment
5      status;
6   and be it further
7      RESOLVED, That the study include a review of nationally
8   recognized best practices for problem-solving courts and whether
9   the Commonwealth's system meets those standards.




20250HR0133PN1044                 - 3 -