The Arc

Below are a number of sample documents—everything from consent forms and intake assessments to program descriptions and brochures—used every day by problem-solving initiatives around the country. These may be helpful for your program as guides or templates. If your program uses a tool that might be helpful to include on this list, please email expertassistance@courtinnovation.org.  Agendas – Problem-Solving ConferencesIdaho-2008 Drug and Mental Health Court Institute Agenda: Indiana Problem-Solving Courts Workshop 2008Charters and BylawsSeattle Municipal Court, Community Court CharterCompliance Tracking ToolsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community Service Time Sheet Community Engagement – Events FlyersSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Planning Committee Meeting Flyer San Francisco Community Justice Center Kick-off Town Hall MeetingCommunity Engagement – Meeting AgendasSouth Carolina Fourth, Community Forum Agenda Judicial CircuitCommunity Engagement – Engaging VolunteersMidtown Community Court, Volunteer OpportunitiesSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Volunteer ApplicationCommunity Engagement – Meeting ToolsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court Ambassadors Program, Meeting Notes (for keeping records of planning meetings)San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court Ambassadors Program, Venue List (for gathering information on possible meeting locations)Community Justice Strategic PlansTarrant County (Ft. Worth) TX Community Justice Strategic PlanCommunity SurveysLynchburg Community Court, Community SurveySan Francisco Community Justice Baseline Survey 2009San Francisco Community Justice Press ReleaseSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community SurveyConsent FormsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Victim Consent FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Officer’s Consent FormExpungement InformationSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Fact Sheet on Expunging Records“Good Neighbor” AgreementsSeattle, Sample Community Good Neighbor Agreement Intake AssessmentsBronx Community Solutions, Intake Assessment FormClackamas County Social Services, Community Court Intake/QuestionnaireLynchburg Community Court, Intake Assessment FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intake AssessmentLinkage Agreements/Memoranda of UnderstandingPima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Memorandum of AgreementCareSouth Carolina and South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Linkage AgreementSan Diego Downtown Community Court Pilot Program, Memorandum of UnderstandingNewslettersBronx Community Solutions, Fall 2009 NewsletterCommunity Justice Devon and Cornwall - December 2008 Hartford Community Court, Fall 2007 NewsletterPhiladelphia Community Court, Winter 2006-2007 NewsletterSan Diego’s Downtown Community Court, Inaugural NewsletterSeattle Community Court, Summer 2008 Newsletter Seattle Community Court, Summer 2009 Newsletter Operations ManualsDC Misdemeanor and Traffic Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and ProceduresEast of the River Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and ProceduresPhilladelphia's Community Court, Manual -- Table of ContentsPretrial NoticesSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Program Requirements Explanation FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Participant Account NoticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Delinquent Payment NoticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Termination NoticeProgram DescriptionsBronx Community SolutionsCommunity Prosecution in West Midlands, EnglandIndianapolis Community Court - Program Description FlyerMelbourne's Neighbourhood Justice CentrePhiladelphia Community Court, Program DescriptionPima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Program DescriptionSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, General Information Flyer San Diego Collaborative and Restorative Justice Court ProgramsSan Diego, Mid-City Community Court Mission Statement San Diego Serial Inebriate Seattle Community Court, Council BriefingSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Chesterfield County Drug Court South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Operation Community JusticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Alcohol InterventionWashington DC's East of the River Community Court Washington DC's Misdemeanor and Traffic CourtProgram ReportsBronx Community Solutions, Annual ReportBronx Community Solutions, Quarterly Report San Diego’s Mid-City Community Court, Quarterly Report Fact SheetSeattle Community Court, Annual Report Referral FormsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intervention Program Referral Form Survey ToolsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for Community Impact PanelistsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for OffendersSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Summary of Survey of Community Impact Panelists Training CurriculaAtlanta Community Court - Police Training Curriculum

