Community Courts an Evolving Model

1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page grnC1

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance

CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCOURTSOURTS AANN EEVOLVINGVOLVING MMODELODEL

Monograph

C OMMUNITY J USTICE S ERIES #2 1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page C2

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno Attorney General

Daniel Marcus Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

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 Center for Court Innovation under grant number 96–DD–BX–0090, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations 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. 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page i

COMMUNITY COURTS AN EVOLVING MODEL

October 2000

NCJ 183452

Prepared by Eric Lee, Deputy Director Center for Court Innovation 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page iii

From the Director

The community court movement has come a long way since the first court opened in midtown Manhattan in 1993. The concepts pioneered by that court have taken root across the country. Nearly a dozen community courts are now open in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas. Another 13 communities plan to open courts in the near future.

Midtown Community Court has succeeded by asking a new set of questions about the role of the court in a community’s daily life: What can a court do to solve neighborhood problems? What can courts bring to the table beyond their coercive power and symbolic presence? And what roles can community residents, businesses, and service providers play in improving justice?

The community courts that were established after Midtown are answering these questions in different ways. Most focus on one neighborhood, but others are exploring ways to serve an entire city. Still others are expanding their scope beyond low-level criminal offenses to juvenile delinquency and housing code violations.

But these pioneering courts also seek a set of common, important goals. All have implemented a new way of doing business that imposes immediate, meaningful sanctions on offenders, truly engages the community, and helps offenders address problems that are at the root of their criminal behavior.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance continues to support the efforts of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other local leaders who are using community courts to transform the way justice is administered in their communities.

Nancy E. Gist Director Bureau of Justice Assistance

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE iii 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page v

Contents

I. Introduction ...... 1

II. Overview ...... 3 How Do You Plan a Community Court? ...... 4 Which Community Should Be Served and Where Should the Court Be Located? ...... 5 How Should the Court Link Offenders to Social Services?...... 6 Can Punishment and Help Be Combined? ...... 6 What Kinds of Cases Are Appropriate for Community Courts? . . 6 What Role Should the Community Play? ...... 6 Are Community Courts Creating System Change?...... 7

III. Community Court Profiles...... 9 Midtown Community Court, New York City ...... 9 North/Northeast and Southeast Community Courts, Portland, Oregon ...... 10 Hartford Community Court, Hartford, Connecticut ...... 11 Hennepin County Community Court Calendar, Minneapolis, Minnesota ...... 12 Hempstead Community Court, Hempstead, New York ...... 13 West Palm Beach Community Court, West Palm Beach, Florida...... 14 Downtown Austin Community Court, Austin, Texas ...... 15 Frayser Community Court, Memphis, Tennessee ...... 16 Atlanta Community Court, Atlanta, Georgia ...... 17 Red Hook Community Justice Center, Brooklyn, New York. . . . 18

IV. Conclusion...... 19

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE v 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page vi

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

V. Resources on Community Justice ...... 21

VI. For More Information...... 23

vi 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 1

I. Introduction

In recent years cities and towns engage in the administration of across the country have embarked justice? on an experiment to test the propo- sition that courts can play a role To answer these questions, com- in solving complex neighborhood munity courts have developed problems and building stronger individual programs that differ in communities. Since the 1993 open- important ways. Although most ing of New York City’s Midtown of these new courts focus on one Community Court, the nation’s first, neighborhood, several jurisdictions dozens of cities have begun plan- are exploring ways to serve an ning community courts. Eleven entire city. Many community courts community courts are now operat- handle criminal cases only, but ing in communities across the others are experimenting with a nation, and six more will open by broader range of matters, including the end of 2000. At their outset, juvenile delinquency and housing each court must address the follow- code violations. Some community ing set of questions: courts were initiated by courts, and some have been championed by a • Can courts assume a problem- district attorney. solving role in the life of a community, bringing people together These differences reflect a central and helping to craft solutions to aspect of community courts: they problems that communities face? focus on neighborhoods and are designed to respond to the particu- • How can courts address the lar concerns of individual communi- impact that chronic offending ties. Moreover, community courts has on a community? are shaped by the particular politi- cal, economic, and social land- • Can courts improve the quality scapes in each community. of life in a community? The Center for Court Innovation • Can local voices—residents, (CCI), with support from the Bureau merchants, community groups— of Justice Assistance (BJA), has provided technical assistance

About the Author Eric Lee is deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. Research, ideas, and text were contributed by Courtney Bryan, Jimena Martinez, Bridget Regan, and Robert Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 1 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 2

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

to each community court and snapshot of these early community documented the emergence of this courts and explores emerging field. This monograph provides a issues in their development.

