Peacemaking is a traditional Native American approach to justice. While the exact form peacemaking takes varies among tribes, it usually consists of one or more peacemakers—often community elders—who gently guide a conversation involving not only those directly involved in an offense or conflict but family members, friends, and the larger community.

With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation and The National Judicial College have launched a national demonstration project that will attempt to improve procedural justice in an urban criminal court setting.

The project was born out of research showing that litigants’ perceptions of procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the procedures they experience in the courthouse) exert more influence on their overall view of the justice system than distributive justice (the perceived fairness of the case outcome). The goal of the project is to translate the key principles of procedural justice into a training curriculum that will be administered in an urban criminal courtroom – aimed at improving staff’s verbal and non-verbal communication practices – then evaluate the impact of those changed practices on defendant perceptions of fairness.

To begin, project partners convened a working group of experts in January 2011 at the Center for Court Innovation’s headquarters in New York City. The group was comprised of judges, attorneys, court administrators, and communications and linguistics specialists from around the country, including

• Greg Berman – Director, Center for Court Innovation
• Kevin Burke – Judge, Hennepin County (MN) Family Justice Center
• William Dressel – President, National Judicial College
• Malcolm Feeley – Professor of Legal Theory, University of California-Berkeley
• Mark Juhas – Judge, Los Angeles County (CA) Superior Court
• Judy Harris Kluger – Chief of Policy and Planning, New York State Unified Court System
• Noreen Sharp – Former Special Deputy Court Administrator for the Maricopa County (AZ) Superior Court and former Division Chief Counsel of the Arizona
• Office of the Attorney General
• Alfred Siegel – Deputy Director, Center for Court Innovation
• Larry Solan – Professor of Linguistics and the Law, Brooklyn Law School
• Robin Steinberg – Executive Director, The Bronx Defenders
• David Suntag – Judge, Vermont Judiciary
• Kelly Tait – Communication Consultant and Instructor, University of Nevada
• Tom Tyler – Professor of Social Psychology, New York University

Over the course of the two-day meeting, the working group set out to tackle the following objectives: (1) to outline a set of best practices in improved courtroom communication, (2) to inform the development of a training curriculum, and (3) to recommend court sites and/or the size and types of courts that might be appropriate for pilot implementation.

(1) Outlining Best Practices
Toward the first objective, the discussion was organized around the key elements of procedural justice, developed in part by participant Tom Tyler – voice, respect, neutrality, understanding, and helpfulness. Participants sought to identify practical strategies by which criminal court judges and other courthouse staff can translate these principles into practice, both inside and outside of the courtroom.

In the courtroom, suggested strategies included starting court on time and calendaring cases according to case type, both to improve efficiency and to demonstrate respect for defendants’ time. The group also suggested that judges provide a brief introduction for the courtroom audience at the beginning of each court session — explaining the rules, format and purpose of the court proceedings. As part of this introduction, it was recommended that judges acknowledge their appreciation for everyone’s attendance and cooperation in getting through what can be a stressful experience. Simple and clear signs around the courthouse and courtroom can reinforce this message.

The working group then considered procedural justice strategies to implement during each defendant’s court appearance. It was recommended that cases be called clearly and loudly by name and that each defendant should be greeted by the judge. To ensure the defendant’s understanding, the judge should explain the purpose of the court appearance in plain language. Special consideration was given to defendants who are detained pre-trial.

The group addressed the role that defense attorneys can play in promoting defendant comprehension, as well as facilitating that each defendant’s voice is heard, without jeopardizing his/her legal rights. At the end of the proceeding, the group recommended that all defendants leave court with easy-to-understand written and oral instructions regarding the next steps in their case, including the date and purpose of their next court appearance, orders of protection, and/or conditions of probation or other court-mandated sanctions.

The working group stressed that the interactions among all courtroom staff – whether or not court is in session – are important to promoting procedural justice. Judges should be advised that admonishing attorneys or other courtroom staff in front of defendants and audience members may appear to demonstrate a lack of respect and/or neutrality. The group also recommended that the pilot training include as many courthouse staff as possible. In particular, the group stressed the importance of engaging security personnel in advancing procedural justice, as they are often the first staff with whom a defendant or audience member interacts at the courthouse.

