The Arc

Reviewed by Aaron Arnold This book review was originally published in the Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

On September 17, 2009, the Harlem Community Justice Center, in collaboration with the New York Police Department, held a youth resource fair at the historic Harlem Armory. The fair was the brainchild of Lt. Kevin O’Connor of Patrol Borough Manhattan North, who asked the Justice Center in to help him with the fair. Increasing youth gang violence and the need for parents to know more about the resources available to them in their community were prime motivators for the fair. The name of the fair, “For The Kids (F.T.K),” mirrors the three-letter name trend of many juvenile gangs in upper Manhattan. The fair sent a strong anti-violence message and helped Harlem youth and local police officers interact in a positive way.  Over 1,000 youth and parents attended. They had access to over 80 service providers, recruiters and local businesses with information and give-a-ways. Additionally, youth groups performed for the crowd.  Also in attendance were all the commanding officers for each of the police precincts in Harlem and  Borough Commander Chief Banks III. The Justice Center, working with NYPD youth officers, conducted extensive outreach throughout Harlem to publicize the fair. More than 15,000 flyers were distributed and an email was sent to over 400 partners.

The 10th graduation of the Harlem Reentry Court featured a special guest. “I was born in Harlem, and I grew up in Harlem and now at 82, I’m still in Harlem,” said Harry Belafonte, the singer, actor and activist, as he congratulated the Reentry Court’s 17 graduates on satisfying the program’s rigorous requirements.

At New York City’s Middle School 61, high levels of conflict between students—often leading to physical fighting—has been a chronic problem. Over the last three years the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center’s School Justice Center, which works intensively with schools to transform their culture and promote peaceful resolutions to conflict, has offered mediation services to students in an effort to resolve these conflicts. Mediation not only broadens students’ ranges of options, but offers a place where parties in conflict can understand each other. And the confidential and private nature of mediation provides students with a space separate from the pressure of their peers and family members to address the issues at root of their conflicts. Students attend mediation both voluntarily and involuntarily at School 61, depending on the circumstances. Once the Program Coordinator has a referral, she has to determine whether the case is appropriate for mediation and does not pose a serious danger to participants. Appropriate cases include arguments between students, conflicts that may lead to a physical fight, and conflicts that have lingered after a fight has occurred. The Coordinator determines which parties need to be involved in the mediation, what the balance of power is between the parties, and whether or not there is a threat of violence. She gathers the involved students during their lunch period or, if that is not possible, during class time. The mediations are completed either in the mediation office or in an empty classroom if the conflict involves multiple parties. This requires coordination with school deans and also with teachers whose classrooms are being used. During the mediation, the Coordinator encourages all parties to tell their sides of the story. She interrupts behavior that is detrimental to the reconciliation process, reinforces attempts at resolution, helps the students come up with some action steps and agreements, and suggests some tips for conflict resolution the next time a situation should occur. While there are varying opinions about how involved the mediator should be in helping the parties come to their own agreements, the Center’s experience at Middle School 61 over the past three years has shown that an adult mediator in the middle school setting has an educational role, helping students to see and use alternative approaches to conflict. As an educator, the Program Coordinator also uses mediation sessions to help the students recognize how their conflicts escalate as a result of their body language, tone of voice, and choice of words. Once the mediation has ended, the Coordinator sends the students back to class. If they were referred by a teacher or dean, she confirms with that person that the mediation took place. She later follows up with the students privately to confirm that the issue has been successfully addressed and, if conflict still exists, brings the students in for a second mediation. Follow-up continues with the students until they agree that the conflict has ended. As students and staff have seen successes among children of different grades and abilities, and with various disciplinary issues, there has evolved a school-wide understanding that mediation is not only a viable option within the school disciplinary system but also a line of first attack. Today students and teachers unknown to the Program Coordinator approach her knowing not only who she is but also what mediation is. In a school as large as MS 61, this is somewhat extraordinary, and speaks to the fact that the successes of mediation have led participants to discuss their experiences with their peers and elders. Additionally, everyone from the principal of the school to new sixth graders relies on mediation to settle disputes that arise. The result is that mediation has become, in the past three years, a crucial element of the conflict resolution culture at Middle School 61. This form of mediation is a problem-solving strategy that can complement community prosecution and community court efforts—by providing better connections to schools, a focus on enhanced prevention and safety, and robust youth development.  

