The Arc

A crime is ruled de minimus if it is considered too small to be cause for concern. But when a crime is committed over and over, can it still be considered a trifle? “Is it still de minimus if a hundred sandwiches are taken?” asked Judge Fred Bonner, who presides over the Seattle Community Court. Bonner says that people who are in survival mode are going to commit acts of theft to survive, and often these small crimes indicate larger societal problems far from trifling. Seattle had been struggling with low-level crime, such as theft and prostitution, and many of the people committing these crimes were homeless or mentally ill. The closure of two mental hospitals in the area, as part of the national deinstitutionalization movement in the 1980s, further exacerbated Seattle’s problem. “Criminal trespass, theft, prostitution, alcohol and drug-related crime—those were the main kinds of crimes we were dealing with,” said Assistant City Attorney Tuere Sala. “They are what we call quality-of-life crimes—and they are usually crimes that are committed more out of a need to survive than an intention to injure others.” And while the intention may not have been to injure any one individual, the cumulative effect of this kind of offending on a community can be devastating. “Even if you think it’s a faceless crime,” said defense attorney Nancy Waldman, of the Associated Counsel for the Accused, “somebody is violated. If a business feels that way, they’re more inclined to move their business away from any given district. It has an effect on the whole city.” A Non-Partisan Issue Seattle City Attorney Peter S. Holmes said, “This is a non-partisan issue: Everyone wants to reduce crime and save money, and that’s ultimately what community court is about.” In the search for an appropriate response to Seattle’s low-level crime, then-City Attorney Tom Carr and then-Chief of the Public and Community Safety Division Robert Hood learned about the community court model, which can often apply problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses. In March 2005, through the collaborative efforts of the Seattle Municipal Court, the Seattle City Attorney, and the Associated Counsel for the Accused, the Seattle Community Court opened in the municipal court building to serve the downtown district. “We took those individuals who had no place to go, who had spent many days in jail over the years,” said Judge Bonner, “and we designed our program to address those needs.” Like most community courts across the U.S., by combining punishment with help, the Seattle Court seeks to address the social needs associated with crime, repair the harm done, and help transform offenders into productive members of the community. The Seattle Court has had over 3,000 clients since its 2005 opening, and in 2007 the court expanded its jurisdiction from downtown to the entire city. The Seattle Community Court handles only defendants who have committed low-level misdemeanors and do not present a public safety risk. In lieu of paying a fee or spending time in jail, all defendants who opt in to the community court are assessed for social service needs and then must contact each social service link, such as community service opportunities identified during assessment. It is common practice in community courts to use alternatives to detention, such as community service as a sanction—participants in the Seattle Court have completed over 50,000 hours of community service, the equivalent of approximately $500,000 worth of labor—but Judge Bonner stresses the importance of evolving these programs to also educate people about the effects quality-of-life crime has on the community. “We want to teach as well,” Bonner added, “and they can earn [community service] hours by learning about the impact their offenses have had on the business community. We could send everybody to be street sweepers, but that is not necessarily addressing the needs that they have.” If offenders successfully complete the program, their case can be dismissed, which will later come into play when they are seeking housing and employment. Additionally, the Resource Center, which is on site, helps to further connect clients of the court to information about jobs, housing, counseling, and classes to help them get back on track. A Capacity to Change Seattle continues to develop their programs and services to address the needs of offenders as those needs change. “We've just developed a theft awareness class and life-skills training, which would constitute community service,” said Judge Bonner, who added that Seattle Community Court also recently launched three stand-alone sites that provide young prostitutes with housing and classes on avoiding sexually transmitted diseases. They can earn community service hours at these sites, as well as get literacy training and counseling. Seattle Community Court is also currently instituting new protocols that allow for community service alternatives for individuals with disabilities. The court already partners with 25 community service organizations, and coordinators from the Seattle Community Court have recently started to expand options to include other options for individuals not physically able to pick up trash, such as answering phones or filing. “Offenders find that they feel proud of putting in a full day’s work,” said Karen Murray, of the Associated Counsel for the Accused. “Then we can link them to employment services. Landlords and employers can see people’s capacity to change.”  