DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Hartford Community Court Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Hartford Community Court Model 01-Covers 1-4 7/23/01 9:36 AM Page grnC1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance DDEVELOPINGEVELOPING AN AN EEVALUATIONVALUATION PPLANLAN FOR FOR CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCOURTSOURTS AASSESSINGSSESSING THE THE HHARTFORDARTFORD CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCOURTOURT MMODELODEL Monograph C OMMUNITY J USTICE S ERIES #4 01-Covers 1-4 7/23/01 9:36 AM Page C2 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770 This document was prepared by the Crime and Justice Research Institute under grant number 1999–DD–BX–K008, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommenda- tions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which 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 Crime. 02-Text 7/23/01 10:01 AM Page i DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY COURTS ASSESSING THE HARTFORD COMMUNITY COURT MODEL July 2001 NCJ 185689 By John S. Goldkamp, Doris Weiland, and Cheryl Irons-Guynn of the Crime and Justice Research Institute 02-Text 7/23/01 10:01 AM Page iii Contents I. Introduction . 1 The Midtown Community Court Prototype . 1 II. Development of the Hartford Community Court . 5 III. Key Elements of the Hartford Community Court Model . 7 Target Problems. 9 Target Locations . 9 Target Populations . 10 Court Processing Focus and Adaptations . 11 Identifying, Screening, and Enrolling Participants. 13 Dispositional Options and the Structure and Content of Services . 17 Community Involvement. 24 Extent of Systemwide Support and Participation . 25 Special Significance of the Hartford Police Department . 26 IV. Implementation and Outcome Goals in the Early-Stage Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court . 29 V. Evaluation Design: Data Collection Strategy . 33 Assessing Implementation-Related Objectives . 33 Assessing the Early-Stage Impact of the Hartford Community Court: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis . 39 VI. Conclusion. 45 VII. Notes. 47 VIII. For More Information . 51 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE iii 02-Text 7/23/01 10:01 AM Page 1 I. Introduction When the Midtown Community Pennsylvania; and, most notably, Court began operation in Manhattan Hartford, Connecticut. in 1993, it posed a fundamental challenge to traditional assumptions The Hartford Community Court about the role of American courts in opened in 1998 and, as one of the dispensing justice and, in particular, first post-Midtown community about how they should relate to the courts, represents a test of the “community.” The Midtown experi- transferability of the community ment was a catalyst for innovation court model to more “typical” and encouraged the diffusion of the American settings. This monograph community court model to other describes Hartford’s adaptations of jurisdictions with different settings the model and outlines an evalua- and challenges. In fact, for the tion plan for assessing its progress Midtown innovators, an important and impact. The evaluation plan question posed by the community provides a means for measuring the court experiment was whether its progress of the Hartford Community goals and methods could be adapt- Court in meeting its ambitious ed in places quite unlike New York objectives. It also offers a frame- City.1 work for evaluating adaptations of the model that will have broader As other jurisdictions sought to application as other jurisdictions adapt the principles, methods, and recognize the need to assess their goals of the Midtown experiment, newly formed community court it became evident that the next gen- initiatives. eration of community courts would not necessarily resemble the Man- The Midtown Community hattan prototype and that important Court Prototype variations of the original model The nation’s first community would emerge. Although a next court opened in midtown Manhattan generation of community court in October 1993 after 2 years of innovation continued in New York planning. The Midtown Community locations as well (e.g., Red Hook, Court was the product of a collabo- Harlem, and Crown Heights), the ration among a large number of model was adapted to a variety of partners, including the Fund for the settings across the United States. City of New York, the New York These included Portland, Oregon; State Unified Court System, and Austin, Texas; both West Palm representatives of the business Beach and Miami, Florida; Minne- and residential communities in and apolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 1 02-Text 7/23/01 10:01 AM Page 2 DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY COURTS around Times Square and the The community court model views Clinton and Chelsea neighborhoods graffiti, prostitution, littering, public in Manhattan. The planning process drinking, public urination, excessive included input from numerous cor- noise, and a host of other “nui- porations and foundations, social sance” offenses as potentially seri- service agencies, and civic groups. ous and by no means “victimless” The main focus of the Midtown court crimes because they have detrimen- was to respond to low-level, quality- tal effects on the neighborhoods and of-life crimes that affect life, civility, business districts. Built on the belief and safety in these neighborhoods that these offenses, left unchecked, and to make the justice system create negative perceptions of the more accessible and responsive to attractiveness and safety of particu- local residents and businesses. It lar areas, as well as an impression was designed to respond to a grow- of tolerance for disorder that may ing need in these communities to invite more serious crime, the address crime-related problems that