The following principles embody the collective experience of thousands of practitioners working to test new ideas and address chronic problems in the field of problem-solving justice. Over time, these principles have found their way into problem-solving initiatives in both big cities and small towns, in initiatives that address low-level offending and more serious crimes, and in projects that work with first-time offenders and chronic recidivists returning from prison. Enhanced Information Better staff training (about complex issues like domestic violence and drug addiction) combined with better information (about litigants, victims, and the community context of crime) can help improve the decision making of judges, attorneys, and other justice officials. High-quality information—gathered with the assistance of technology and shared in accordance with confidentiality laws—can help practitioners make more nuanced decisions about both treatment needs and the risks individual defendants pose to public safety, ensuring offenders receive an appropriate level of supervision and services. Community Engagement Citizens and neighborhood groups have an important role to play in helping the justice system identify, prioritize, and solve local problems. Actively engaging citizens helps improve public trust in the justice system. Greater trust, in turn, helps people feel safer, fosters law-abiding behavior, and makes members of the public more willing to cooperate in the pursuit of justice (as witnesses, jury members, etc.) Collaboration Justice system leaders are uniquely positioned to engage a diverse range of people, government agencies, and community organizations in collaborative efforts to improve public safety. By bringing together justice partners (e.g., judges, prosecutors, attorneys, probation officers, court managers) and reaching out to potential stakeholders beyond the courthouse (e.g., social service providers, victims groups, schools), justice agencies can improve inter-agency communication, encourage greater trust between citizens and government, and foster new responses—including new diversion and sentencing options, when appropriate—to problems. Individualized justice Using valid, evidence-based risk and needs assessment instruments, the justice system can link offenders to individually tailored community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate. In doing so (and by treating defendants with dignity and respect), the justice system can help reduce recidivism, improve community safety and enhance confidence in justice. Links to services can also aid victims, improving their safety and helping restore their lives. Accountability The justice system can send the message that all criminal behavior, even low-level quality-of-life crime—has an impact on community safety and has consequences. By insisting on regular and rigorous compliance monitoring—and clear consequences for non-compliance—the justice system can improve the accountability of offenders. It can also improve the accountability of service providers by requiring regular reports on their work with participants. Outcomes The active and ongoing collection and analysis of data—measuring outcomes and process, costs and benefits—are crucial tools for evaluating the effectiveness of operations and encouraging continuous improvement. Public dissemination of this information can be a valuable symbol of public accountability. Appreciation is extended to the following who reviewed and commented on these principles: Pam Casey, National Center for State Courts Cait Clarke, consultant, former director of the National Defender Leadership Institute William F. Dressel, The National Judicial College John Goldkamp, Temple University C. West Huddleston III, National Association of Drug Court Professionals Steven Jansen, National District Attorneys Association Wendy Lindley, Orange County (California) Superior Court Judy Harris Kluger, New York State Unified Court System Timothy Murray, Pretrial Justice Institute Carol Roberts, Ramsey County (Minnesota) Community Corrections

With the help of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation convened the first ever international conference of community courts in Dallas, Texas on October 19-20, 2010. In attendance were criminal justice officials from dozens of American cities as well as delegations from England, Australia, Canada, Chile and Mexico.

With support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bronx Defenders launched the Center for Holistic Defense in 2010. The Center for Holistic Defense has issued its first "request for proposals" (or RFP), which will allow it to help three jurisdictions in the development of a holistic defense practice. The Bronx Defenders, through its Center for Holistic Defense, is moving to shift public defense practice in the United States in a direction that is more aware of the client as a whole person with a broad range of challenges and needs that interconnect with their criminal case.   The organization, which provides free legal services to indigent residents of the Bronx borough of New York City, launched the Center for Holistic Defense in 2010 to help public defense offices around the United States learn how to incorporate holistic defense principles into their work.  In its model of holistic defense, each Bronx Defenders client receives services from an interdisciplinary group of experts who work together as a team to address the client’s needs, both in terms of their criminal defense and with regards to other issues that may help the client improve their well-being and avoid further involvement with the criminal justice system.  The Bronx Defenders has staff trained in many disciplines in addition to criminal law, including social work, parent advocacy, family law, and immigration law.  The Bronx Defenders is able to be more responsive to clients’ needs while keeping the cost per case comparable to that of other public defense providers.  “Being able to offer more services is a function of allocation of resources. I resist the idea that providing services is an add-on; it is integral to public defense,” Steinberg said. The Center for Holistic Defense, in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation, is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). For the second year in a row, a BJA grant has allowed the Center for Holistic Defense to issue a “request for proposals” (or RFP), which will allow it to help three additional jurisdictions in the development of a holistic defense practice.  Bronx Defenders will encourage the three jurisdictions—which will be chosen for their geographic and organizational diversity—to practice holistic defense in the way that makes the most sense for them.  In response to its previous solicitation, the Center for Holistic Defense assisted the Knox County (TN) Public Defender’s Community Law Office, the Wisconsin State Public Defender, and the Washoe County (NV) Public Defender in the development of holistic defense programs. “We recognize that there can be a spectrum of holistic defense practice.  We want to encourage each jurisdiction to practice holistic defense in the way that is most appropriate to their fiscal and organizational circumstances.  For example, for those organizations that are deeply underfunded and struggling to cope under the burden of their caseloads, we would like to show that there are mechanisms for creatively using existing resources in their communities that will not increase costs,” Steinberg explained. (Applicants who wish to be considered for the RFP should visit https://www.bronxdefenders.org/press/public-defender-offices-eligible-free-technical-assistance for more information. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, March 2, 2011.) In addition to supporting the jurisdictions selected under the BJA-sponsored program, the Center provides assistance to all comers through a website offering instructional material on developing a holistic practice. Center staff also provides direct technical assistance—through formal consulting relationships, site visits to the Bronx Defender offices, and being an informal resource center and depository of information—to help move more organizations towards holistic defense. Robin Steinberg, executive director of Bronx Defenders, founded the Bronx Defenders’ in 1997 after years of practicing as a public defender and exposure to public defense practice across the nation. It became clear to her that to be more responsive to clients, public defense attorneys needed to broaden the scope of the services they offered.  “Clients come to public defenders with many challenges other than their criminal case.  Often those challenges, such as addiction, joblessness, possible deportation, or loss of housing, are more pressing than the criminal charges faced by the client, and if those issues are not addressed, clients are destined to cycle back into the criminal justice system,” Steinberg said.  In the 2010 Padilla v. Kentucky decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attorneys representing criminal defendants have an obligation to advise their clients of the risk of deportation associated with a guilty plea.  This ruling affirms the work of the Bronx Defenders, which has been demonstrating for nearly 15 years that zealous defense of criminal defendants must include a holistic assessment of the client’s needs, including understanding how collateral consequences like deportation by immigration authorities may impact defense strategy.

LONDON, December 2009 — The Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales has launched a year-long community prosecutor pilot initiative in sites across the country. The initiative is described in “Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice”, a consultation paper released by the Criminal Justice System of England and Wales in April 2009. The paper “sets out the government’s proposals for transforming criminal justice from a system that does things to communities into a true service that does things for and with communities.” The proposals in the paper are built around four primary aims: Achieving stronger, community-focused partnerships that draw together activity across criminal justice services and other relevant agencies to secure effective, two-way communications between the Criminal Justice System and local communities; Building on the success of community justice projects and the problem-solving approach to enhance the visibility of the Criminal Justice System, solve problems for the community, and reform offenders and enable them to make amends; Increasing the intensity and visibility of community-restitution efforts; Keeping the public informed by improving the information the public receives about case outcomes and, in this way, helping ensure that the public sees a connection between the crime and the punishment meted out in response. The paper describes community prosecution as “a major new initiative” for the Crown Prosecution Service that will strengthen the agency’s role and “ensure it will be better able to play its full role in community engagement alongside the police, courts, and other partners.” The paper continues: “The aim of the approach is to enable the CPS to provide a more locally responsive service than it can at present and it will enhance the CPS’ ability to respond to local needs and circumstances.” “The community prosecutor approach is about the way the CPS does business, rather than creating a cadre of ‘community prosecutors’, and delivery of it will be subject to local variations and circumstances. It is anticipated that all members of the CPS will, over time, come to regard themselves as community prosecutors.” The Crown Prosecution Service began testing the community prosecutor approach in 49 sites across England and Wales over 12 months, starting in June 2009. Each site is testing: Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors’ taking more “community-aware” casework decisions; Increased Crown Prosecution Service involvement in problem solving for local crime and disorder priorities; and Increased visibility to communities and other agencies of the Crown Prosecution Service’s responsiveness to these priorities. By the end of 2009, the community prosecutor approach in 30 of the pilot locations will be delivered alongside three other initiatives described in the consultation paper: community impact statements, community justice teams, and citizens’ panels. Watch a short video in which Community Prosecutor Gaynor Zeki talks about the pilot program in Wakefield, England.  