Seattle Community Court is also evolving to address the different needs that veteran offenders have. “We have a marvelous caseworker from the veteran’s hospital coming to our court, and we’re trying to do a docket right now just for veterans,” said Murray. “They never had criminal histories before and suddenly they’re coming back and they’re acting out. Do we actually expect people to get off the plane and come back into society as though nothing happened? That’s another role for community court in our time.” Another defining element of our time is the strained economic climate experienced throughout the country, and community courts are not immune to this struggle. “We have been suffering some serious budget issues here,” said Judge Bonner, “but one of the things that the city council has said is, ‘We don’t want to reduce or cut community court.’ It has been recognized that not only does it save the city money, it also saves lives.” Results In 2009, the Justice Management Institute issued an independent evaluation of Seattle Community Court. The report stated that the community court group committed 66 percent fewer offenses within 18 months of community court intervention, while the control group showed an increase of 50 percent, suggesting that the court is significantly more effective at reducing the frequency of recidivism than the traditional court process. “The study adds to the value of understanding these kinds of interventions; even though they seem at the surface to be cost-intensive, that may actually not be the case,” said Elaine Nugent-Borakove, president of the Justice Management Institute and primary researcher on the evaluation. Furthermore, the Seattle Mayor’s Office of Policy and Management estimates that through reduced recidivism and jail use the community court saved the city $1,513,209 during the court’s first three years of operation. “We’re still studying why crime is down nearly double digits percentagewise in Seattle over the past 16 months,” said City Attorney Holmes, “but I have to think that community court is a factor.” Holmes also discussed how community court may have helped alleviate the strain on funds. “When I was on the campaign trail in 2009, it was seen as inevitable that Seattle was going to break ground on a new jail with a price tag of 400 million dollars within the next five years. We have to give some credit to the community court diverting people from incarceration to the fact that Seattle is no longer seriously on the track to build a new jail.” A Mentor Community Court As Seattle Community Court continues to evolve to more appropriately address the needs of the community, the program is also working to help other jurisdictions interested in starting their own community courts. In 2009, through a competitive, peer-reviewed process, Seattle Community Court was selected, along with South Dallas Community Court and Hartford Community Court, to become a mentor community court. Mentor community courts work with the Center for Court Innovation to provide guidance to jurisdictions across the country interested in creating community courts to help combat neighborhood crime. Seattle has recently provided information to jurisdictions including Spokane, Washington, Kent, Washington, and Las Vegas, Nevada. “Don’t use the austere budget climate as an excuse not to move forward,” said Holmes, when asked what advice he would give jurisdictions considering starting a community court. “This is ultimately cost-saving and much more effective than the tradition incarceration route. It really just takes political will. Go ahead and make the small step.” Holmes added that establishing data capture systems that show the benefits of the community court model in contrast with the typical incarceration model is a key step to establishing a community court in the long-term. An Evolving Partnership For some who work in the court, the problem-solving approach is new. Craig Sims, chief of the Criminal Division, said: “When I came here in January 2010, I didn’t know much about community court. I’ve been a prosecutor since the late nineties, working in the traditional mode of prosecution: Someone does something wrong, they go to court, they get prosecuted, they go to jail, and we move on to the next one. It was quite refreshing for me to collaborate with the court and the defense to figure out a different way to resolve lower level crimes.” “We’re all partners in this,” added Holmes, and the Seattle community can see the tangible the benefits of this partnership. “We’ve had some wonderful public events,” said Holmes. “Rather than spending time in jail, low-level offenders were out beautifying the community and giving back. Community murals have had unveiling events, heavily attended by local community groups and local media, and the community is able to feel less cynical about the criminal justice system.” “I like the fact that it’s an opportunity court,” said Sala. “You have an opportunity to make a difference, to change something. As a prosecutor, I would rather see that than the same offenders constantly coming back.” Waldman added: “That’s the definition of insanity, right?—doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” “Everyone has a story,” Murray said. “Some are more horrific than others. But the bottom line is there’s a thing called choice. Community court gives our clients the choice to be successful.” 