Midtown strategy targeted these were ignored or given low priority kinds of crimes.3 by the larger justice system because of the high volume of more serious Some of the priorities identified matters it was struggling to address. by the Manhattan prototype that By default, low-level misdemeanors, appealed to other jurisdictions and public order and nuisance included the need for a tangible offenses—which, in the view of response to communities affected residents, affected the quality of life by crime, the need to restore the in these areas more than murders, credibility of the justice system rapes, robberies, and drug traffick- among both the public and offend- ing—seemed to occur with impunity ers, the need to provide community or received no more than a “revolving members with regular access to door” response of arrest and release the justice process, and the need to with few formal consequences. reduce the behaviors contributing to these problems in targeted neigh- The ambitious aims of the Midtown borhoods by providing access to a Community Court have been desc- broad range of social services to ribed in detail elsewhere.2 In addition both offenders and law-abiding to having a dramatic impact in the community residents. Assignments targeted areas of New York City, the of community service as sanctions philosophy, methods, and aims of for cases processed by the commu- the Midtown experiment reflected nity court provided visible evidence the concerns of other communities of the court’s response to commu- across the United States as they nity crime problems and direct struggled with problems of minor compensation to the community and nuisance offenses affecting for some of the harm suffered from everyday life in their neighborhoods. low-level crime. Community service 2 02-Text 7/23/01 10:01 AM Page 3 Introduction is the principal sanction employed impact, and community members by the Midtown court to link court know that when they report minor processes to the community. offenses, action will be taken. The justice system becomes more credi- The Midtown model sought to ble to offenders and law-abiding cit- provide an appropriate response izens alike, as well as more visible, to low-level crimes by devising a accessible, and accountable to the range of sanctions and services to citizens. hold offenders accountable, help offenders lead more productive The Midtown strategy also facili- lives, and demonstrate to residential tates access to a range of social and business community members services to help offenders address that their problems and concerns problems that contribute to their were being addressed constructively. criminal behavior, including drug At the same time, community court and/or alcohol addiction, mental ill- advocates argued that the larger ness or disability, homelessness, court system would benefit from lack of basic education or job skills, the community court’s effort to or, in the case of young offenders, remove processing of low-level mis- lack of parental supervision com- demeanors and ordinance violations bined with a lack of positive outlets from their caseloads, freeing up and guidance. The Midtown court court resources to deal with more provides onsite services such as serious cases. English as a Second Language and general equivalency diploma class- Thus, the objectives of the com- es, basic health screening, AIDS/ munity court center around provid- HIV awareness programs, vocational ing a more effective response to and employment counseling, and low-level crimes than the traditional facilitated access to a network of courts. Offenders learn that their drug, alcohol, and mental health actions have consequences, the treatment providers. The services police are assured that their arrests are also available to the surrounding of low-level offenders will have an community.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building a Community Court
    BUILDING A O ~ ii COMMUNITY COURT I N 1. R (O I.) U s II 0 N " ~HIS CATALOG OFFERS TOOLS, advice and resources about community courts. What are community courts? Community courts harken back to a bygone era, when courthouses stood at the center of the village green. Like the courts e of yesterday, community courts embrace old- fashioned notions of accountability, tying a cr~me to its consequences, and lending a helping hand to those in need. Community courts are located in neighborhoods rather than centralized office complexes. More important than their location is their philosophy: community courts take an aggressive approach to solving neighborhood problems like vandalism, landlord-tenant disputes, juvenile delinquency and drugs, e Colllnltlniry cotlrts use the authority of the justice system to restore neighborhoods that have been victimized by crime, neglect or disorder. They encourage greater citizen involvement, asking local residents and merchants to identify and prioritize neigh- borhood hot spots and eyesores. And they b,'ing an array of new partners into the justice system -- mediators, drug counselo,'s, :o k ,d!d doctors, teachers, employment specialists -- transforming the court into a hub for social services. What's the point? Why would anyone want to spend the time and energy and money to build one of these new courts? The answer is simple: community courts have proven effective in addressing quality-of-life problems and improving public confidence in justice. The first such court was the Midtown Com- mu,3itv Court in New York. Since Midtown opened in 1993, a number of other states have picked tip on the idea-- from Florida to Oregon, from Pennsylvania to Colorado i';.~;'.~.~ ~o.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court
    Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court By: The Justice Education Center, Inc. Date: December 2002 Acknowledgments The Evaluation of Hartford Community Court was conducted by the Justice Education Center, Inc., for the Connecticut Judicial Branch. The Center gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Community Court personnel for their tremendous cooperation and support throughout the evaluation process. Judge Raymond Norko and Court Planner Chris Pleasanton’s doors were always open. Their assistance in providing data to The Center’s research team and enabling team members to utilize the Community Court facility both during and after hours for interviews and focus groups was of immeasurable value and indicative of the openness and flexibility of the Court as a whole. A tremendous debt of gratitude is also extended to Harold Moan, the Judicial Branch’s Official Court Reporter and his staff for allowing The Center to use the recording and transcription equipment of the Court. Transcribing the focus group discussions could not have been accomplished without the excellent services of Susan Frederick, Administrative Assistant of the Superior Court. Also, special thanks are extended to Community Service Coordinator Christopher Mena and his entire staff of field supervisors in assisting with the coordination of client exit interviews, and to all Community Court marshals for their day-to-day cooperation. Extended thanks are given to the hardworking team of focus group facilitators and exit interviewers: Brian Smith, Gabriela Campos, Hector Ortiz, and Victor Alvaladero. Further, The Justice Education Center wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Robert Price, Project Coordinator, whose extraordinary efforts in managing the evaluation process, conducting interviews and co-facilitating focus groups were critical to the success of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Claims Courts: an Overview and Recommendation
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 9 1976 Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation Alexander Domanskis University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Courts Commons, Rule of Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexander Domanskis, Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation, 9 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 590 (1976). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol9/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SMALL CLAIMS COURTS: AN OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION A... problem is to make adequate provision for petty litiga- tion, to provide for disposing quickly, inexpensively, and justly of the litigation of the poor, for the collection of debts in a shift- ing population, and for the great volume of small controversies which a busy, crowded population, diversified in race and lan- guage, necessarily engenders. It is here that the administration of justice touches immediately the greatest number of people. Roscoe Pound' Small claims courts have been in operation in the United States for over sixty years.2 They were established to function as inexpensive, efficient, and convenient forums for resolving claims which could not be brought eco- nomically in ordinary civil courts because of the costs and delays accom- 3 panying ordinary civil court proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide for Drug Court Applicants
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: FY 2010 Enhancing Adult Drug Court Services, Coordination, and Treatment Solicitation Requirements Resource Guide Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 About the Requirements Resource Guide .......................................................................................................... 1 Assistance with the Proposal .............................................................................................................................. 1 The Drug Court Movement ................................................................................................................................. 1 Partnership with Treatment ................................................................................................................................. 2 Key Components of Drug Courts........................................................................................................................ 2 General Information................................................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Provisions ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Community Court
    with future court dates set at least 30 days out. Many simply failed to appear for their next hearings. Data gathered by the Philadelphia Police Department showed that approximately 70 percent of the arrestees were using illegal drugs or alco - hol upon arrest and an overlapping 20 Philadelphia percent had mental health issues. Thus many of these defendants were returning to the streets to commit the same crimes Community Court: — or worse — for the same reasons. Those given summary citations did not A Model for Other have bail hearings, but they otherwise fit A Model for Other the same description. Pennsylvania Cities In January 1994, Center City District staff visited New York City’s Midtown By William Babcock Community Court in Manhattan. The Midtown Community Court was the first of its kind and was created to address the same quality-of-life problems in the Times Square district as those identified in Center City Philadelphia. Visits to the community court by representatives of Philadelphia criminal justice, social service and community organizations followed. These groups then formed a steering committee to determine the via - bility of a community court in Center City Philadelphia and to raise the funds needed to hire a project coordinator. In 1998 I was hired by the Center City District to fill that role. We formed a working group and spent the next four years planning the project, which opened in February 2002. he Center City District The Center City District surveys its vari - is a business improve - ous audiences annually to find out what The largest hurdle was the drafting of ment district located in people like and don’t like about the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Community Justice | 1