On June 21, 2007, the Center’s Youth Justice Board presented the results of its year-long study of New York City’s permanency planning process to an audience that included New York City Council members, academics, judges, policymakers, and members of the press. The presentation was hosted by the Administrative Judge of New York City Family Court Judge Joseph Lauria, whose office supported the Board's work throughout the year. Written by the Board’s 16 teenage members—all New York City high schools students 15 to 19 years old, many of whom have been foster children themselves—the report, Stand Up Stand Out: Recommendations to Improve Youth Participation in New York City's Permanency Planning Process, proposes 14 specific recommendations to improve the court experiences and outcomes for adolescents in foster care.   The Board spent several months researching New York's permanency planning process—interviewing over 40 child welfare and court professionals, conducting two focus groups of youth in care and observing Family Court proceedings in Kings County, Bronx County and New York County Family Courts. The report focuses on concrete steps that can be taken by New York City Family Court, the Administration for Children’s Services, provider agencies, law guardians, and by young people themselves to make sure that youth in foster care play an active role in the court process and in the decisions that affect their lives. Stand Up Stand Out: Recommendations to Improve Youth Participation in New York City's Permanency Planning Process is the third report created by the Board, which was launched by the Center for Court Innovation in 2003 as an after-school program bringing together New York City teenagers to study and devise policy recommendations on issues affecting city youth. In its first year, members studied the challenges of youth returning home after confinement for juvenile delinquency; the next year’s group focused on safety problems in New York City high schools. This year’s report has generated even more interest. In addition to the June presentation, the Board will be presenting the report to each of the city’s county courthouses, as well as to several city agencies who have expressed interest. In addition, the New York State Judicial Institute has requested 100 copies of the report to be used at judges’ seminars. Over the next year, the Youth Justice Board will continue to advocate for their ideas and work with Family Court and child protection practitioners to turn their ideas into reality. Watch members of the Board discuss the report on WNBC.  

In 2006, the Red Hook Youth Photography Project was developed as a response to community needs in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Over the course of a summer, young people use photography to express their feelings and questions about the world. At the end of the summer, all student portfolios are displayed in a show at the Red Hook Community Justice Center, giving participants an opportunity to be the subject of positive attention from their community. As a geographically and socially isolated neighborhood, Red Hook has struggled with the absence of many basic services and amenities. For example, local youth and their parents have emphasized the need for more arts programs for young people. At the same time, the Red Hook Community Justice Center’s social workers have identified a need for programs that build self-esteem and enable positive forms of self-expression. The Red Hook Youth Photography Project was developed in 2006 as a response to this set of needs. Over the course of a summer, young people ages 14 to 18 use photography to express their feelings and questions about the world in which they live. Program participants are trained in the technical elements of photography—camera operation and care, image editing, and photograph printing—and develop visual literacy by identifying and employing composition, framing, symbolism, mood, and gestures in images. At the end of the summer, all student portfolios are displayed in a show at the Justice Center. The display of their work gives participants an opportunity to be the subject of positive attention from their community, according to James Brodick, director of the Justice Center. Supported by the Edith Glick Shoolman Children’s Foundation, the Youth Photography Project in its first year recruited 10 students to work three days a week for eight weeks. Over the next two years, the program’s capacity will increase to 15 and then 20 students. The program begins with a 25-hour training that teaches youth appropriate workplace behavior, financial management, conflict resolution, and other skills. Participants receive a small weekly stipend that enables them to make a contribution to family finances and helps them begin to implement some of the financial management skills they have learned. In 2006, classes were coordinated by a lead teacher Alice Proujansky and assistant Johanna Neufeld, who have extensive experience in arts education with youth from under-resourced areas. “Sharing and discussing their photographs helps young people develop coping behaviors like positive self-expression, constructive risk-taking, and appropriate social participation, while the photography itself provides an alternative way to communicate difficult emotions and ideas,” Proujansky said. Because some topics may spark challenging and deeply personal conversations, a Justice Center social worker participates in some class meetings and activities, and is available to the participants individually as needed. Each participant also has an individual meeting with the teachers and the social worker to identify any services or programs the young person may want or need and to provide appropriate referrals. The program is designed to have an impact that extends beyond the eight weeks the students spend at the Justice Center. All young people who participate in a Justice Center program have life-long access to the center’s network of partnering agencies and programs, and also become eligible for a variety of services provided by the Justice Center’s Youth Court, including college prep classes and trips, summer internships, and mentoring matches. They also get to keep their digital camera, enabling them to continue their artistic work. To view photos from the 2006 class, click here.