Community and government leaders of Newark, N.J., celebrated the official opening today of Newark Community Solutions, an innovative justice project that applies a problem-solving approach to non-violent cases in the Newark Municipal Court. 

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International were selected by the National Institute of Justice to conduct the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation, one of the most ambitious evaluations of drug courts ever performed. Click here for an overview and summary of the major findings of the six-year longitudinal, impact, and cost evaluation that includes 23 drug courts and six comparison sites in eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington. Click here to download any of the final study reports or to download a powerpoint that includes many of the major findings. The process evaluation entails a review of program operations, structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders, and court observations. The impact evaluation uses three waves of surveys, urinalysis testing, and administrative records to test a series of theoretically-grounded hypotheses on 1,156 drug court and 625 comparison group offenders. The study's main objectives were to: Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse. Address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes. Explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs. Examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

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.  

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.  

In Fall 2007, the New York State Unified Court System and the Center for Courts and Communities (a project of the Center for Court Innovation) is publishing Personal Stories: Narratives of Drug Court Participants from across New York State. Here are three of the stories included in the book: Brooklyn Family Treatment Court: A Young Mother Finds Encouragement to ChangeContributed by Judge Susan S. Danoff A young mother gave birth to a child and both the mother and child tested positive for cocaine. The mother was found eligible for Brooklyn Family Treatment Court, signed the waiver and contract, and made an admission to drug use. The court arranged for the mother to enter the Odyssey House mother/child drug program with her infant. The first time the mother returned to court for monitoring, the court noted her progress. She had 20 days clean, and about 15 people in the courtroom, including attorneys, court officers, the court clerk, and I, all applauded her progress. The mother turned to each person and waived (the “royal” wave, I might add!) with the biggest smile on her face. I think nobody had ever applauded anything she had ever done—literally or figuratively. The next time the mother came to court, she had accumulated 50 days clean. Again everyone applauded at which point she stood up, raised her hands to the ceiling and said, “Yes!”  Then she sat down and burst into tears. Through her tears, she told the court, “Thank you for having faith in me,” to which I responded, “We always had faith in you –now you have faith in yourself, too.”  I am happy to report that as of this writing, the mother has accumulated 120 clean days and continues to remain compliant with the mother/child drug program. Erie County Family Treatment Court:She Found a New Life Contributed by Priscilla My life began on July 19, 1966, born to Emma Jean and Steve. I am the sixth child out of seven. I was born in Chicago, Illinois. We lived in one of the roughest projects in the nation: The Cabrini Green. I witnessed all types of violence and chaos everyday—whether it was on the streets or in our apartment. My oldest brother and sister were always fighting each other, as well as my mother and stepfather. When they would fight, I would hide until they finished. I really didn’t have any friends at school or at home because there was so much fighting. As a child, I didn’t know what to say to make the fighting stop, so I just lived through it. I was always surrounded by alcohol because my mother and stepfather drank a lot. My mother battled two disease—mental illness and alcoholism. She was always in and out of the hospital. Then my world was shattered when I was told that my mother was gone from this world. I never had the opportunity to do the mother-daughter bonding as I would have liked. After my mother’s death, I was sent to live with an Aunt in Lackawanna, New York. In a strange city, I didn’t know how to fit in. It took me awhile to get to know others. When I came around, I was about 16 years old. To fit in, I started drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. When I graduated high school, I moved to Buffalo and continued drinking. I started to use crack at the age of 28. I thought I was being productive because I had a job and wasn’t using everyday. My weekend use then became daily use. I let drug dealers in my home, had no food, the electric, and gas were shut off constantly. I tried recovery before but wasn’t ready to stop using. As years went on, I kept