    A Guide for Community Court Planners author year about this publication Greg Berman 2010 This report was supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance under Director grant number 2009-DC-BX-K018 awarded to the Center for Court Center for Court Innovation Innovation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also This document builds on an earlier includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of version (1997) drafted with the help of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, John Feinblatt. the Office for Victims of Crime, the Community Capacity Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE | 1 PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE: A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY COURT PLANNERS Instead of focusing exclusively on reacting after the fact to individual crimes and offenders, many criminal jus- ticeINTRODUCTION agencies have begun to think more broadly about how to improve public safety and the quality of life in crime-plaguedLorem ipsum dolor neighborhoods. sit amet, consectetuer This process adipiscing began in elit,the sedfield diam of policing. nonummy Starting nibh aeuismod little more tincidunt than a ut genera- tionlaoreet ago, dolore several magna overlapping aliquam reform erat volutpat. movements Ut wisi emerged: enim ad broken minim windows veniam, policing, quis nostrud community exerci tation policing, ullam and- problem-orientedcorper suscipit lobortis policing.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Staff Analysis
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 919 Community Courts SPONSOR(S): McClain and others TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Criminal Justice Subcommittee 13 Y, 0 N Jones Hall 2) Justice Appropriations Subcommittee 3) Judiciary Committee SUMMARY ANALYSIS Problem-solving courts are specialized, non-traditional courts addressing the underlying causes of crime to reduce recidivism and promote rehabilitation. Florida has over 170 problem-solving courts, including drug courts, veterans courts, mental health courts, early childhood courts, permanency courts, and DUI courts. Community court is another type of problem-solving court that addresses the underlying causes of crimes specific to a particular community. Community courts: Divert eligible offenders from the normal judicial channels of prosecution; Require participants to participate in treatment programs; Provide sanctions for failure to comply with the programs; and Allow for imposition of terms other than traditional jail time. HB 919 authorizes each judicial circuit to establish a community court program for defendants charged with certain misdemeanors as designated by the chief judge. A community court must adopt a non-adversarial approach, consider the needs of the victim and the defendant, provide for judicial leadership, and monitor compliance. Each community court must establish an advisory committee of community stakeholders including the chief judge, the state attorney, and the public defender. The advisory committee reviews each case and makes recommendations, but the judge has final decisionmaking authority on sentencing. The bill requires each judicial circuit to report certain community court data to the Office of State Courts Administrator for community court program evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities with International Tribunals and Foreign Courts
    Opportunities with International Tribunals and Foreign Courts YALE LAW SCHOOL • CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Why work at an International Tribunal or Foreign Court? 2. What is in this Guide? 3. How to Pursue a Position with a Court outside the U.S. Chapter 2 International Tribunals A. Tribunals Offering Opportunities 1. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2. Court of Justice of the European Union 3. European Court of Auditors 4. European Court of Human Rights 5. European Free Trade Agreement Court 6. Inter-American Court of Human Rights 7. International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration 8. International Court of Justice 9. International Criminal Court 10. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 11. Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 12. Permanent Court of Arbitration 13.World Bank International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 14. World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration & Mediation Center 15. World Trade Organization Appellate Body B.Additional Tribunals 1. Caribbean Court of Justice 2. Central American Court of Justice 3. Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa Court of Justice 4. Court of Justice of the Andean Community 5. East African Court of Justice 6.Economic Community of West African States Community Court of Justice C. Organizations Engaged in Tribunal Work 1. War Crimes Research Office Chapter 3 National Courts A. Opportunities 1. High Court of Australia 2. Federal Court of Australia 3. Courts of Denmark, Faroe Islands, and Greenland 4. Supreme Court of Israel 5. Courts of New Zealand 6. Constitutional Court of South Africa 7. Supreme Court of Canada 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Court: the Research Literature: a Review of Findings