2 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 3

II. Overview

In January 1998, the Midtown neighborhoods through commu- Community Court was the only nity service. community court in the United States. By March 2000, nearly a • Using the leverage of the court to dozen had opened across the coun- sentence offenders to complete try in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, social services that will help Minnesota, New York, Oregon, them address problems such as Tennessee, and Texas. New York drug addiction or involvement in City and Portland, Oregon, each prostitution. host two community courts, and • Bringing the court and the com- organizers in both cities intend to munity closer by making the open a third court in 2000. Another courthouse accessible, establish- 13 jurisdictions, in California, ing a community advisory board, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, and publishing a quarterly Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, New newsletter. York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas, plan to establish community • Using the court as a gateway to courts in the near future. treatment and making social services available to offenders right Community courts grow out of at the courthouse. frustration. Observers have noted that justice has become remote The Midtown model was thor- from communities and the people oughly documented in an indepen- who live in them. Community resident evaluation conducted by the dents have reported feeling out of National Center for State Courts touch with courts. They want courts and in publications prepared by the to address low-level crime that is U.S. Department of Justice (see p. part of daily life. The Midtown 21 for a list of publications on com- Community Court offered a model munity justice). With a well-defined for addressing these problems by and carefully documented model in emphasizing the following: New York City, community court planners elsewhere faced questions • Locating the court in the com- about whether the Midtown model munity, close to where crimes would meet the needs of their take place. jurisdictions. Planners in other juris- • Repaying a community damaged dictions have made significant de- by low-level crime by requiring partures from the Midtown model, offenders to compensate reflecting both the distinct needs of their communities and the practical

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 3 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 4

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

reality of what they believed they court from conception to imple- could accomplish given local mentation. This approach reflects resources and local support. the complexities of raising money, building community participation, The following sections examine developing sanctions, establishing the questions that planners asked partnerships, and so forth. Six of as they designed their community the operating community courts courts and how they resolved them. were staffed with a full-time coordinator during the planning period; How Do You Plan a the planning of three courts was led Community Court? by a staff person who dedicated a Community courts are complex majority of his or her attention to projects that involve rethinking the project. To ensure that the part- court operations, raising substantial nerships necessary for success resources, and building partnerships were established early in the plan- within and without the justice sys- ning process, nine jurisdictions con- tem. Decisions about who should vened formal planning committees. lead the planning of a community The committees typically included court varied from state to state. representatives from the courts, Judges or local court administrators district attorneys’ offices, police led the planning effort in 4 of the departments, social service agen- 11 operating courts. Planning for cies, and communities. Public another five courts was led by elect- defenders were included on five of ed district attorneys. Notably, all the planning teams. In the projects five of these courts run community that did not create planning com- prosecution programs and the dis- mittees, lead planners worked infor- trict attorneys’ interest in communi- mally with other stakeholders. ty courts was sparked by hearing The scope of the community how dissatisfied their constituents court project, the readiness of local were with the justice system’s insuf- players to support the concept, and ficient attention to quality-of-life the planners’ success in garnering problems. The local mayor’s office funds and in-kind support all affect- and a countywide criminal justice ed the length of the planning pro- commission initiated the communi- cess. Three jurisdictions opened ty court effort in the remaining two community courts within a year of cities. beginning the planning process. Many projects recognized early Although the average planning peri- that a dedicated planner would be od was 2 years, some jurisdictions needed to move the community needed 3 or more years to plan a community court.

4 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 5

Overview

Which Community Should court. The decision involved bal- Be Served and Where ancing community court goals such as visibility and accessibility to the Should the Court Be public with the need to find suffi- Located? cient space for onsite partners. The Midtown Community Court Expense and the logistical issues of serves the central business district processing defendants also were of America’s largest city. One chal- considered. The projects arrived at lenge faced by planners outside a variety of solutions. Three courts New York City was whether the con- currently operate within centralized cept of a community court is courthouses. One of these projects applicable to smaller cities and plans to relocate to a dedicated other types of neighborhoods. building in the near future; the other two hold open the possibility of The community court approach relocating to separate space in the was recognized as a promising future. Another project holds pro- solution to quality-of-life problems ceedings in the central court and by many different communities. conducts other community court Today, 6 of the 11 operating com- activities such as community ser- munity courts serve inner-city vice, social services, and communi- residential neighborhoods facing ty meetings in the neighborhood serious problems, including high being served by the court. crime rates, property abandonment, and conditions of disorder. Two Seven courts are located in the community courts serve downtown neighborhoods they serve. Three areas and tackle the low-level crime projects have adapted existing and public disorder that can be bar- space in the community: two in riers to social and economic revital- neighborhood centers and one in ization of city centers. One court a strip mall storefront. Four under- is located in a suburban area with took significant renovations to cre- pockets facing problems similar to ate a space for their community those of its urban neighbors. Finally, courts. two cities are testing the idea of a community court that serves an The decision about court location entire medium-size city. In one, the is closely tied to a program’s focal city has been divided into 17 neigh- point. All of the planners, and many borhoods, each with a committee community members, describe designed to promote a close work- common goals such as establishing ing relationship between the com- community norms and creating an munity and the court. environment supporting revitaliza- tion efforts, but the focal point of Another decision planners faced the programs vary with neighbor- was selecting an appropriate build- hoods and the problems confronting ing in which to locate the community individual communities. Courts in