(2) Curriculum Development
The working group also offered suggestions as to how the above content might be translated into a day-long curriculum, both for implementation at the pilot site and to be added to The National Judicial College’s general offerings. The working group proposed to start the training by grounding participants in the relevant social science research and debunking any myths. The two core recommendations for the training were developing listening skills and communication skills. It was suggested that participants evaluate themselves on these skills through a pre-training self-administered assessment and/or by observing a videotaping of their behavior in court. In addition to skills development, the training should focus on how participants can improve the appearance that they are listening and communicating effectively.

The working group recommended a range of learning activities to be used during the pilot training, such as role plays and simulations, ideally to take place in a courtroom setting. Pre- and post-course activities were recommended to extend the impact of the training.

(3) Pilot Site Selection
Finally, the working group helped to define the criteria for an appropriate pilot site. The starting criteria were that the court must hear criminal cases in an urban area that utilizes short-term sanctions (such as community service) for which compliance may be tracked during the grant period. The working group discussed the important balance of selecting a site where there was interest in reform but where widespread efforts to promote procedural justice had not yet been attempted. The group emphasized the importance of selecting a jurisdiction in which the administrative judge is fully supportive of the project – and can encourage the support of participants and other key players. They also advocated for a jurisdiction that is sufficiently large to have 10-20 criminal court judges.

In the weeks following the working group meeting, project staff have been working towards two major next steps: completing the curriculum and selecting a pilot site. The curriculum will be based largely on the findings of the working group, using 50-minute modules to address topics such as the role of procedural fairness in the court system, verbal communication, non-verbal communication, special populations, courthouse-wide issues, and implementing and measuring procedural fairness. The modular design of the curriculum will allow it to be presented as a full-day program, as individual modules, or in any combination that meets the educational requirements and time constraints of a particular educational setting. After the curriculum is piloted, the NJC plans to make the curriculum and supporting materials available to state judicial educators and court administrators for broader dissemination.

As for a pilot site, staff are working from a short list of possible criminal courts that meet the selection criteria. The pilot is scheduled to launch later this year.

This op-ed from the New York Law Journal reports findings from a drug court study that suggests the success of drug courts stems largely from the judge.

In the summer of 2011, the Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, invited community justice practitioners from across the U.S. to share ideas about their work.

The day-long roundtable, held at the Center for Court Innovation's offices in New York City on August 10, brought together representatives of courts, prosecutors' and defenders' offices, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community members. Participating programs included the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Atlanta Community Court Restorative Justice Boards, Baltimore’s Community Conferencing Center, the Bronx Defenders, the Chittenden County (Vermont) – State’s Attorney’s Office, the Dallas City Attorney’s Office Community Prosecution Program, Midtown Community Court, Newark Community Solutions, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Red Hook Community Justice Center, San Francisco Community Justice Center, San Francisco Neighborhood Courts, Vermont’s Community Justice Centers, and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy – Drug Free Communities Support Program.

Participants discussed challenges and ideas for expanding community justice approaches, among numerous topics. The goal of the roundtable was to produce a document that describes current practices and outlines some of the key challenges programs face when attempting to engage community members. To read the document, click here.

 

Participants:

Lauren Abramson
Executive Director
Community Conferencing Center
Baltimore, MD

Judge Ronald Albers
San Francisco Superior Court
San Francisco, CA

Lenore Anderson
Chief of the Alternative Programs Division
San Francisco District Attorney's Office
San Francisco, CA

James Berry
Chief, Community Defense Division
Public Defender Service for DC
Washington, DC

Carl Bevelhymer
West 55th Street Block Association
New York, NY

Courtney Bryan
Project Director
Midtown Community Court
New York, NY

Yvonne Byrd
Director
Montpelier Community Justice Center
Montpelier, VT

Judge Alex Calabrese
Red Hook Community Justice Center
Brooklyn, NY

Regina Cannon
Atlanta Community Court
Restorative Justice Boards
Atlanta, GA

Thomas J. Donovan
State's Attorney
Chittenden County, VT

Steven Jansen
Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
Washington, DC

Rosalind Jeffers
Executive Assistant City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
Dallas, TX

Julius Lang (moderator)
Director, Technical Assistance
Center for Court Innovation

Tomiquia Moss
Coordinator
San Francisco Community Justice Center
San Francisco, CA 

Katherine Nopper
Community Participant
Burlington Community Justice Center
Burlington, VT

Rev. Reginald Osborne
Pastor
Bethel World Outreach Ministries, Inc.
Newark, NJ

Robin Steinberg
Executive Director
The Bronx Defenders
Bronx, NY

Benjamin B. Tucker
Deputy Director of State, Local and Tribal Affairs
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Washington, DC

Karen Vastine
Community Justice Coordinator
Community and Economic Development Office
Burlington, Vermont

Marc Wennberg
Director
St. Albans Community Justice Center
St. Albans, VT

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.” 