Jack Straw endorses court-community collaboration following a February 2008 visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Following a visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center —during which he experienced a judge’s-eye view of the courtroom, quizzed staff about operations, and met with a group of ex-offenders who had gotten their lives back on track—Jack Straw, the United Kingdom’s justice secretary and lord chancellor, endorsed efforts in his own country to foster court-community collaborations. (To hear a podcast reporting on Straw's visit, click here.) In an opinion article in the Guardian published after his visit, Straw wrote that the Red Hook Community Justice Center “has done much to increase people’s confidence in criminal justice.” “We should not be so proud that we are unable to learn lessons from others. In New York, they have recognized that the courts cannot do it alone. Without the cooperation of the community, many offenders simply repeat the cycle of offending and detention,” Straw wrote. Earlier visits to the Justice Center by British officials inspired the creation in 2005 of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. The North Liverpool pilot has been followed by 12 other community court projects across England and Wales. “The reputation of Red Hook has gone far and wide,” Straw said. Straw had a chance to sit on the bench with presiding Judge Alex Calabrese. Among the cases Calabrese heard was that of a woman with a long history of drug abuse and prostitution arrests. Calabrese had ordered her to participate in drug treatment. “It seems like everything is going really well.  You should be proud,” Calabrese told her after reviewing a positive report from the drug-treatment facility. At the conclusion of her appearance, the courtroom erupted in applause and both Calabrese and Straw shook her hand. During a tour of the building, Straw queried both staff and clients about their experiences at the justice center. Later, Straw met with ex-offenders and the Justice Center’s law enforcement partners, including 76th Precinct Captain Michael Kemper, who explained how the police and the Justice Center have worked together to tackle low-level crime and improve safety.  The 76th Precinct is the safest in Brooklyn according to the latest crime statistics. Straw also met Tina, a former offender, who explained that she’d lived on the street for nine years before an arrest brought her to the justice center. Judge Calabrese mandated her to a year of treatment. “And I was just so relieved,” Tina said. “I never looked back. I stayed in the program three years because that’s what it took … and now I work for them.” Virtually every week, the Center for Court Innovation hosts visitors from around the U.S. and the world -- criminal justice officials from more than 50 countries have toured the Center's demonstration projects. Last year, the Center for Court Innovation hosted more than 700 visitors.   “During these visits, we try to show that courts can work better and that outcomes matter. We’re demonstrating that combining punishment and help is the best way of getting clients back on track, reducing recidivism, and serving the community,” said Julius Lang, who oversees the Center's community court technical assistance efforts.  

EXPANDING THE USE OF PROBLEM-SOLVING JUSTICE: Reflections on what works, what doesn’t and how to overcome challenges, the second workshop for the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Community Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative, was held at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta on May 23 and 24, 2007. The workshop's learning goals were to identify successes and challenges of the initiative's demonstration sites, to explore ideas for overcoming challenges, and to build skills in seeking local resources. Keynote speakers were BJA Director Domingo Herraiz; Center for Court Innovation Director Greg Berman; Multnomah County, Oregon District Attorney Mike Schrunk; and President of the Atlanta City Council Lisa Borders. Julius Lang and Chris Watler, director and deputy director of technical assistance at the Center, spearheaded a faculty consisting of Aaron Arnold, director of the Center for Court Innovation’s upstate office; Steven Jansen, director of the Center for Community Prosecution at the National District Attorneys Association; Diana Karafin, senior research associate at the Center for Court Innovation; Michael Magnani, Director of the Division of Grants and Program Development for the New York State Unified Court System; Preeti Puri Menon, BJA’s Policy Advisor for Adjudication; Karen Moen of the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Children, Families and the Courts; and Phillip Rush, program officer at The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta. The workshop was an opportunity for team building as well as learning, with project leaders from the following ten grantee sites attending: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; San Diego Beach Area Community Court, California; the City of Atlanta Community Court Division, Georgia; the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Bronx Community Solutions, New York; the Athens County Substance Abusing/Mentally Ill Court, Ohio; Overland Park Community Court, Clackamas County, Oregon; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; Lynchburg Community Court, Virginia; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington. Here are some photos from the event: Teams not pictured: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington  