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 5 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 6

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

residential neighborhoods are more jurisdictions have questioned the likely to address housing issues and appropriateness of using social ser- young offenders as well as low-level vice as a sanction. How, asked one criminal offenses, whereas those judge, could a service designed to in downtown areas prioritize issues help an individual with personal such as homelessness, illegal problems also serve as punish- camping, and disorderly conduct. ment? Community members and others on the advisory board have How Should the Court been emphatic about the need to Link Offenders to Social address underlying problems such Services? as drug addiction. All planners agreed that making What Kinds of Cases social services available to defendants who appear at community Are Appropriate for court is important, but they have Community Courts? made different decisions about Five of the community courts whether to locate these services are exploring ways to expand their onsite. Of the 11 community courts mandates beyond hearing criminal now operating, 6 provide services cases. These experiments range such as drug treatment, counseling, from a judge in one courtroom and assistance with entitlements hearing criminal, civil, and family onsite, as well ongoing case man- matters, to judges with criminal agement by project staff for defen- court calendars working closely dants mandated to services such with the police and prosecutors on as long-term treatment. Three sites matters such as housing code viola- provide referral to services plus tions, to two judges sitting jointly ongoing case management; two at one court of which one hears provide referral to social services criminal cases and the other only. reviews environmental matters. Two jurisdictions are exploring Can Punishment and Help ways to handle youthful offenders Be Combined? at community court. All of the nation’s community courts are experimenting with the What Role Should the broad use of both community ser- Community Play? vice and social service sanctions. Although all the projects recog- Mandating defendants to social ser- nized that community involvement vices is universally accepted as a was a critical goal, planners grap- legitimate sentence to curb recidi- pled with how and when to involve vism. However, for several, the inte- the community, raising the ques- gration of social service sanctions tion: Who is the community? For has been gradual. Judges in some most court planners, the answer

6 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 7

Overview

included residents, social service door-to-door surveys to determine providers, beat cops, and local mer- public safety concerns and priorities chants. Community members par- of neighborhood residents. Three ticipated in the planning of all of the courts distribute a newsletter to courts, but in different ways and to give community members visible differing degrees. evidence that the court is account- able to the community. Planners used a variety of tools to establish community participation. Are Community Courts In every community, planners attended neighborhood meetings Creating System Change? and conducted interviews with a Community courts are changing broad range of stakeholders. All the way court systems conduct but two courts created a community business within the court itself and, advisory panel during the planning more broadly, within the justice sys- period, and most of the projects tem. In the two cities where commu- held community meetings to deter- nity courts have been open the mine priorities for the new court. longest, New York City and Portland, Five projects held focus group dis- the lessons of community involve- cussions to better understand com- ment in the administration of justice munity members’ concerns and have begun to spread to the rest of recommendations. In Portland, the system. Oregon, community members In Portland, the success of the were involved in shaping sanction- North/Northeast Community Court ing options. In Brooklyn, New York, has convinced the district attorney, community members chose the the courts, and other justice agen- building in which to locate the cies to open two other community court. courts that together will serve every Since opening, each court has neighborhood in Portland. In New taken a different approach to York City, the success of Midtown involving the community. Eight Community Court has led to the courts have convened a community development of two other commu- advisory board that meets regularly nity courts, encouraged greater use and a ninth is forming such a of community service and social board. Eight community courts service sanctions throughout the have mechanisms for soliciting court system, introduced the role of community involvement in making “resource coordinator” (a liaison community service assignments, between the court and social ser- and four have committees that vice agencies) to other courts, devise ways to use community started the trend of problem-solving service to address hot spots and courts throughout the state, and led other neighborhood problems. to the creation of a not-for-profit Two community courts conduct

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 7 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 8

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

organization to be an engine for together for a community court to ongoing court innovation. succeed. Six of the courts have installed information technology for In every jurisdiction, these initia- the community court and three oth- tives have demonstrated new ways ers have information systems in of doing business. Planners of 10 development. of the projects have brought new resources to the system to support In planning community courts, a community court—ranging from new players have been involved. state legislative and city council Two of the courts now operating appropriations, to federal grants, to and two opening in 2000 have contributions from private founda- involved not-for-profit organizations tions and corporations. Two down- that coordinated planning and town courts and two neighborhood implementation of the projects. courts have secured private funding The innovative involvement of not- for their projects. for-profit organizations in project implementation—such as the suc- At nine community courts, staff cess in finding new funding sources, are testing the use of technology to the use of technology, the experi- provide more complete and accu- mentation with multijurisdictional rate information to the judge and calendars, and the impact on other other decisionmakers, to raise the courts—indicates the extent to standard of accountability on court- which community courts are pro- ordered sanctions, and to link the moting significant change in court numerous partners that must work operations.

