best practices

A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System Using New Tools

Community Prosecution in Austin,

community prosecution profile Written by This project was supported by Grant Number 96-DD-BX-0090 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Robert Victor Wolf Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which 2000 also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of . Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily repre- sent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

About the Author Robert Victor Wolf is director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation. USING NEW TOOLS Community Prosecution in Austin, Texas

Introduction This document is part of a series profiling five community prosecution programs that have emerged as national models. These programs — based in Austin, Denver, Indianapolis, Portland, and Washington D.C. — offer unique perspectives on the issues and practice of community prosecution today. This profile focuses on com- munity prosecution in Austin and, in particular, the efforts of the prosecutor’s office to develop new community justice tools. The other profiles focus on building part- nerships (Indianapolis), engaging the community (Denver) and the dynamics of problem-solving (Portland), and implementing an officewide community prosecu- tion program (Washington D.C.).

Leader in As Austin’s district attorney, Ronnie Earle found it frustrating to deal with crime only Innovation after it occurred. “I got tired of waiting for something terrible to happen before I could do anything,” he explains. So he set out to expand the prosecutor’s role. To Earle, being a prosecutor is still about putting hardened criminals away, but it’s also about doing something to stop crime from occurring in the first place. “Tough pros- ecution is not enough by itself; you’ve also got to have smart prevention.” Earle, who has been the district attorney since 1977, has introduced Austin to numerous criminal justice innovations, most of which focus on what he feels are the two broad goals of community justice: Supporting crime victims and strengthening communities. “The best crime prevention is a strong neighborhood,” Earle says. If proof of the effectiveness of criminal justice programs is in the numbers, then Earle’s strategy of combining tough prosecution with prevention has been remark- ably successful. Austin’s crime rate is consistently one of the lowest in the country, even as the city experiences rapid economic growth. The murder rate has declined 49 percent since 1991. Overall juvenile crime has been reduced by 34 percent from 1995 to 1998 (the most recent year for which numbers are available) compared with a six percent drop statewide, while juvenile crime with guns and other weapons has been reduced by 78 percent over the last five years. Earle believes that it is not enough to rely on the criminal justice system alone for safety and that the bedrock of a safe society is a strong social fabric. “That network of moms and dads, aunts and uncles, teachers and preachers and cousins and friends, that’s where we learn how to act. That web of relationships — the ethics infrastruc- ture — regulates behavior, not the law.”

1 Center for Court Innovation

Earle thinks that the “ethics infrastructure” is no longer what it once was in many communities and that the criminal justice system can help these damaged neighbor- hoods re-build it. “We try to use crime as an opportunity to strengthen the communi- ty by bringing people together to solve problems, to re-create connections between people in order to re-weave the fabric of community. That’s what barn-raisings were all about.” To that end, Earle is giving citizens a voice in decisions that traditional sys- tems reserve for judges, lawyers, and juries. “I call these programs civic push-ups. They’re trying to strengthen civic muscles that we don’t have much of a chance to use anymore.”

Civic Push-ups Earle has promoted “civic push-ups” in numerous ways. For instance, he encour- aged extensive public input (through public hearings and a committee of volunteers) into the design of a new corrections facility for low-level drug and property offenders, which was intended to take innovative approaches to correcting criminal behavior. Earle• also:

• Penned a state law creating Community Justice Councils, which bring together elected officials, representatives of criminal justice agencies, and citizens to plan responses to crime; • Started the first victim assistance program in a Texas prosecutor’s office; • Established Neighborhood Conference Committees, which are panels of trained volunteers who hear cases referred from Juvenile Court. Panel members develop sanctions and craft a contract focusing on restitution to the vic- tim or community; • Started a Child Protection Team of police investigators, social workers, and prosecutors and created a Children’s Advocacy Center for children who are vic- tims of or witnesses to crime. The Center is overseen by an independent board of directors that gives the community the major role in its operations; • Launched the Neighborhood D.A. Program, which gives a Weed and Seed community a neighborhood-based prosecutor to focus exclusively on local safe- ty and quality-of-life concerns.

