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.

The Center for Court Innovation, with the support of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance has embarked on a multi-faceted inquiry designed to analyze failure and innovation in criminal justice reform.  At its heart, this is an effort to shift the way criminal justice agencies perceive failure, from a stigmatizing and wholly negative force to a necessary companion and contributor to success.

In January 2007, the Center for Court Innovation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance convened an all-day roundtable on failure, facilitated by Harvard's Frank Hartmann, at the Center for Court Innovation's headquarters in midtown Manhattan. The goal was to discuss concrete examples of criminal justice failures and identify potential lessons. An edited transcript from the roundtable was published in The Journal for Court Innovation and can be found here. In addition, staff from the Center have spoken at national conferences on the subject of failure, including appearances at the Urban Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Hunter College, Baruch College, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the National Association for Court Management, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Connecticut Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division.

The Center for Court Innovation has placed op-eds about failure in the National Law Journal, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philadelphia Inquirer, the Guardian (UK) and the Crime Report.

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.

Technology has been a key component in the Harlem Community Justice Center’s growth and community outreach. The tool linking almost all the Justice Center’s components together is the Justice Center Application, which has been used internally by staff almost since the opening of the Center to warehouse information on clients receiving services. The application collects client data in one central database, tracking program enrollment and attendance, referrals, and general case management notes.

This information is simultaneously accessible by the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys and social service staff, allowing all parties to share information as soon as it is available. Through this tool, case managers are able to maintain up-to-the minute lists of all active clients, as well as current data regarding compliance or non-compliance with case management plans. And with detailed information about clients right in front of them—what the client’s case history is, what programs they’re in, what their needs are—judges are able to make more informed decisions in the courtrooms.

A separate system was developed in 1999 to confidentially track all mediation case information, including referrals, case management and follow-up of cases screened and assessed at the Justice Center. Since mediation requires complete confidentiality for the parties, this database is separate from all other Justice Center technology, and is only accessible to designated staff performing intake, screening, assessing and actual mediations.

The database has automatic, built-in report generation capabilities that displays referral and dispute information, danger assessment, and police information.  Reports can also be generated regarding the number of mediators trained, certifications, contact information, and the individual area of expertise of the individual mediations (i.e., housing, parent-teen, custody visitation, attorney). Outcomes and nature of disputes, referral sources, and active cases can also be tracked.

This Justice Center Application was expanded in 2005 to support the community coalition building activities of the Youth Futures Network—a coalition of 50 community-based organizations that provides a full array of services to young people through constant collaboration and sharing of information and resources. Whereas before the tool had allowed all Justice Center staff to approach an individual client in an informed and organized manner, now the tool allowed network members to refer community members to services.

The network makes use of simple, user-friendly technology through which coalition members can refer youth online to mental health and drug treatment providers within the network. A school counselor, for example, might see that a student is in need of treatment. He or she can log onto the referral network, enter the student’s information, select the needed service, and make a referral to a specific provider. The recipient of the referral receives an email prompting him or her to log onto the system to respond to the referral, and is then expected to respond to the referral within three days of receiving it. The system then tracks the case as the person making the initial referral follows up. The information is stored in the system. Should the student then opt to make use of resources at the Justice Center, staff will already have a record of his or her referral history. The system allows network members to cut out a lot of time and red tape and get young people quickly into needed services. In 2006, over 150 referrals were made through the system.

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.

EXPANDING THE USE OF PROBLEM-SOLVING JUSTICE: Reflections on what works, what doesn’t and how to overcome challenges, the second workshop for the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Community Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative, was held at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta on May 23 and 24, 2007. The workshop's learning goals were to identify successes and challenges of the initiative's demonstration sites, to explore ideas for overcoming challenges, and to build skills in seeking local resources.

Keynote speakers were BJA Director Domingo Herraiz; Center for Court Innovation Director Greg Berman; Multnomah County, Oregon District Attorney Mike Schrunk; and President of the Atlanta City Council Lisa Borders. Julius Lang and Chris Watler, director and deputy director of technical assistance at the Center, spearheaded a faculty consisting of Aaron Arnold, director of the Center for Court Innovation’s upstate office; Steven Jansen, director of the Center for Community Prosecution at the National District Attorneys Association; Diana Karafin, senior research associate at the Center for Court Innovation; Michael Magnani, Director of the Division of Grants and Program Development for the New York State Unified Court System; Preeti Puri Menon, BJA’s Policy Advisor for Adjudication; Karen Moen of the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Children, Families and the Courts; and Phillip Rush, program officer at The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta.

The workshop was an opportunity for team building as well as learning, with project leaders from the following ten grantee sites attending: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; San Diego Beach Area Community Court, California; the City of Atlanta Community Court Division, Georgia; the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Bronx Community Solutions, New York; the Athens County Substance Abusing/Mentally Ill Court, Ohio; Overland Park Community Court, Clackamas County, Oregon; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; Lynchburg Community Court, Virginia; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington.

Here are some photos from the event:

Teams not pictured: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington