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. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement IbNetTwReOenD cUitiCzeTnIOs aN nd the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for low- Lleovrelm, “ qipusaulimty -doof-lolirfe s”i to affmenedt,e crosn, sspeecetedtiuere ra nadi pmisocrien gm eelaitn, isnegdf udli acmas en orensuomlumtioyn nsi,b ahn edu ciosmst osda vtiinngcisd. uInn at duvt anc - lianogr teheet sdeo gloorael sm, caogmnma aulniqituya cmou errtast g veonluetrpalalyt. mUta kwei sgi reenaitmer auds em oifn icmom vmenuianmity, -qbuaise ndo satrnucdti oexnesr tchi atant itorand uitliloamna-l corupretsr (sHuasckiuptiat ,l oSobroorutissh niaisnl ,u atn adl iKqruailps teexin e, a2 0co0m8;m Kaotdzo, 2c0o0ns9e; qSuviartid. Dofufi se ta ault.e, 2m0 0ve0l; eWuemid inrieurr aen ddo lDoar vinis ,h 2e0n0d0re).rit iAnm vounlpgu ata staem vpeliet oefs s2e5 mcoomlemstuien citoyn csoeuqrutas ts, uvrevl eilyleudm i nd o2l0o0re7, e9u2 fpeeurgcieantt n ruolulati nfaecliyl iusisse a cto vmermo uenroitsy e ste arvciccuem msan - edta tiues,t oan odd i8o4 d pigernciessnitm ro quutii nbelalyn duiste p sroaceisael nste rluvipcteast muman zdzaritle dse (lKeanriat fainu,g 2u0e0 d8u). is dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. LoreTmhi si ppsaupmer d roelvoier wsist tahmee rte, sceoanrscehc ltieteturaetru ardei tpois dciantge ealbito, uste dco dmiammu nnoitnyu cmoumrtys n. Cibohm emuiusnmitoyd c eoxuerrtc si ttuadtiioens have uemllapmlocyoerdp ear nsumscbipeirt olofb doifrfteisr ennistl r uets eaalirqcuhi pm exth eoad cso, rmefmleocdtion gco tnhsee vqauraiat.tion in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. The community courts studied are the Midtown Community Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feu - Court in Manhattan, New York (opened in 1993); the Hartford Community Court in Hartford, Connecticut giat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit (opened in 1998); the Hennepin County Community Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota (opened in 1999); the augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York (opened in 2000); the Harlem Community Justice imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Center in Harlem, New York (opened in 2001); the Philadelphia Community Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut (opened in 2002); Bronx Community Solutions, in the Bronx, New York (opened in 2005); the Seattle laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcor - Community Court in Seattle, Washington (opened in 2005); the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre in per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in Liverpool, England (opened in 2005); the Salford Community Justice Initiative in Salford, England (opened in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et 2005); and Melbourne’s Neighbourhood Justice Centre (opened in 2007). In addition, one study surveyed 25 iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem community courts around the globe with the primary objective of identifying common community court ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore goals, performance measures, and benchmarks (Karafin, 2008). 2 | CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Table 1. Community Court Evaluations Court Date Citation Data Source Comparison Key Impacts and Other Findings Opened Group Bronx Jan. Katz (2009) Official records Pre-implemen - • Increased alternative sanctions (25% vs Community 2005 tation cases 9%, p<.001). Solutions • Reduced sentences without ongoing (Bronx, NY) obligations (73% vs 58%, p<.001). • Reduced jail sentences (18% vs 16%, p<.01). • Reduced jail days served per case (1.7 vs 1.5, p<.05). Harlem May Abuwala & Pro se tenant Centralized • More positive tenant perceptions of Community 2001 Farole interviews and downtown the judge experience (98% vs 85%, Justice Center (2008) structured housing court p<.001), which directly contributed to (Manhattan) courtroom greater overall satisfaction with the court observations experience at Harlem. Hartford Nov. Justice Offender and None • Offenders, stakeholders and focus Community 1998 Education stakeholder group members generally supported the Court Center interviews and Court’s work. (Hartford, CT) (2002) focus groups Hennepin June Eckberg Random tele - Pre-data from • Reduction in days from case filing to County 1999 (2001) phone surveys similar earlier disposition (reduced by 36%). Community of community survey; criminal • Increased number of hearings per case Justice Project members cases from out - due to greater judicial monitoring. (Minneapolis, side catchment; • No change in prevalence of community MN) and pre-imple - service sentences. mentation cases • Increased community service compli - ance rate (nearly 25% higher for com - munity court defendants). • A majority of residents were willing to pay slightly increased taxes and/or trans - fer tax money from other criminal jus - tice agencies to fund the continuation of the Court. Hennepin June Weidner & Official records Centralized • An approximate net cost of $704.52 County 1999 Davis (2000) and defendant downtown per case to run the Community Court. Community and service criminal court • 66% of respondents willing to reallo - Justice Project provider inter - cate taxes towards a community court. (Minneapolis, views • 64% of respondents willing to pay MN) additional taxes for a community court. Midtown Oct. Hakuta et al. Official records Centralized • Increased alternative sanctions (76% vs Community 1993 (2008) downtown 55%, p<.001). Court criminal court • Reduced jail sentences (13% vs 19%, (Manhattan) p<.001). • Reduced time-served sentences (7% vs 21%, p<.001). • No impact on net number of jail days served per case. COMMUNITY COURTS: THE RESEARCH LITERATURE | 3 Court Date Citation Data Source Comparison Key Impacts and Other Findings Opened Group Midtown Oct. Sviridoff et Official Pre-implemen - • Lower average arrest-to-arraignment Community 1993 al. (2001) records, com - tation cases time (18.9 vs 29.2 hours). Court munity survey, • Reduced use of “primary” jail sen - (Manhattan) and offender tences and increased use of “secondary” interviews jail sentences imposed in response to initial noncompliance (multiple signifi - cant effects for key charges); no net impact on jail days for most charges. • Mixed recidivism impacts; no clear effect on individual offender recidivism. • Reduced street prostitution and vend - ing arrests in the Midtown neighbor - hood. • Estimated savings of $1,270,000 to $1,418,000 annually from criminal jus - tice system cost savings and community service value. Midtown Oct. Sviridoff et Official Pre-implemen - • Increased use of alternative sanctions Community 1993 al. (2000) records, com - tation cases (multiple significant effects for key Court munity survey, charges). (Manhattan) offender and • Increased community service compli - court staff ance rate (75% vs 50%). interviews, and • Positive stakeholder, resident and courtroom offender attitudes about the Court. observations Neighbourhood Jan. Ross et al. Official Metropolitan • Reduced residential burglaries by 26% Justice Centre 2007 (draft) records; Magistrates’