Launched in January 2004, the Youth Justice Board brings together young people from throughout New York City to propose solutions to the public safety issues that affect them and their peers. Shocked to learn that 75% of all youth released from state custody are rearrested within three years, the sixteen Board members—drawn from high schools throughout the city—spent nine months researching the topic of juvenile reentry. They met with over two dozen city and state officials, youth workers, scholars, and even reentry youth and their family members, then spent months analyzing the data they collected, formulating policy recommendations and drafting a formal report. Based on their interviews and research, the Youth Justice Board identified three principles that should apply to the whole reentry process: Early PlanningMost juveniles who enter placement return to the same communities that they left. Placement is an opportunity to prepare the young person—and the family—to address the challenges he or she will face when released. Therefore, planning for the return home should start early—as soon as the decision is made to send the young person to placement. Individual TreatmentThe Youth Justice Board recommends that the key players involved with each young person meet early to create a plan that reflects his or her individual strengths and challenges. The team should include the young person, guardians, staff from the state agency responsible for placement and reentry (New York State Office of Children and Family Services, or OCFS), and a school representative. CoordinationYoung people in placement and aftercare come into contact with many agencies (e.g. OCFS, the New York City Department of Education, and community-based service providers), but the Board heard from several agencies that they are in the dark about what other agencies were doing. Regular meetings of all the agencies working with reentry youth would help improve communication, ensuring that youth do not fall between the cracks. Building on these principles, the Youth Justice Board recommends the following ideas to help prevent recidivism among reentry youth: 1. Motivate young people to succeedUltimately, reentry youth themselves are the only ones that can improve their lives. One of the reasons youth drop out of programs and get into trouble is that they are not involved in activities they enjoy. To help reentry youth stay motivated, the Board recommends linking youth to programs they can get excited about, offering job training and links to adult mentors, in particular. 2. Help young people get in school and stay in school Although everyone interviewed agreed that education is crucial, it is hard to get reentry youth back in school and it is hard to get them to stay in school. One Department of Education official said that the biggest barrier is “the human hurdle—no one wants them back.” The Board recommends that OCFS make a higher priority of helping young people catch up in basic reading and math skills while in placement and provide an orientation workshop once they return home to prepare students for the return to their local school. In addition, the Department of Education should match students to schools quickly, make sure credits earned in placement are transferred correctly, and create incentives for schools to accept reentry students. 3. Strengthen the relationships between family and youthOne OCFS official said that if a young person is not accepted by his or her family, he or she will hang out in the streets. He emphasized that it was important to make sure that the family is ready for the young person’s return and bring the youngster up to speed on what has occurred back home. To help address these problems, the Board recommends counseling for the family and youth together, as well as voluntary parent-to-parent support groups. In addition, to maintain communication while the young person is in custody, OCFS should make sure families have an easy way to visit placement facilities in upstate New York. 4. Improve the reentry processThe Board recommends four specific ways to improve the current reentry process: Share assessment information. OCFS collects a lot of information about the young person. Relevant information from these assessments should be available to the organizations that provide services to the young person. Track the early warning signs of recidivism. Usually there are warning signs before a young person is rearrested: he or she becomes truant, violates curfew or doesn’t attend programs. OCFS should institute a uniform system to track these warning signs and intervene before the next arrest occurs. Create Connection Centers. The Board recommends creating a transition facility just north of New York City that would focus on helping young people make the difficult transition from placement to home. Since it is closer to home, OCFS aftercare workers, Department of Education staff, and parents could all meet to make sure the details of the reentry plan (e.g. school placement) are in place. Create Welcome Centers. Once they are back home, reentry youth need a place where they can go to get reliable information about services and opportunities. Welcome Centers in their communities would have links to youth development programs, mental health and substance abuse services, job training and peer support groups.  