using and things didn’t get any better. In 2003, I entered Erie County Family Treatment Court entered, and I stayed until I stopped giving up on myself and on being a mother. I finally stopped using and decided to give life a second chance. There are so many details that are missing from this story, not because I left them out on purpose but because there is so much pain, and I’m not ready to let them surface again. Recovery has been good to me. I am grateful to have Narcotics Anonymous in my life. As long as I don’t give up on N.A., I know that N.A. won’t give up on me. As I continue in recovery, I stay active with meetings, conventions, and doing work with my sponsor. I reach out to others when I am hurting and more importantly, I don’t use, no matter what is going on in my life. As I stay in recovery, I apply the spiritual principles in my life. I do things with my children. I have a job that I love and hang with people that don’t use. On April 12, 2007, I celebrated three years of recovery. I thank God for allowing me to go through Family Treatment Court because without its help, I don’t know where I would be today. Jefferson County Drug Court:After his Final Arrest, He Said ‘Enough’Contributed by Mike Two years ago I was lying face down on a cheap hotel room floor while detectives tore my hotel room apart. The task force had arrested me once again. Till then, I had no idea what I was going to have to do to get my life together. Over the course of the 10 years preceding that day, I had struggled against and had been defeated by my addiction to heroin and cocaine. I was caught up in the idea that I could use drugs successfully. After a while, it had gotten to the point where nothing else mattered. Even though I knew what I was doing was wrong, I could do nothing to stop it. I remember sitting in jail, knowing that I had had enough. I had said that before but it was something that I knew I had accepted this time. Despite being sick from not having my drugs in me, I was relieved to have it over with. The worst thing I faced in jail was the uncertainty of what was going to happen to me. I thought for sure I was going to prison because this wasn’t my first offense. It wasn’t long after that I was interviewed and approved for the Jefferson County Drug Court program. I was extremely fortunate to get the opportunity to make a change in my life. Having come to the point that I had accepted the fact that I was going to prison, being approved for drug court was something I had a lot of gratitude for. That gratitude that I had for being given the opportunity I was given, coupled with the acceptance that I had that I could not use successfully are what got me through what I had to do. Drug court sent me to an intensive inpatient facility for a period of nine to 12 months. After my track record of completing short-term programs but still using it was the only logical option. I went into it with an open mind and I had made the decision that I was willing to do whatever I was asked to do. Most of all in that facility I learned to be a part of a community, something I had no idea about before I went there. After inpatient, it was recommended that I go to supportive living for a minimum of three months. It was a great opportunity to get on my feet and save money for independent living. While in supportive living it was mandated by drug court to attend 12 step meetings. Besides the initial opportunity that Drug Court had given me, this is the thing that I am most grateful for. I had been to meetings before but I was still thinking that some day I could go back to using successfully. Throughout my past, that has been my most destructive thinking. When I got to the meetings I had no idea what I was going to find. I was as unsure as I was going into treatment in the beginning. The biggest thing that helped was that I had remained in the frame of mind that I would do anything to stay clean. The problem remained, that up until that point, I had no idea how to stay clean on my own. In the past I had gone to treatment and stayed clean for a while and then gone back to my old ways. The difference this time was that I found a fellowship of recovering addicts that I could relate to. I found other people there that had been just as messed up as I was and that were staying clean. In addition to trying to stay clean; they were also trying to help each other learn how to live. The meetings are what saved me from myself and from my pattern of falling back into the drugs. It wasn’t long before I was moved into my own place and was graduated from Drug Court. I still go to meetings regularly and maintain my recovery. I have gotten back into school where I am going after a degree in Human Services. Hopefully one day I can help other people with their addiction. For the first time in as long as I can remember I am happy with where my life is. I don’t feel the need to put a substance in my body to feel comfortable with myself. I was given an opportunity to turn my life around and that is what I did. I am grateful for every day clean and continue to try to improve myself.