8 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 9

III. Community Court Profiles

As the profiles in this section judge a range of services to include illustrate, community courts vary in a mandate, such as onsite drug significantly. As varied as these pro- treatment, a health education class jects are, the field of community for prostitutes and “johns,” one-on- courts is conspicuously young— one counseling for young offenders the model is evolving as the experi- and mentally ill persons, and ences of these first courts deepen. employment training. For defendants with a long criminal record Midtown Community and a history of substance abuse, Court, New York City the court offers an alternative-to- incarceration program that sen- Launched in 1993, the Midtown tences defendants to long-term Community Court targets quality- drug treatment. Many defendants of-life offenses such as prostitution, return to court voluntarily to take illegal vending, graffiti, shoplifting, advantage of services offered at the fare beating, and vandalism in mid- court, including English as a second town Manhattan. Often in such language and General Educational cases judges are forced to choose Development (GED) classes. between a few days of jail time and no sentence at all—results that fail The court uses an award-winning to impress the victim, the commu- computer application to craft indi- nity, or the defendant that these vidualized sanctions for each offenses are taken seriously. In offender and monitor compliance. contrast, the Midtown Community The system also provides police Court sentences low-level offenders officers with regular feedback about to pay back the neighborhood the outcomes of their arrests. through community service while offering them help with problems Community involvement is exten- (addiction, mental illness, lack of sive at the Midtown Community job skills) that underlie their crimi- Court. The community advisory nal behavior. Residents, businesses, board, which reviews court opera- and social service agencies collabo- tions and results, meets quarterly; rate with the court by supervising the community conditions panel, community service projects and which keeps the court abreast of by providing onsite social services, local problems and emerging hot including drug treatment, health spots, meets monthly. Community care, and job training. members participate in impact panels, meeting face-to-face with Social services are available onsite offenders to discuss how their at the Midtown Court, providing the behavior harmed the community.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 9 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 10

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

The court also publishes a newslet- advisory committees, Portland ter to keep stakeholders informed planners convened focus groups about its work. to further document community priorities. The court seeks to solve community problems through a partnership Planning for the North/Northeast with the police known as the Street Community Court began when the Outreach Services program. To area was designated a Weed and address problems before they result Seed site in 1996. The North/ in an arrest, social workers from Northeast Community Court serves the court join police officers on the a 15-neighborhood area of Portland beat. Together, they engage the commonly known as Albina, a homeless and other street people community of mostly single-family, and encourage them to come to the owner-occupied homes that has the court voluntarily for social services. highest crime, high school dropout, and unemployment rates in the city. North/Northeast and Modeled after the North/Northeast Southeast Community Community Court, the Southeast Courts, Portland, Oregon Community Court addresses quality- Community court planners in of-life crime in Portland’s Brentwood- Portland sought to build on the Darlington and Lents communities. success of the Neighborhood The Southeast Community Court District Attorney program and had serves a diverse population of more two objectives: address public safe- than 285,000 residents. The area ty problems as close as possible has a large population of immi- to where they occur and further grants from Eastern Europe and involve community members in Asia. determining priorities for the justice system. When Portland’s community courts began operating, cases were Community participation in plan- deferred to them following a defen- ning Portland’s community courts dant’s initial appearance at the took the form of the Citizen Ad- downtown court. In June 2000, visory Committee. The committees both courts began arraigning cases (one for each court) gave planners sent directly by the police, including a sense of which problems were misdemeanors and person-to-person most important to the community. matters such as assault of a public They shared ideas on every aspect safety officer, child neglect, harass- of the project—helping form sen- ment, and stalking. The courts tencing guidelines, suggesting operate a full day every other week community service projects, and and will expand soon to a full day determining what the courtroom every week. would look like. In addition to the

10 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 11

Community Court Profiles

In addition, the two courts will By the end of 2000, Portland soon begin hearing housing viola- plans to open a third community tions involving chronic offenders. court that will serve the city’s west- The city’s Office of Planning, side and downtown communities. Development, and Review, which When the Westside Community has traditionally handled housing Court opens, all noncustodial mis- violations, will institute a system in demeanor cases in Portland will be which housing code violators will arraigned at a community court. accrue points for the number of violations they receive. Once viola- Hartford Community tors reach a determined number Court, Hartford, of points, they will be considered chronic violators. Their cases will Connecticut be referred to the neighborhood dis- The Hartford Community Court trict attorney, who can then prose- has its roots in the federally funded cute the case at the appropriate Comprehensive Communities Part- community court. nership program that sought to improve coordination among crimi- Brentwood-Darlington, home of nal justice agencies and Hartford the Southeast Community Court, communities. The program initially has the highest concentration of focused on community policing and probationers and parolees in the antigang initiatives, but community city. A probation officer who sits on participants wanted something to the Citizen Advisory Committee be done about low-level crime as reviews the court docket prior to well. Planning for the community each community court session and court began in 1996 and included checks defendants for probation enacting state legislation to man- status. Soon, a neighborhood pro- date alternative sentences for ordi- bation office also will be located at nance violations. the Southeast Community Court. The Hartford Community Court At both community courts, staff is testing the idea of a community from social service agencies are court that serves the entire city. To available onsite to refer offenders ensure that the court is responsive for services. The North/Northeast to local concerns, the court works court offers a mentor program, closely with problem-solving through which more than 50 defen- committees in the city’s 17 neigh- dants have developed life plans and borhoods. The problem-solving long-term goals. A public defender committees articulate priorities for is present at each court session to each neighborhood and send a rep- answer questions and give legal resentative to the court’s advisory advice. board. The court sends community service crews to every neighborhood