In May 2007, Ireland’s National Crime Council published a report recommending the establishment of community courts in Ireland. The report, “Problem Solving Justice: The Case for Community Courts in Ireland,” includes 20 recommendations, including that a community court should be established in Dublin and that, if successful, the model should be extended to other areas of the country. According to Padraic White, Chairman of the National Crime Council, “community courts take a problem-solving approach to low-level offenders, using a range of health and social services while some defendants may be required to undertake community work in the neighbourhood to make some reparation for their offending in that neighbourhood.”   Judge Michael Reilly, the Council member who chaired the subgroup responsible for the report, said that the introduction of community courts—with their wide array of problem-solving options—would contribute to breaking the cycle of re-offending. The proposed community court for inner-city Dublin would deal with low-level offenses such as drunk and disorderly conduct, assault, criminal damage, graffiti and petty theft. It would link offenders with services meant to deal with the underlying issues that led to their crime, and allow offenders to pay back the neighborhood through community service. According to the report, the concept of community courts was first brought to the National Crime Council’s attention by Tom Coffey, the Chief Executive Officer of the Dublin City Business Association, after staff from the Center for Court Innovation made a presentation to the group. In September 2006 a delegation visited the Midtown Community Court, Red Hook Community Justice Center, and Philadelphia Community Court as part of a fact finding mission to the U.S. To read the report in full, click here.

In March 2007, the Scottish government announced its plans to open the country's first community justice centre and community court in Glasgow. The center, which is expected to be up and running in 2009, will be based on the Red Hook Community Justice Center and Midtown Community Court in New York and the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre in England, but be adapted to suit the needs of the Scottish criminal justice system and local community. The center aims to improve justice services, speed up court processes and strengthen the court's relationship with the local community. It will be led by a single judge who will regularly engage the community in discussions about local crime issues and how offenders can pay back the community swiftly and visibly through community service. Typical sentences will involve a package of measures designed to make offenders pay back the community for their crimes and tackle the underlying problems that led to their offending, with support such as access to housing, drug treatment, employment and mental health services. In one example, an offender might be required to perform community service as well as attend a drug rehabilitation course and receive help to address debt problems. "Smart options, not soft options," as Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson put it, "the kind of approaches which I have already seen delivering real results for people in New York." While some community courts only deal with cases once the accused has pled guilty, the Glasgow court will deal with as many local cases as possible whether the accused pleads guilty or not. Currently, local government leaders are working to identify suitable sites, consulting the community on the location as community involvement will be vital to its success. "Crime in Scotland is falling," says Jamieson. "However, we also know that persistent offenders—even where small in number—can drag a whole community down. The community justice centre, through its unique problem-solving approach, will help us take a further step towards tackling that."  

In an effort to assess the impact of the Justice Center on defendant perceptions of fairness, the Center for Court Innovation conducted a survey of nearly 400 misdemeanor defendants, who had their cases handled at either the Justice Center or a traditional, centralized criminal court.