  A Judicial Hearing Officer Shares His Experiences with the Harlem Juvenile Reentry Network by Chris Watler  As the judicial hearing officer for the Harlem Community Justice Center’s Juvenile Reentry Network, I see first hand the difficulties faced by young people returning from placement to their community. I also see the challenges faced by our juvenile justice system, which is struggling to do right by these kids and the communities they live in. Open since August of 2003, the Juvenile Reentry Network serves juveniles recently released from state placement. Participants and their families are linked to an expansive network of services and monitored by an aftercare counselor and partner agencies under my supervision. The Juvenile Reentry Network is not Family Court, nor is it technically part of the judicial system. Rather, it acts as an administrative court within the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to enhance the supervision of youth in aftercare. Some of its innovative elements include a high level of family engagement, a strength-based approach to case management, youth development programming through three Boys & Girls Clubs in Harlem, access to mental health and drug treatment services, and intensive court monitoring. I work with juveniles and their families every other week in the court. The highlights for me include working with a committed group of partners, and with kids and their families. The lives of these young people tell a story of hope and struggle in the face of family dysfunction, poverty, negative peer pressure and institutional neglect. How does a young person returning from placement find the motivation and discipline to live a constructive life free from further offending? The Juvenile Reentry Network attempts to answer this question, but it is not easy. Gang involvement, learning disabilities, conflict at home, lack of resources (money and people), and low expectations are all part of the context within which these kids operate. While in placement most of these kids attended school, obeyed rules, were drug free, and engaged in positive activities. Returning home afterward presents a set of incredible challenges that strike at the core of their identity in their family and in their neighborhood. Asking them to trust that a court will work with them to create change in their lives, and convincing them that change will involve creating a new identity, choosing new friends, and developing better habits and a rigid routine is daunting. Yet the alternate option of doing nothing to address their needs is a sure formula (and an expensive one) for failure. I want to briefly describe two cases that highlight the challenges. The first case was a young woman who had been caught shoplifting at Macy's twice and brought to the Midtown Community Court. Her mother had been complaining that the child was leaving the house after curfew late at night and sitting in cars in front of the building. From her counselor at the Boys and Girls Club we learned that she was being called constantly by a male "acquaintance" who indicated that he wanted her to leave the Club to go "earn some money." Through these various conversations, the picture that emerged was of a female participant being lured into prostitution. On the first occasion when she was caught shoplifting she was sanctioned to community service. She was failing to complete the community service when she was picked up the second time. Her aftercare counselor and I confronted her about our suspicions during a sidebar conversation. We informed her that we were going to send her to a residential program that helped young women understand the risks and realities of prostitution and helped teenage prostitutes get out of the business. We also talked to her mother at the hearing about our deep concern for her. It was during this process that the participant re-offended (the second shoplifting offense) and had to be sent back into state placement. Normally, this case might have looked like a typical parent-child conflict with curfew violations and minor re-offending. The suspected prostitution, a more troubling issue, would most likely have gone unnoticed, but we were able to connect the dots by using information from the partners, and from the information gleaned from conversations in court with the participant and her mom. This young person is now back before me again, having been released from placement, and is applying to college and has an interview for a job. My last meeting with her in court included a mock interview from the bench. I had her practice responding to interview questions and gave her feedback. In the long run, we are hoping to get her on a different track that will increase her sense of self worth and empower her to see the possibilities for her life away from crime. Another case involved a 16-year-old girl who had previously failed to complete aftercare four times. She was referred to Juvenile Reentry Network last fall and was returned to placement within four weeks! On her second go round with Juvenile Reentry Network (and her fifth time in aftercare) she was placed on electronic monitoring for the first four weeks of her release and given a tighter curfew. From January through May her school attendance improved, she was more engaged in Boys and Girls Club programming, and she participated more in the hearing process. Her mother indicated that she made it this far because of the Juvenile Reentry Network. Through the intense attention and structure she was given through the Network, she was able to complete the program and end the cycle of recidivism. She continues to attend her Boys and Girls Club program. It is still much too early to say if the Juvenile Reentry Network will reduce recidivism among program participants. However, what we are seeing in the program is highly encouraging—over 90 percent of hearings involve a parent or guardian, all Juvenile Reentry Network kids are engaged in youth development programming, and we are better able to respond quickly and accurately to problems as they arise. And, with respect to recidivism, what we can say at this early stage is that, as of September 30th, 2004, only 22% (eight of the 36 program participants) have been removed from the program and returned to placement.