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 11 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 12

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

and, when possible, assigns offend- The Hartford Community Court ers to perform community service regularly employs mediation in in the neighborhood in which they resolving criminal cases. Mediation were arrested. is voluntary, requiring the willing participation of both the victim and A member of the bail commis- the offender. If an agreement is sioner’s office screens defendants reached between the parties and for arraignment. This interview restitution is required, the judge will serves as a criminal background make the mediation agreement part check and is the first line of inquiry of the court’s order and continue for social services screening. the case until the restitution and other terms of the agreement are After speaking with the state’s fulfilled. attorney in court, if the defendant accepts a plea agreement, Judge Raymond Norko issues a sentence Hennepin County that includes community service Community Court and/or social service mandates. Calendar, Minneapolis, Upon completion of the service, Minnesota the defendant’s case is dismissed The Hennepin County Community 30 days later without the defendant Court Calendar serves two dozen having to appear in court. If the neighborhoods and 100,000 resi- defendant refuses the plea offer, dents in South Minneapolis using a the case stays in the court to pre- downtown courtroom located in the vent “forum shopping.” The judge Hennepin County Government hears bench trials at the community Center. Planners targeted South court; cases that are eligible for jury Minneapolis, including the Phillips trials are transferred to superior and Powderhorn neighborhoods, court. because the area had significant Each defendant is required to crime problems and a highly orga- meet with the court’s social service nized community leadership, and team, which includes staff from because it is home to two major the city’s Department of Human corporations, Honeywell and Allina. Services, the state’s Department of Although the court is not located Social Services and Department of in the neighborhood it serves, it is Mental Health and Addiction, and building ties to the neighborhood the Capitol Region Mental Health by coordinating social services Center. The interview covers issues and community service programs such as substance abuse treatment, through a community-based part- education services, health care, and ner. Administered by a collaborative housing options. Defendants are of county social service depart- then linked with necessary social ments known as the Hennepin/ services.

12 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 13

Community Court Profiles

Powderhorn Partners, offenders are harder to change with short- appear at the Hennepin/Powderhorn term social service interventions, Center to fulfill their community ser- is more difficult than working with vice or social service sanctions and first-time offenders. Nonetheless, take advantage of a broad range of the broad range of cases reflects services on a voluntary basis. A the priorities of the South Minne- probation officer in the courtroom apolis community, which leads the acts as a resource coordinator for city in arrests for quality-of-life the judge, making recommenda- crimes, including drug sales, prosti- tions for social service sanctions tution, and gang-related offenses. and linking the defendant to the appropriate social service provider. In addition to these criminal mat- Staff at the Hennepin/Powderhorn ters, the court hears civil nuisance Center monitor compliance and actions that typically involve prop- report the results to the court-based erties that are used for criminal probation officer. activities such as prostitution and drug dealing. The court uses tradi- “We located the court downtown tional sanctions as well as media- and located everything else in the tion with community members as catchment area—social services, remedies and ensures a high level community service, all of our com- of scrutiny. If the property owner munity meetings,” said Judge fails to comply with the court’s Richard Hopper. order, the property can be boarded up. The court tackles a multijurisdictional calendar including felony and Hempstead Community misdemeanor property offenses from the Third Police Precinct in Court, Hempstead, South Minneapolis and nuisance New York abatement cases from the entire Although the first community city. The Community Court Cal- courts appeared in urban areas, endar handles cases of varying lev- many suburban communities face els of severity. The judge and court similar challenges. On suburban planners devised a broad range of Long Island, Hempstead and sur- community service and social ser- rounding towns are testing the com- vice sanctions that are appropriate munity court model to address for misdemeanor and felony quality-of-life problems such as charges. Applying sanctions in prostitution, drug use and low-level these different cases involves a sales, public drinking, vandalism, careful assessment of the risk and graffiti. involved in returning an offender to the community. Moreover, the The Hempstead Community judge reports that working with Court initially handled quality-of-life chronic offenders, whose behaviors offenses committed within the

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 13 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 14

