ABSTRACT
Examples of collaborative efforts involving the judiciary are on the rise. Use of problem-solving court dockets, such as mental health and substance abuse courts, routinely demonstrate how judiciaries collaborate with members of the executive and legislative branches, as well as private and nonprofit agencies to provide services to participants. The problem-solving court model, which adopts a holistic approach to help participants conquer underlying issues such as lack of employment, substance abuse, mental illness, and homelessness, is such a popular collaboration that new dockets, such as veterans’ reentry courts, are being added across the country. Other collaborations, such as that between the judiciary and the executive branch to provide probation and parole services, are more familiar. The purpose of this chapter is to partially fill a gap in the collaboration literature by exploring the role that the judiciary plays as a collaborative partner. To fulfill this purpose, collaborations between the judiciary and its justice system partners are examined through the lens of accountability.1 We suggest that while the judiciary strives to meet public expectations, its capacity to address wicked social problems is limited. However, collaboration enables the judiciary to accomplish both objectives. By increasing its impact on wicked problems2 through collaborative efforts, the judiciary also enhances its responsiveness to public expectations-all the while preserving the delicate system of checks and balances that exists between the three branches of government. We propose that a desire to be responsive to community needs is one of the core reasons why the judiciary engages in collaboration. To make this case, we first review some brief but necessary background on the judicial branch. Next, the role of the judiciary within the collaboration literature is examined, followed by a discussion of reasons why the judiciary may be interested in collaboration. To make the necessary linkage to accountability, several constructs of accountability are shared, with emphasis on how these constructs support collaborations involving the judiciary. A framework to analyze three different types of collaboration involving the judiciary is then presented with illustrative examples. Finally, the work concludes with a discussion of two unique challenges that the judiciary faces when it chooses to engage in collaborative efforts-inter-branch funding and judicial impartiality.