A number of challenges exist for a parolee just leaving prison, and the newfound freedom of a parolee can be overwhelming. The Harlem Community Justice Center helps parolees make the transition from life in prison to responsible citizenship. About a week before Debra left prison, she learned that she would be part of a new reentry program involving frequent court appearances and participation in a drug treatment program, among other activities. Debra had never heard of parole reentry before. “At first I was really mad,” she says. “I had never done parole in my life, but I knew you weren’t supposed to go to court or in front of a judge. I was really angry that I had to go every week.”   Six months later, she completed the program and had an entirely new perspective: “Putting me in the parole reentry program was the best thing they ever could have done for me and my life,” she says. “I think they should put more people in it. If you’re coming home to do the right thing, it’s the place to be.” Debra was the first female graduate from the Harlem Reentry Court, which began as a joint pilot project of the New York State Division of Parole, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the Center for Court Innovation. Since opening in June of 2001, the court has averaged about 80 new cases each year.  Debra’s experience is typical. “Many parolees are resistant at first,” says clinical director John Megaw, “but there’s a huge change by the time they complete the program.” A number of challenges exist for a parolee just leaving prison. While incarcerated, inmates are told what to do and when to do it, and the newfound freedom of a parolee can be overwhelming. Parolees may have difficulty adjusting to the world at large. “It’s not always a smooth sail,” Megaw says. “People slip into the patterns of behavior that got them into trouble in the first place.” For those returning to society from long prison sentences, the world can be completely different and require a daunting number of adjustments. “It’s almost like coming back from war,” Megaw says. It is no surprise, then, that a large number of parolees return to prison, especially given the strict set of guidelines they need to follow as conditions of release. Recent numbers show that two-thirds of parolees return to prison within three years (see Bruce Frederick's Factors Contributing To Recidivism Among Youth Placed With The New York State Division For Youth. Albany, NY: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services). The Parole Reentry Court in Harlem attempts to address this problem by helping parolees navigate the world outside the prison walls. For Debra, the program helped her stay focused: constant supervision, a rigid schedule, job training, and a group of people intent on seeing her progress provided a strong web of support. As she describes it: It gave me a good start in life, it really did. Because I’m still doing good. They sent me to a class when I first came home, where they teach you how to get jobs, and though I got a job on my own, I was glad for the experience they gave me. Eventually I just started enjoying going over there. I was from Harlem, and when they told me they’d help me with any problems that occurred I was already going through a lot of problems. And I had hard things with them and hard times but I needed that. I had a social worker over there, I had my parole officer. At first I really didn’t care about the drug treatment program they sent me to, but I finished it, and I think it’s great. I think it’s the best thing they ever came up with. Direct relationships—the constant contact and face-to-face meetings—are crucial for keeping a parolee on track. The intense supervision allows the court to intervene as soon as problems appear. One of the basic principles that drives the reentry court is that all actors in the criminal justice system (police, courts, institutional and community corrections) play a role not only in offender processing and control but also in long-term offender change and reintegration into their communities. The more eyes watching the parolee, the more likely he or she will succeed. And criminal justice agencies can’t do it alone—they must engage families, community-based service providers, faith- and community-based organizations, and other sources of formal and informal support in reintegrating offenders. Judge Brigitte Fortune, who presides over the Harlem Reentry Court, talks about the importance of creating opportunities for the parolees—and constantly paying attention to what works and what doesn’t in each case. This personalized, concentrated attention leaves room for dialogue and negotiation as well. Debra, for example, had a hard time with the drug treatment program, and initially found herself at odds with the judge over it. I was really having a hard time with this program because they wanted me to quit my job and be an inpatient in the program. They were persistent. I understand that they want you to come to their program, but I was working at the time and it was really important to me because it was a struggle in my household. I was living with my mother; she’s a senior citizen and it was really a struggle for me to go to this program every day. And they weren’t paying my car fare, and that was the only problem I really had with the reentry, was the drug treatment program they sent me to. Our first confrontation we had, the judge and I, we were going word for word in the court, because she really didn’t understand that my job was really important to me, and she wanted me to stay and go to the program every day or become a resident in the program and she’s telling me, what is more important to you, the program or the job? And I’m telling her, well my job is more important to me. The program is more important for y’all, but I need this job! And we had it out but eventually came to an agreement, where I’d go to program twice a week and work the other days. And then I felt much better. As Judge Fortune puts it: “The idea is to set up a program that best suits you and that’s going to give you the best chance of succeeding. So it’s intensive, it’s more personalized, it’s flexible, and that to me is the best part of the reentry program. When you have all this focus on you, everyone can see what’s going on, you can get adjustments at any time during your supervision while you’re in the program, to give people that chance to succeed.”  