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

village of Hempstead. Recently, it West Palm Beach expanded its catchment area to the Community Court, West four neighboring communities of New Cassel/Westbury, Freeport Palm Beach, Florida Village, Uniondale, and Roosevelt. The West Palm Beach Commu- nity Court serves the West Palm The first year of operations has Beach Weed and Seed area, a resi- been a learning period. The court dential neighborhood on the out- has been hearing cases adjourned skirts of downtown struggling with following arraignment from the tra- a high crime rate. Although West ditional court, including prostitution, Palm Beach is less than 1 mile from drug possession, and disorderly Palm Beach, one of the most afflu- conduct cases. The judge imposes ent cities in the country, 41 percent sentences of community service or of the neighborhood’s 5,360 resi- crafts a social service mandate, dents live in poverty and the unem- typically involving drug or alcohol ployment rate stands at 20 percent. treatment. Planners are reviewing The physical characteristics of the which crimes are best prosecuted community are striking: deteriorat- in the court, which treatment pro- ed houses and businesses, vacant grams and services are most effec- lots with discarded mattresses and tive in addressing defendants’ piles of trash, and litter strewn underlying problems, and which throughout the streets, sidewalks, types of community service are yards, and parks. No new business- appropriate for suburban areas. es have opened in the area, and few Planners also are exploring ways to new houses have been built in work collaboratively with Nassau recent years. County’s many village courts. Police were frustrated with the A grant from BJA’s Byrne Pro- epidemic of quality-of-life offenses gram was recently secured by the in the area and the limited conse- Nassau County Department of Drug quences imposed following an and Alcohol Services to help ex- arrest. Seeking a community-based pand the court’s programs and approach, the Palm Beach County coordinate its work with the local Criminal Justice Commission, the village courts. Planners hope to chief of police, and the local prose- extend the availability of services to cutor began planning a community address the special problems faced court. by prostitutes and substance-abusing youth. The court is in session 3 The West Palm Beach Commu- days a week and plans to continue nity Court handles nonviolent to expand to other areas of the misdemeanors. Defendants are county. scheduled to appear before Judge Barry M. Cohen 4 to 10 days after receiving a police citation. Cases of

14 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 15

Community Court Profiles

defendants pleading guilty stay in restore and repair the property of community court; cases headed to property owners who are not in trial are adjourned to the downtown compliance with the housing code. court. Downtown Austin Court planners surveyed area residents and created a community Community Court, advisory panel to set priorities for Austin, Texas community service. “We found In 1997, Travis County District that the community wanted to get Attorney Ronnie Earle called for the cleaned up first—that trash and creation of a community court to litter were by the far the top con- help clean up downtown Austin. cern—so we focused on that,” said With a high concentration of restau- Tom Becht, coordinator of the rants, nightclubs, and bars, the court. 7-square-mile area was a magnet for disorder, public drinking, under- The community court offers age drinking, and homelessness. social services onsite, including employment counseling, education Demonstrating that the traditional programs, and case management. municipal court was in many ways Because so many of its clients are a revolving door, a survey conduct- indigent, the court provides trans- ed by court planners found that 55 portation services to and from job percent of those arrested for disor- interviews and social service derly conduct had been arrested appointments for defendants and before. The planners also found resident nonoffenders alike. that more than 56 percent of those committing quality-of-life offenses The court coordinates closely reported suffering from chemical with community policing efforts. dependency. Community court Local police allocated Local Law planners sought to do something Enforcement Block Grants funds to different: use community service as increase bike patrol officers in the a sanction for low-level offenses, court’s catchment area. These respond to repeat offenses with community-focused officers often graduated sanctions, and use bring residents in need of services social services sanctions to address to the court, sometimes as an alter- underlying problems such as drug native to arresting them. addiction.

The court is also developing a Mayor Kirk Watson and Austin’s community service project in part- well-organized business community nership with the police department rallied around the idea of a commu- that enforces the housing code. nity court, and the project gained Soon, community service crews support from community residents, from the court will be available to service providers, and the city

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 15 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 16

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

council. Supporters believed that Frayser Community Court, the court would help enforce stan- Memphis, Tennessee dards of behavior and ensure that the downtown area remained safe, The Frayser Community Court clean, and inviting. They also catchment area, the West Frayser thought the court would promote neighborhood of Memphis, was confidence in the justice system. once home to two large manufac- turing plants and an active blue- Since opening, the court has collar work force. When these operated in a room in the Austin plants closed in the mid-1980s, Municipal Court complex, with staff many workers left and the neigh- setting up offices in the gallery of borhood declined. Housing prices the court. The court has adjudicat- dropped, small businesses closed, ed more than 4,000 cases in its first and the unemployment rate surged. 7 months. The area became a magnet for gangs and drugs. Judge Elisabeth Earle says the goals of the court are to stop the Leaders of the Memphis commu- revolving door for low-level offend- nity formed the Memphis/Shelby ers and to resolve cases quickly. A County Crime Commission, which sentence of “time served” is never a recommended creating a communi- punishment option. Sentences in ty court as a way to integrate active most cases are carried out immedi- enforcement practices of the Mem- ately and warrants are served within phis Police Department’s communi- hours, not days, of their issuance. ty policing initiatives, community prosecution, and the court. The The judge can craft a sentence multijurisdictional community court, using a variety of tools. She can which opened in February 2000, require the defendant to pay back operates out of a storefront in a the neighborhood by performing local shopping mall, and the two community service. Also, working judges handle both criminal with the resource coordinator, she misdemeanors and environmental can craft rehabilitative plans that ordinance violations. include a range of social services such as acupuncture detoxification, Misdemeanor cases in the Frayser peer counseling, day and residential catchment area, such as low-level treatment for substance abuse, and drug possession, disorderly con- mental health counseling. The com- duct, reckless driving, criminal tres- munity court helps offenders reen- pass, public intoxication, and other ter the work force in collaboration alcohol-related violations, are with partnering agencies. Social referred to community court. services are coordinated by court- based social workers. The court also has jurisdiction over city and county ordinance