Gang Injunction Although Earle officially launched his Neighborhood D.A. Program only last year, his office had long been interested in the sort of local problem-solving that characterizes the work of a community-based prosecutor. One example of this is the way his office dealt with the significant quality-of-life problems that beset the two-block area known as Broadmoor. The neighborhood was rife with open-air drug dealing, robberies, prostitution, loitering and gang activity. “People were afraid to go out, and afraid, God forbid, if it got dark before they got home,” says Synora Coe, manager of an apartment complex in Broadmoor. After community residents, police and the prosecutor’s office began meeting to discuss these problems, gang members threatened some community members with violence.

2 Using New Tools

Coe on her own initiative began evicting problem tenants in early 1998, and organizing other area apartment managers, some of whom agreed to exchange infor- mation on evicted tenants to prevent them from simply moving down the street. Police began extensive undercover drug busts in the area and helped residents plan an outside community meeting as a “show of force,” in the words of Assistant District Attorney LaRu Woody. The most unusual development was the securing by the prosecutor’s office of a civil gang injunction (the first in Texas) in the summer of 1998 to prohibit five gang members from associating with each other in the target area, entering certain apartment complexes, using a beeper to commit a crime and loitering near a pay phone. The gang injunction attracted a huge amount of press attention in Austin and around the state. Although some editorials, citing civil liberties concerns, were nega- tive, ordinary citizens in the gang-free zone were overwhelmingly supportive. It’s not hard to understand why when, after the gang injunction was filed, criminal activity began to diminish dramatically. Residents began to reclaim the neighborhood by spending more time outdoors. Coe says conditions around her apartment complex, once horrendous, are now “beautiful.” She points to the formation of a walking group of five single parents as an example of how things have changed. “I didn’t even know these parents existed before. I know they’re comfortable now, or they wouldn’t be walking outside with their children,” she says. The strategy’s impact is also reflected in the numbers: gang-related crime in the area that includes Broadmoor dropped 46 percent from 1998 through 1999. Partnerships across criminal justice disciplines were crucial for the initiative’s success. “This was the biggest coming together of enforcement that I’ve seen,” says Eric Oakmon, a community policing officer assigned to the area. Community partici- pation was also key. “We might have gotten a start with the gang injunction, but we would have seen the dealers return if not for the sustainment, which depends on peo- ple like Synora [Coe],” Woody says.

Sentencing Circles Earle sees the gang injunction as a tool that helped a beleaguered community get back on its feet, but it’s not one he says he’d likely use again because of both its civil liberties implications and the enormous amount of staff and time it required to draft and defend in court. “It was a resource hemorrhage,” Earle says. Earle says the gang injunction was “exclusive,” meaning that its thrust was to exclude offenders from the community. His preference is to develop strategies and programs that are “inclusive” and incorporate the principles of restorative justice — helping offenders mend fences with the community and supporting their reintegra- tion as productive members of the neighborhood. Earle’s office is eagerly experimenting with one such initiative: Sentencing Circles. In fact, as the gang injunction in the Broadmoor area expired it was quickly replaced with one of the first of such circles in Austin, bringing a gang leader into

3 Center for Court Innovation

direct discussions with neighborhood residents about the harm he had caused. A cir- cle embodies Earle’s key interests in both empowering and restoring communities. In a circle, defendants and victims, surrounded by their supporters and advo- cates, including police and prosecutors, meet to discuss the offense, its effects and appropriate punishment. The circles give the community a significant role in the adjudication of a case, with little interference from government intermediaries. In Travis County’s first three experiments with circles, offenders and victims shared their feelings openly and honestly. In traditional case processing, “there’s never an occasion when victim and offend- er meet,” says , Earle’s first assistant. “The circles are golden opportunities.” Although both the victim and offender can bring whomever they wish — relatives, friends, classmates and other supporters — it’s still basically “one on one,” Lehmberg says. Offenders are offered a chance to explain their behavior and apologize, and vic- tims can talk about the damage done. The rules are far freer than in the circum- scribed setting of a courtroom. The goal is to develop a sentencing consensus that holds offenders accountable and helps victims to heal. If consensus is not reached or the judge involved in a particular case disagrees with the circle’s outcome, the case is simply channeled through the standard courtroom process. This forms a safety net to ensure that all cases are consistent with judicial and larger community standards. Lehmberg herself participated in one of the first circles — not as a deputy prose- cutor, but as a crime victim. She sat across from the man accused of stealing a set of golf clubs from her garage and then pawning them. “It took us a couple of hours to get him to admit that, ‘Well, maybe I didn’t steal your clubs, but I knew they were stolen,’” Lehmberg recalls. The circle recommended that the offender enter drug treatment, and a judge ordered him into treatment. When the offender flunked out of treatment, “the judge wanted to send him to jail for nine years, and I said, ‘Judge, I’d like to get the circle together again,’” Lehmberg explains. There were tears shed on both sides during the second circle as the offender made excuses for why he dropped out of treatment, and Lehmberg and others convinced him that he had to try again if he wanted a better life. Since it’s still in an experimental phase, Earle’s office has not yet established eligi- bility criteria for the circles. But Earle is wedded to the idea of using them. “The cir- cles represent turning over part of plea bargaining to the neighborhood, a fairly radi- cal thought,” Earle says. “But it shouldn’t be. Most people are basically fair-minded and want to do the right thing. It is up to us who work in government to help them find ways to do it because it makes us all stronger.”