  Strengthening Communities: Mediation in Crown Heights The Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights is home to an Orthodox Jews, African-Americans, and Caribbean-Americans. Unfortunately, these communities have not always co-existed peacefully. In addition to occasional misunderstandings among residents, the community endured several days of well-documented unrest in the early 1990s. Since then, Crown Heights has become a national symbol of a community struggling with issues of cultural diversity. In an effort to create a lasting infrastructure for resolving neighborhood conflicts, the City of New York asked the Center for Court Innovation to create the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center. “Community members didn’t want to be force-fed co-existence,” said James Kornbluh, a member of the Center for Court Innovation’s planning team. Instead, they were looking for something more concrete and more modest—something that would address their pressing everyday concerns and disputes. The result was the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center, which opened its doors in 1998. Why Mediation in Crown Heights? The Crown Heights Community Mediation Center follows a model of community-based mediation and uses it to address community conflict in Crown Heights. “Having a forum where [community members] can go to air their differences can relieve a lot of the tension that might otherwise build up,” Maureen O’Connor, a volunteer mediator, explained. “Even when the mediation session doesn’t end in a reconciliation, … it can diffuse a lot of antagonism.” In community-based mediation, community volunteers help parties in dispute reach mutually acceptable agreements. The entire process is voluntary; both parties must agree to meet and one party cannot compel the other to come. Accepting an agreement is also voluntary. The mediator has no authority to enforce an agreement or to impose sanctions. For individuals that don’t want to go to the court or the police, mediation offers a viable alternative. “Mediation is much more inviting [because] there are no guards and no officials,” Kornbluh explained. “Because there is no coercion involved, many people who might otherwise never seek outside intervention are open to the idea of mediation.”  A mediation session typically involves one or two mediators. Paper and pencils are available for parties to take notes, although no record of the mediation is kept for confidentiality reasons. The mediator begins by explaining her role and reminding the parties that the entire process is both voluntary and confidential. Parties are then asked to respect each person’s turn in speaking and not to interrupt. The party that brought the dispute to mediation goes first, and the respondent goes second. After that, the mediator acts as a facilitator. If she feels it necessary, she may pull aside individuals to have one-on-one private discussions during the session. The goal is to have both sides come up with an agreement. It may include specific tasks, like paying a set sum of money or returning a borrowed good, or it may include more intangible resolutions, like promising to communicate more often. A typical session lasts about two hours, and a dispute may take several sessions to be resolved. Solving Problems An early case in Crown Heights involving three households that shared a common landing demonstrates how mediation can relieve tensions. An African-American woman was complaining that the children of her two Jewish neighbors had been littering and making noise while playing on the landing. Meanwhile, her Jewish neighbors accused her of insulting them and using “unfortunate” language during the Passover holiday. With tensions mounting, the three heads of households decided to give mediation a try. At the mediation session, the two sides were able to identify the core issues and talk more openly about their feelings. When the African-American woman revealed that her children played on the landing as well, the mediator was able to shift the focus of the conversation from noise and litter to the children of the three families. The woman mentioned that sometimes she felt hurt by the fact that her neighbors would not let their children play with hers. It was clear that the issue was not so much about noise as it was about kids playing together, and once the parents began to understand that the children were at the heart of their dispute, the dynamic of the conversation changed. “It was a cathartic moment,” says Chris Watler, who mediated the dispute. “Everyone started saying, ‘You know, we can do things differently,’ and they started making proposals.”  In the end, the three families agreed to supervise their children more closely and to consult each other on an ongoing basis about problems. Most of the cases at the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center do not involve cross-cultural disputes, however. When a 10-year-old boy started skipping school and acting out, for example, his mother arranged for a mediation session. At the mediation, the boy expressed frustration at the fact that his father was incarcerated. His mother, in turn, admitted that she sometimes scolded him unfairly. Through mediation, the mother and son were able to reach a new level of understanding. In the end, they agreed to communicate more often and even commit to having Sunday morning breakfasts together.   Those most familiar with the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center—the volunteer mediators—say it is a great alternative to turning to the police for help. “Calling 911 can be a long process,” Jackie Drayton, a volunteer mediator, explains. “[With mediation], I can help solve a problem. [We] sit down and talk about it. … There are no guns, no arrests, no jail.”  Since 1998, the Mediation Center has handled more than 2,000 mediation cases. Over 1,500 youth and adults have received conflict resolution training from the Mediation Center, including over 150 residents trained to be community mediators. Over 20,000 people have been served through the Mediation Center’s services, including a free summer recreation program for neighborhood youth, in-school leadership programs, resource referrals and mediation services.