16 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 17

Community Court Profiles

violations, reflecting community tourists, pushed for the creation of residents’ concerns about neglected the Atlanta Community Court. The and abandoned property. Eight city’s Criminal Justice Coordinating police officers assigned to the Council, composed of criminal jus- Todd’s Creek CO–ACT Unit (a sub- tice leaders, elected officials, and precinct within the catchment area) government agencies, worked with look for code violations, especially the downtown improvement district, those involving properties with Central Atlanta Progress, to develop junk cars, tires, and other debris. the Atlanta Community Court as a Usually, the judge orders the prop- separate calendar that operates erty cleaned up by a certain date. within Municipal Court Judge Bill If violators fail to comply with the Riley’s general session. order, the judge may apply “injunc- tive relief,” including jail sentences Although the court serves the and fines. If owners clean up the entire city, which has a population property and sign a court order of approximately 440,000, Judge stating that they agree to remain in Riley is working to make justice compliance, charges are dismissed. more visible and more relevant to To date, approximately 100 derelict Atlanta’s neighborhoods through and neglected properties have been the use of community service. The cleaned up, according to Prosecutor judge keeps abreast of community Bart Dickinson. concerns and neighborhood hot spots by attending community Dickinson, who prosecutes both meetings and building relationships misdemeanors and code violations, with community members. The reports that the juvenile court delin- deployment of community court quency cases from the area are defendants performing community processed in conjunction with juve- service to neighborhoods suffering nile court, and eviction actions are from quality-of-life crime strength- adjudicated under the district attor- ens the link between the court and ney’s Drug Dealer Eviction Program. Atlanta’s neighborhoods.

Chris Kirby of Shelby County Defendants are eligible for com- Pretrial Services coordinates all munity court if they have been community service projects at the arrested or received a summons for court and serves as a liaison with a selected misdemeanor or violation service providers. in the city of Atlanta. Prior to arraignment, staff from the correc- Atlanta Community Court, tions department assess a defen- Atlanta, Georgia dant’s social service needs and make a sentencing recommenda- The Atlanta business community, tion to the judge. The court uses worried that quality-of-life crimes mandated long-term drug treatment were scaring away shoppers and

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 17 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 18

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

to address a defendant’s underlying to ensure accountability and to substance abuse issues. encourage individual responsibility. Court staff supervise offenders per- The court is working with the forming community service, and Pardon and Parole Board to create state-of-the-art technology helps reparative boards in the neighbor- the judge monitor compliance. hoods of Mechanicsville, a Weed and Seed site, and Old Fourth In addition, the courthouse is the Ward, an Empowerment Zone. hub of programs that engage local Judge Riley refers defendants who residents in “doing justice.” These live in those neighborhoods to the programs include mediation, com- boards as a sanction. munity service projects that put local volunteers to work repairing Red Hook Community conditions of disorder, and a youth Justice Center, court where teenagers resolve actual cases involving their peers. Brooklyn, New York Through these initiatives, Red Operating in the heart of a low- Hook seeks to engage the commu- income Brooklyn neighborhood, nity in aggressive crime prevention. the Red Hook Community Justice Planners see this strategy working Center has allowed judges to trans- in two ways: by solving local prob- form their responses to the people lems before they become a court who appear before the court. At problem and by helping knit togeth- Red Hook, a single judge hears er the fabric of the neighborhood. neighborhood cases that ordinarily are heard in three different courts— By using its coercive power to civil, family, and criminal. This link defendants to drug treatment model did not emerge by accident. and by providing onsite services Justice center planners felt that the like domestic violence counseling, problems faced by families and health care, and job training, Red individuals do not conform to juris- Hook seeks to strengthen families dictional boundaries. By having a and help individuals avoid further single judge handle matters tradi- involvement with the court system. tionally heard by different decision- Services are not limited to court makers at different locations, the users but are available to anyone in justice center offers a swift and the community who needs help. coordinated judicial response. The Red Hook Community The Red Hook judge has an array Justice Center is housed in a former of sanctions and services available, parochial high school, a site select- including community restitution ed by community members. New projects, onsite job training, drug York City financed the cost of reno- treatment, and health counseling— vating the long-vacant building. all of which are rigorously monitored