    A Review of Findings Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice authors year about this publication Kelli Henry 2011 This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-DC-BX K018 awarded Senior Research Associate by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance Center for Court Innovation is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Dana Kralstein Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Associate Research Director Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Center for Court Innovation Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not rep - resent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This report is an update of Community Court Research: A Literature Review , by Dana Kralstein, published in 2005. COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE | 1 COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 com - munity court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American
    T O EN F J TM U U.S. Department of Justice R ST A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE SENTENCING & CORRECTIONS Issues for the 21st Century September 1999 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections No. 3 Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American Sentencing and Corrections Directors’ Message It is by now a commonplace that the number by Leena Kurki of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As rograms based on restorative and com- In contrast to this bottom-up approach, a result, the sentencing policies driving that munity justice principles have prolifer- recent changes in sentencing law are premised number, and the field of corrections, where ated in the United States over the past on retributive ideas about punishing wrong- the consequences are felt, have acquired an P unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined decade simultaneously with tough-on-crime doers and on the desirability of controlling more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and initiatives like three-strikes, truth-in-sentenc- risk, increasing public safety, and reducing expense than by any consensus about future ing, and mandatory minimum laws. Restor- sentencing disparities. Restorative and com- directions. ative justice and community justice represent munity justice goals of achieving appropriate, new ways of thinking about crime. The theo- individualized dispositions often conflict with Are sentencing policies, as implemented through ries underlying restorative justice suggest that the retributive goal of imposing certain, con- correctional programs and practices, achieving government should surrender its monopoly sistent, proportionate sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs Courts Neighborhoods
    think piece A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System Drugs, Courts and Neighborhoods Community Reintegration and the Brooklyn Treatment Court Written by This publication was supported by a grant from the State Justice Institute. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of Greg Berman the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. David Anderson 1999 About the Authors Greg Berman is a deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. David Anderson is acting director of communications at the Ford Foundation and a former member of the editorial board of the New York Times. DRUGS, COURTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS Community Reintegration and the Brooklyn Treatment Court New Experiments In recent years, courts across the country have begun to re-think how they do in Justice business, testing whether new approaches could improve case processing and result in better outcomes. Two of the more prominent examples of this wave of experimentation are drug courts and community courts. Drug courts offer addicted defendants who plead guilty to drug charges the opportunity to have their cases dismissed if they successfully complete drug treatment. Their progress in treatment is rigorously monitored by the drug court judge and by court-based case managers. Drug courts seek to halt the revolving door of addiction and arrest, using a graduated system of rewards and sanctions to help substance abusers attain — and maintain — sobriety. The drug court movement began in Florida in 1989 with a single experiment initiat- ed by Attorney General Janet Reno, then the elected prosecutor of Miami’s Dade County.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report
    INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT JULY 2013 INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY COUNCIL RE-ENTRY POLICY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT About the Commission The Re-entry Policy Study Commission was established by City-County Council Resolution 80, 2012 anD later amenDeD by Council Resolution 90, which expanDed the membership of the Commission. The Commission was directeD to: Examine anD investigate the current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenDers and the economic and community impact of reducing recidivism in Marion County, Hold public hearings and take public input, and Report to the Council findings and recommendations for improvement. The mission of the Re-entry Policy Study Commission is to increase public safety in Marion County by breaking the cycle of criminal activity by ex-offenders who are re-entering the community. This will be accomplisheD by examining, investigating and facilitating the implementation of policy and proceDures related to the re-entry of ex-offenders with a focus on the economic anD community impact of those measures. Re-entry Policy Study Commission Members Mary Moriarty Adams Jose Salinas Commission Chair Judge Chair, Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee Marion Superior Court Indianapolis-Marion County Council Angela Smith Jones Joyce Dabner Director of Public Policy Re-entry Coordinator Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce Starting Over Corps Valerie Washington Rhiannon Edwards Deputy Director/Chief Financial Officer Executive Director
    [Show full text]