While South Africa is one of the most prosperous African countries, it also faces high crime rates. In response, the government has embarked on an ambitious, country-wide community justice program. Seventeen (soon to be 18) community courts are currently in operation around the country. Community policing strategies are being employed throughout the national police force. And, in 2006, the National Prosecuting Authority launched a community prosecution pilot program in each of the country’s nine provinces, in areas that together account for some of the highest crime levels in South Africa.       The nine sites were selected for their high crime rates or persistent levels of minor crime, as well as for their potential for social and economic development. If the model works at these diverse sites—two urban, six peri-urban (township), and one rural—it will work nearly anywhere in the country, justice officials believe. The approach is targeted and aggressive: prosecutors have been sent into each community to begin working on reducing and preventing local crime at the community level, and each site is being rigorously evaluated through data collection, questionnaires, workshop discussions, site observations, photographic documentation, and formal and informal interviews. “This is a very exciting initiative as we explore the role of the prosecutor in crime prevention and community justice,” says Shamila Batohi, Director of Public Prosecutions for KwaZulu-Natal province and the senior prosecutor responsible for coordinating the project. “We face enormous challenges in our beautiful country, but we are optimistic that the community prosecution initiative will help us move closer to the achievement of the National Prosecuting Authority’s vision: ‘Justice in our society so that people can live in freedom and security.’” According to researcher Richard Griggs of Independent Projects Trust, successes to date have been palpable. In Windsor East, for example—an urban area troubled by drug sales, organized crime, and transient populations—a joint operation between the community prosecutor and local police resulted in the arrests of 15 drug syndicate members. A number of illegal immigrants, whose presence in the community had led to a noticeable increase in criminal activity, have been arrested and deported. The arrests of dozens of other offenders have helped clean up Windsor: drug dealers who were previously visible have retreated from the streets, and it is no longer common for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants or for businesses to hire them. Community prosecution efforts have helped drive brothels out of the area, while negotiations with businesses and community members have brought the crime-ridden King’s Pub area, notorious for drug activity and wild behavior, under control. In another, very different example, community prosecutors have had some early success in the rural North West Kudumani, where cattle theft had been a significant problem. A major clamp-down on rustling in 2006 led to a significant reduction in cattle theft, which is now negligible in the area (previously up to 40 cases had been reported per day ). The community is no longer engaged in vigilantism, and proper facilities—including fenced grazing camps, branding, and veterinary services, all of which prevent cattle theft—are being developed. With the arrest of police members who were participating in livestock theft, police-community relations have improved. The community prosecution project is still being piloted and monitored. Any early findings discussed here are tentative observations pending the full evaluation that will be undertaken from mid-June 2007 and released by September. Due to these initial successes and the government’s commitment to reducing crime, justice officials are spreading the lessons learned from community prosecution. In February 2007, a two-day National Prosecuting Authority conference on Community Prosecution and Restorative Justice was held in Cape Town, with the audience consisting of the 250 most senior prosecutors in the country (with a spotlight on the nine community prosecutors). As results are gathered from around the country, researchers are examining a number of key questions, including what kind of models might fit any given location, and how community prosecution as it exists in South Africa, with its unique history and problems, can be defined in the present and shaped for the future. UPDATE: In March 2008, an extensive independent research report on the South African pilot sites was released. The report found that partnerships between community prosecutors, municipalities, local communities and police can significantly help reduce crime rates. To read more, click here.  

A prominent New York community group honored the Midtown Community Court for its enduring contributions to the neighborhood in the form of safer streets and improved quality of life. The Broadway Association, which has represented businesses in Times Square since 1911, presented its Golden Scroll Award to the Midtown Court’s presiding judge, Richard M. Weinberg, at a luncheon on Jan. 17. The award expresses appreciation for the court’s 13 years “fostering, promoting, and improving public safety and quality of life in New York City.” The award also credits the court’s partners, including the New York State Unified Court System, the Center for Court Innovation, and law enforcement, for helping the Midtown Court serve as a “model of problem-solving justice.”  New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye gave the keynote address. Chuck Scarborough, a local anchorman with NBC, served as master of ceremonies. The Midtown Community Court was established in 1993. The nation’s first community court, it has been credited with playing a pivotal role in the turn-around of Times Square, a neighborhood once plagued with drug dealing, prostitution, and rampant quality-of life crime. The court uses a combination of punishment and help to address problems that offenders bring to court. It also actively engages the community in developing solutions to safety issues. Independent evaluators have documented that the Midtown Community Court’s focus on low-level crime contributed to a significant drop in local street crime and improved attitudes toward justice. The success of the Midtown Court has led to the development of nearly three dozen community courts around the U.S. and replications in several countries around the world. The awards luncheon was held in the Marriot Marquis on Jan. 17.