18 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 19

IV. Conclusion

Community court planners across court concept as a way to focus the country are motivated by differ- their efforts in a neighborhood with ent concerns. In Portland, the com- chronic public safety concerns. munity court program was a natural outgrowth of the neighborhood pros- In Hartford, Connecticut, the ecutor program. Having succeeded community court emerged from a in bringing the justice system closer process designed to solicit greater to the problem, Multnomah County community involvement in setting District Attorney Michael Shrunk law enforcement priorities. Law concluded that the best extension enforcement and the courts had of this effort involved the courts. focused on major crimes for several years, and community members Portland is pursuing a model in wanted to focus attention on less which community prosecution and serious, and far more frequent, community courts will serve the quality-of-life crimes. entire city. In this model, neighborhood district attorneys and com- These differences in focus high- munity courts will focus on the light that while our nation’s first low-level matters that shape the generation of community courts quality of life of all city residents. seek common goals—imposing immediate, meaningful sanctions on In West Palm Beach, Florida, offenders and forming genuine the initiative for a community court problem-solving partnerships with grew out of justice system practi- the neighborhoods they serve—they tioners’ frustration with the tradi- are most effective when responding tional model. Looking for new to the unique concerns of individual approaches, the local crime com- communities. mission embraced the community

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 19 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 21

V. Resources on Community Justice

Publications discussing innovative Innovative Court Programs: Results community justice initiatives, in- From State and Local Program cluding those listed below, are avail- Workshops. Washington, DC: able from the National Criminal Justice Research and Statistics Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Association (JRSA). 1995. Call 1–800–851–3420 or e-mail Available from JRSA by calling NCJRS at [email protected]. Many 202–842–9330. NCJRS publications also may be viewed online at the Justice Key Elements of Successful Information Center World Wide Web Adjudication Partnerships. Bulletin. site at www.ncjrs.org. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1999. NCJ 173949. Beyond Community Policing: Community Justice. Issue Paper. Opening the Courts to the Washington, DC: National Institute Community: Volunteers in of Justice. 1997. NCJ 165529. Wisconsin’s Courts. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice “Community Courts: Prospects and Assistance. 2000. NCJ 178935. Limits.” National Institute of Justice Journal. August 1996. NCJ Overcoming Obstacles to Com- 175939. munity Courts: A Summary of Workshop Proceedings. Monograph. Improving State and Local Criminal Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Justice Systems: A Report on How Assistance. 1998. NCJ 173400. Public Defenders, Prosecutors, and Other Criminal Justice System Responding to the Community: Practitioners Are Collaborating Principles for Planning and Creating Across the Country. Monograph. a Community Court. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1998. NCJ 173391. Assistance. 1997. NCJ 166821.

In New York City, a “Community Court” and a New Legal Culture: Program Description. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 1996. NCJ 158613.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 21 2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 23

VI. For More Information

The Center for Court Innovation For more information about BJA functions as the New York State programs, contact: Unified Court System’s independent research and development arm, Bureau of Justice Assistance creating demonstration projects that 810 Seventh Street NW. test new approaches to problems Washington, DC 20531 like addiction, family dysfunction, 202–514–6278 juvenile delinquency, and domestic World Wide Web: violence. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

CCI’s community justice projects Bureau of Justice Assistance include the Midtown Community Clearinghouse Court, the Red Hook Community P.O. Box 6000 Justice Center, and the Harlem Rockville, MD 20849–6000 Community Justice Center. With the 1–800–688–4252 support of the U.S. Department of World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org Justice, CCI encourages courts Clearinghouse staff are available across the country to solve prob- Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. lems locally and to build stronger to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to be links with communities. CCI also placed on the BJA mailing list. provides hands-on assistance to jurisdictions that are exploring top- U.S. Department of Justice ics of court and justice system Response Center reform, including community justice 1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480 and drug court technology. Response Center staff are avail- For more information about com- able Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. munity court initiatives, contact: to 5 p.m. eastern time. Center for Court Innovation Bridget Regan 520 Eighth Avenue 18th Floor New York, NY 10018 212–397–3050 E-mail: [email protected]. World Wide Web: www.courtinnovation.org

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 23 1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page C3

Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

General Information Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information spe- cialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ Mail ❒ BJA Home Page P.O. Box 6000 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA Rockville, MD 20849–6000 ❒ NCJRS World Wide Web ❒ Visit www.ncjrs.org 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 ❒ E-mail [email protected] ❒ Telephone 1–800–688–4252 ❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter Monday through Friday E-mail to [email protected] 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Leave the subject line blank eastern time In the body of the message, type: ❒ Fax subscribe justinfo 301–519–5212 [your name]

❒ Fax on Demand 1–800–688–4252 1-Covers 10/11/003:59PMPageC4

U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Bureau of Justice Assistance DOJ/BJA PERMIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300