Criminal Justice magazine excerpts a chapter from Trial and Error in Criminal Justice Reform in its Summer 2011 issue.  The article focuses on the St. Louis Consent to Search program, a promising police initiative that struggled to sustain its initial success.

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 Conferences
Idaho-2008 Drug and Mental Health Court Institute
Agenda: Indiana Problem-Solving Courts Workshop 2008

Charters and Bylaws
Seattle Municipal Court, Community Court Charter

Compliance Tracking Tools
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community Service Time Sheet

Community Engagement – Events Flyers
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Planning Committee Meeting Flyer
San Francisco Community Justice Center Kick-off Town Hall Meeting

Community Engagement – Meeting Agendas
South Carolina Fourth, Community Forum Agenda Judicial Circuit

Community Engagement – Engaging Volunteers
Midtown Community Court, Volunteer Opportunities
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Volunteer Application

Community Engagement – Meeting Tools
San 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 Plans
Tarrant County (Ft. Worth) TX Community Justice Strategic Plan

Community Surveys
Lynchburg Community Court, Community Survey
San Francisco Community Justice Baseline Survey 2009
San Francisco Community Justice Press Release
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community Survey

Consent Forms
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Victim Consent Form
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Officer’s Consent Form

Expungement Information
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Fact Sheet on Expunging Records

“Good Neighbor” Agreements
Seattle, Sample Community Good Neighbor Agreement

Intake Assessments
Bronx Community Solutions, Intake Assessment Form
Clackamas County Social Services, Community Court Intake/Questionnaire
Lynchburg Community Court, Intake Assessment Form
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intake Assessment

Linkage Agreements/Memoranda of Understanding
Pima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Memorandum of Agreement
CareSouth Carolina and South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Linkage Agreement
San Diego Downtown Community Court Pilot Program, Memorandum of Understanding

Newsletters
Bronx Community Solutions, Fall 2009 Newsletter
Community Justice Devon and Cornwall - December 2008
Hartford Community Court, Fall 2007 Newsletter
Philadelphia Community Court, Winter 2006-2007 Newsletter
San Diego’s Downtown Community Court, Inaugural Newsletter
Seattle Community Court, Summer 2008 Newsletter
Seattle Community Court, Summer 2009 Newsletter

Operations Manuals
DC Misdemeanor and Traffic Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and Procedures
East of the River Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and Procedures
Philladelphia's Community Court, Manual -- Table of Contents

Pretrial Notices
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Program Requirements Explanation Form
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Participant Account Notice
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Delinquent Payment Notice
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Termination Notice

Program Descriptions
Bronx Community Solutions
Community Prosecution in West Midlands, England
Indianapolis Community Court - Program Description Flyer
Melbourne's Neighbourhood Justice Centre
Philadelphia Community Court, Program Description
Pima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Program Description
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, General Information Flyer
San Diego Collaborative and Restorative Justice Court Programs
San Diego, Mid-City Community Court Mission Statement
San Diego Serial Inebriate
Seattle Community Court, Council Briefing
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Chesterfield County Drug Court
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Operation Community Justice
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Alcohol Intervention
Washington DC's East of the River Community Court
Washington DC's Misdemeanor and Traffic Court

Program Reports
Bronx Community Solutions, Annual Report
Bronx Community Solutions, Quarterly Report
San Diego’s Mid-City Community Court, Quarterly Report Fact Sheet
Seattle Community Court, Annual Report

Referral Forms
South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intervention Program Referral Form

Survey Tools
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for Community Impact Panelists
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for Offenders
San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Summary of Survey of Community Impact Panelists

Training Curricula
Atlanta 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