Looking Ahead Earle is committed to changing the status quo, although he admits the task isn’t easy. “The biggest problems in criminal justice are stasis, turf battles and getting the bureaucracy to turn loose of its function. The law is by nature a conservative profes- sion, and the people in it are even more conservative,” Earle says. “The antidote to turfism is public participation.”

4 Using New Tools

And the public seems to agree. In his only contested race since taking office in 1977, Earle beat his opponent in 1996 by waging a campaign that clearly spelled out his ideas about community justice and his interest in increasing the role of citizens in the criminal justice process. Earle continues to pursue his vision, working on Sentencing Circles, expanding such programs as the Neighborhood Conference Committees, and aiding in the creation of the new Downtown Austin Community Court, among other things. But rather than dictating his vision of how things should be, Earle tries to listen to the people who elected him. “Instead of defining community values, I’m pushing the community to define its own values.”

Tips From the Field Work with the media to get the word out about new initiatives. The civil gang injunction attracted a lot of media attention, allowing Earle and his staff to explain community justice and their efforts to strengthen the community.

Use the power, respect and influence of the D.A.’s office to lead discussions about reform and spark innovation. Earle has been able to encourage numerous commu- nity justice projects by throwing the weight of his office behind them.

Give the public numerous opportunities for participation. Earle has done this through such initiatives as the Community Justice Council, Neighborhood Conference Committees and the Sentencing Circles. All of these things strengthen communities and help form a bedrock on which other reforms can be built, Earle says. “Efforts to reform and streamline the criminal justice system without also addressing the needs of the community upon which its existence is based are like building a house on sand.”

Be wary of a drain on resources that doesn’t offer sufficient pay-off. A civil gang injunction helped reduce fear and crime in a neighborhood, but Earle decided it required too large a drain on resources to try again. He feels there are other approaches that would use fewer resources and be even more effective. “The com- munity itself is an inexhaustible source of resources for changing the behavior of most nonviolent, youth offenders. And in the process, connections and relation- ships are formed between people that prevent future offending by others by making the neighborhood stronger.”

5 Center for Court Innovation

Notes

6 Using New Tools

Notes

7 Center for Court Innovation

Notes

8 Center for Court Innovation The winner of an Innovations in American Government Award from the Ford Foundation and Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Center for Court Innovation is a unique public-private partnership that promotes new think- ing about how courts can solve difficult problems like addiction, quality-of-life crime, domestic violence and child neglect. The Center functions as the New York State Unified Court System's independent research and development arm, creating demonstration projects that test new approaches to problems that have resisted conventional solutions. The Center’s problem-solving courts include the nation’s first community court (Midtown Community Court), as well as drug courts, domes- tic violence courts, youth courts, family treatment courts and others. Nationally, the Center disseminates the lessons learned from its experi- ments in New York, helping courts across the country launch their own problem- solving innovations. The Center contributes to the national conversation about jus- tice by convening roundtable conversations that bring together leading academics and practitioners and by contributing to policy and professional journals. The Center also provides hands-on technical assistance, advising court and criminal jus- tice planners throughout the country about program and technology design.

For more information, call 212 397 3050 or e-mail [email protected]. Center for Court Innovation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 212 397 3050 Fax 212 397 0985 www.courtinnovation.org

A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531 202 307 5974 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA