In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from the Clackamas Countys’ winning proposal.

The Clackamas County Oregon District Attorney’s office has developed a Community Court pilot in the Overland Park neighborhood, which has Clackamas County’s highest crime rates. The Community Court pilot, started in late January 2005, is based on a restorative justice approach and diverts misdemeanant defendants from the traditional criminal justice system. Cases eligible for community court are: Theft in the Second Degree; Theft in the Third Degree; Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree; Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree; Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree; Offensive Littering (non-environmental); Disorderly Conduct; Unlawfully Applying Graffiti; Unlawfully Possessing Graffiti Implement; Unlawful Entry Into Motor Vehicle (not related to identity theft).

The proposed problem-solving initiative will support the Court’s efforts through social service case management and employment services. With a funded case management position, individuals will be connected to the community supports that will allow them to be successful, reduce recidivism and increase community quality of life. Defendants will be assessed and referred to social service, vocational and mental health resources, and supported through completing required activities and accessing services. Individuals who voluntarily take part in the community court program will complete mandatory community service and work with a Case Manager provided by either Clackamas County Social Services or Community Solutions. 

Community oversight and feedback will be provided by the Overland Park Coalition Against Drug Crime, a local citizens organization.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from San Diego’s winning proposal.

This community-based problem-solving criminal justice initiative involves the planning and implementation of a community court model to serve the Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, and Mission Bay Park communities, known as the Beach Area, in the City of San Diego. The lead agency is the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, working in partnership with the San Diego Superior Court, San Diego Police Department, other criminal justice agencies, and community-based organizations.

The proposed Beach Area Community Court will focus on adult offenders who commit misdemeanors and infractions, especially low-level alcohol-related offenses, that impact the local quality of life. Eligible offenders who choose to participate will be diverted from the San Diego Superior Court. They will be held accountable to the community by attending a community impact panel and performing community service. They will also be screened and referred as appropriate to educational and rehabilitative programs to curb future criminal conduct, with compliance closely monitored. Community members will serve on an Advisory Board, overseeing the Court’s development and implementation.

The Beach Area Community Court will join the City of San Diego’s two existing community courts, the Downtown Community Court and the Mid-City Community Court, in a community court network dedicated to sharing resources and best practices, with the goal of improving community-based criminal justice throughout the City of San Diego.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Seattle’s winning proposal.

The Seattle Municipal Court in partnership with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office proposes to apply the problem-solving philosophy of its recently inaugurated Community Court to its thirty-year old diversion program and provide those first-time offenders who may be headed down the path of further criminal justice system involvement a chance to avoid this result and improve their lives.

The Seattle pre-trial diversion program is one of the oldest diversion systems in the United States. The existing program allows first-time offenders who commit non-violent crimes an opportunity to have those charges dismissed and retain a clean criminal record.  Defendants are required only to pay a $75 fee, which is frequently waived, and to not re-offend within 90 days. Although it provides an opportunity to defendants to avoid a criminal conviction, the existing program does little to provide specific assistance to defendants whose criminal behavior may be driven by mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness, or the lack of an education. Under its problem-solving initiative, Seattle aims to use the grant to identify those individuals early on and intervene to provide them with the help and services they need. 

In addition, the current diversion program provides no mechanism for defendant accountability to the victims—individuals and communities—who are impacted by criminal behavior. Defendants are required to pay only $75 and not re-offend.  While this is efficient for the criminal justice system it often leaves victims feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system.

Under its problem-solving initiative, Seattle seeks to address significant shortfalls in the existing pre-trial diversion program by incorporating it into and leveraging the resources of the Seattle Community Court. Under this proposal, diversion-bound defendants will benefit from social service referrals available through Community Court. Defendants will also pay back the community they offended by performing useful community service work.

For more about Seattle's program, watch this video.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Pima County’s winning proposal.

The  Pima County Juvenile Court Center proposes to address the problem of juvenile domestic violence under its community-based problem-solving criminal justice grant, seeking to develop a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary prevention, response, and rehabilitation plan to divert domestic violence cases from the system when possible, and to more effectively process domestic violence referrals, including post-dispositional supervision of offenders.

For the diversion track, Pima County plans to use three major strategies aimed at providing and ensuring participation in appropriate services while avoiding unnecessary arrests and detentions: 1) development of a comprehensive pre-arrest response plan, 2) revision of law enforcement standing orders and creation of alternatives to arrest of juvenile in domestic violence incidents, and 3) ensuring that referred juveniles successfully complete domestic violence diversion programs.

Pima County Juvenile Court Center will hire a domestic violence coordinator to work with behavioral health service providers, child protective services, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to develop alternative strategies for dealing with domestic violence prior to adjudication.  These would include:

• safety plans for families already engaged in behavioral health system that direct families to crisis counselors and emergency response teams as a first resort in times of crisis, rather than law enforcement; 
• mobile diversion units that may be called upon by law enforcement to respond to families to provide crisis intervention services in lieu of arrest; and
• neighborhood placements—including additional crisis shelter beds, neighborhood foster homes, and relative placements—in lieu of detention.

For juveniles who are referred to the juvenile court on a charge of domestic violence, the domestic violence coordinator will work with the county attorney and public defender to develop criteria for participation in a voluntary domestic violence diversion program.  The domestic violence coordinator, juvenile probation and Community Partnership of Southern Arizona will develop a procedure for the expedited creation of child and family teams for referred juveniles, to ensure early, comprehensive assessment and the development and implementation of appropriate services for the juvenile and the family.  Working with probation, the domestic violence coordinator will develop strategies to encourage juveniles and families to participate in diversion and to identify and overcome obstacles to successful completion of the program so that juveniles may have the charge dismissed.

For cases where diversion from the court system is not appropriate, Pima County will seek to promote:

• A multi-disciplinary approach to assessment and case planning based on a child and family team approach that includes the family in the process and addresses the service needs of all family members. Participation in child and family teams will be voluntary, but will be strongly encouraged;
• Front-loading of services to “jumpstart” the rehabilitation process;
• Frequent contacts with the child and family, not only by the probation officer but also by other team members; and
• Regular judicial review to ensure that plan goals are accomplished, that immediate consequences are imposed for noncompliance, and that progress is acknowledged and rewarded.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Athens County’s winning proposal.

The Athens County Municipal Court Substance Abusing/Mentally Ill Court Project is designed to divert individuals with dual disorders of mental illness and substance abuse with misdemeanor level offenses from incarceration by providing intensive community treatment and supervision. The Court will contract with a dually certified mental health and alcohol/substance abuse treatment agency to provide a “boundary spanner” and treatment team based upon the New Hampshire-Dartmouth Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment model. The Court Project team will provide comprehensive, assertive services according to this model.

Consultations with other justice system players and community collaborators confirmed the need for the criminal justice and behavioral healthcare system to work closely together in a comprehensive and intensive approach to try to break the cycle of relapse and recidivism and intervene positively in peoples’ lives. Although the emphasis of this program is development of specialized services for persons with dual-diagnoses, another vital element is centralized screening, assessment and diversion of all mentally ill or clinically dependent offenders to the most appropriate court program. The program will operate in a rural, economically distressed, Appalachian County that has a history of strong collaborative partnerships between the judicial system and behavioral healthcare system.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from South Carolina’s winning proposal.

For its problem-solving initiative, the 4th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina proposes to implement a coordinated, comprehensive, system-wide problem-solving initiative in four counties. The initiative will target offenders ages 17-30 arrested for drug and drug-related charges.

The goals of the initiative include (1) engaging the community in defining issues of concern to be addressed; (2) reducing recidivism among offenders entering pretrial diversion; and (3) strengthening the resources available to the judiciary for cases that require adjudication and supervision.

The initiative will be piloted first in Chesterfield County, and then expanded to the other three counties: Darlington, Dillon, and Marlboro. Community forums will be convened to engage community residents and key stakeholders.  A part-time Assistant Solicitor will be hired to reduce the time from arrest to entry into the pretrial diversion or adjudication track. Screening, assessment, monitoring and supervision of offenders will be enhanced in both tracks. In the adjudication track, the intensity of monitoring and supervision, and whether participants are diverted to a community process or supervised by the judge through status hearings, will be dependent on the offender’s current charge, criminal background, treatment history, and current assessment. Sanctions and incentives will be used throughout the system to encourage progress and achieve compliance.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from Lynchburg’s winning proposal.

The Lynchburg Community-Based Problem Solving Criminal Justice Initiative is built upon the premise that structured interventions with defendants at the early stages of crime can prevent further escalation of violence in even the most distressed community. Lynchburg’s proposal promotes the merits of bringing social services and mediation into the folds of the criminal justice process and strives to integrate the community court model into a traditional general court system in a small city with limited resources. It seeks to utilize the resources already present in the community and the court system in a more effective and community orientated approach.

To accomplish these goals requires inviting non-traditional criminal justice players—community members, social service and non-profit partners—to participate in the design and implementation of this initiative and asks them to work alongside members of law enforcement to repair the disconnect between traditional court sanctions and access to social services, creating community-driven sanctions for those who commit crime in the pilot project neighborhood.

The purpose of the initiative is to restore safety to the city’s most high risk neighborhoods and empower residents to reclaim their communities. The project will focus on Lynchburg’s Greenfield neighborhood, and eventually cover the entire city. Aside from reducing recidivism and crime rates, the inclusion of the community in the criminal justice system process as problem solvers allows them to feel empowered and to view themselves as important stakeholders in the process.

In late 2000, the City of Atlanta’s Municipal Court created a community court, which has evolved into a comprehensive problem-solving court. Currently, the Court is operating two neighborhood Restorative Boards, both in inner-city neighborhoods where poverty rates are high. Under its problem-solving initiative, Atlanta proposes to expand and enhance its Restorative Board program into four additional Atlanta neighborhoods. The Restorative Boards have proven to be especially effective by bringing an offender back to a neighborhood for sanctioning and restoration and giving a meaningful voice to community members in the justice process.

The boards seek to close the gap between the courts and community. Defendants, often young and first-time offenders, are identified by court staff as appropriate candidates for diversion to the boards. Staff recruit board members from the neighborhood where the board is established. After extensive training in the principles of restorative justice and the policies of the board, members are sworn into service by the judge of Community Court. When a defendant appears before the board, together they discuss the nature of the offense and its negative consequences for the victim, community and offender. An agreement is reached on a course of action that the defendant will take to “right the wrong” his/her actions have created. Activities are also identified for the offender to pursue in order to reduce the likelihood that he/she will offend again. Examples include GED completion, job search skills training, anger-management and conflict resolution classes, parenting classes, etc. Board members meet several times with offenders to monitor their progress and offer congratulations upon success.

In September 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice funded ten demonstration projects under its new Community-Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative. The following edited excerpt was taken from the New York’s winning proposal.

Bronx Community Solutions is the next phase in the development of problem-solving justice in New York, an ambitious experiment in going to scale with ideas and practices that have worked in pilot community courts in Midtown Manhattan, Harlem, and Red Hook, Brooklyn. Rather than concentrating resources in a single, specialized court, Bronx Community Solutions seeks to bring problem-solving resources to all of the players in Bronx Criminal Court, which handles 50,000 misdemeanor cases annually. The project aims to re-think business as usual in the local criminal justice system, marshalling the system’s resources towards improving the response to quality-of-life crime and increasing public trust in government. It combines punishment (community service) and help (drug treatment, job training, counseling) for eligible non-violent offenders.

Components include:

Sentencing Options. By creating social service classes and community service projects, the project seeks to provide judges with expanded sentencing options and reduce reliance on expensive and ineffective short-term incarceration.

Accountability. By quickly assigning offenders to alternative sanctions and rigorously monitoring their performance, the project seeks to improve compliance and reduce the number of offenders who receive no sanction whatsoever—sending a message that all crime has consequences.

Community Engagement. By engaging local residents and organizations in selecting community service projects and providing social services, the project seeks to revitalize the relationship between court and community.

Bronx Community Solutions partners include the New York State Court System, the Bronx DA’s Office, the City of New York, the local defense bar and the Center for Court Innovation.

To view a screening tool used to assess ofenders' social service needs click here.

Problem-solving courts have generated healthy debate among both proponents and critics. Advocates of problem-solving courts hail improved case outcomes, including reductions in crime, increased sobriety for addicts, safer neighborhoods, fewer probation violations, and enhanced public confidence in justice. Skeptics question whether the new courts are engaged in practices—including monitoring defendants in treatment, listening to community concerns, and forging collaborations with government and non-profit agencies to solve discrete problems—that are inconsistent with the traditional values of the judicial branch.

What is so new about what judges are doing in problem-solving courts? In late 1999, a select group of judges, attorneys, policy makers, and scholars gathered to answer this and other questions. The panel was the first in a series of discussions about problem-solving courts sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, the Open Society Institute (Program in Law and Society), and the Center for Court Innovation. What follows is an edited transcript of this part of the conversation. For the entire transcript, click here.

Moderator Eric Lane, Eric J. Schmertz Professor of Public Law and Public Service, Hofstra Law School: What’s so new about what judges are doing in problem-solving courts?

Cindy Lederman, Administrative Judge, Juvenile Division, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida: It seems to me that the public is now coming to the courts and asking for solutions to problems like crime, domestic violence, and substance abuse. If we as judges accept this challenge, we’re no longer the referee or the spectator. We’re a participant in the process. We’re not just looking at the offense any more. We’re looking more and more at the best interests, not just of the defendant, but of the defendant’s family and the community as well. This is quite a leap. It’s not traditional. And not every judge can or should do this. It can be a disaster to have the wrong judge sitting in a problem-solving court. It’s much more difficult than sitting in a normal courtroom. You need to read more than the law. You need a lot more courage as well, because you will be subject to tremendous criticism from your colleagues. “Are you being impartial? Do you know too much so that you can no longer be impartial?” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that. Which leads me to one of my favorite quotes, which is “The judiciary is the only profession that exalts ignorance.”

Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge, New York State Court of Appeals: I’ve never understood that. I’ve been an appellate judge for more than 16 years. I’ve decided a lot of Uniform Commercial Code cases. I love the Uniform Commercial Code. I read a lot about it. Am I doing something unethical? Is the domestic violence judge who tries to make himself an informed person on the very difficult issue of domestic violence doing something unethical?

Truman Morrison, III, Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court: I’m puzzled by some of the things that Judge Lederman said. I don’t understand why it is that only a few of her colleagues would be fit to be in one of these special courts. I hope that it isn’t because only a few of them share her ideological view of how you approach domestic violence or how you approach drug abuse, because if that’s true, I think that’s very, very worrisome.

Michael Schrunk, District Attorney, Multnomah County, Oregon: I agree wholeheartedly that not every judge can be a problem-solving court judge. My public defender and I have to go out and recruit judges, literally, with the blessing of our presiding judge, to see if they’d be willing to do a drug court, to do a community court. We get turned down by some of my former deputies, some of my public defender’s former deputies. What we’re looking for is a proactive judge as opposed to a reactive judge, someone who can preserve the core values of the judiciary, but still be a risktaker. I think there needs to be a recognition that this is non-traditional judging, just as I tell my young lawyers fresh out of law school who want to slug felons that this is non-traditional prosecuting. And I suspect deputy public defenders find out when they serve a tour in problem-solving courts that it’s non-traditional defending, too. We’re not preparing people in law schools for this.

Kaye: The suggestion is on the table that there is some sort of ideology that makes a good problem-solving judge. I thought it would be worthwhile hearing from one of the problem-solving judges.

Lederman: I think there’s an ideology. There’s a personality as well. There are many judges who are reluctant to speak human to human to the people that appear before them. Those judges are inappropriate for a problem-solving court. A judge has to feel that it’s the responsibility of the judiciary to engage in this sort of work and have the personality to engage human beings from the bench. Not every judge has these characteristics.

Morrison: I still don’t have a picture yet of who the ideal person for this job is. It strikes me that it ought to be a good judge—someone who is open to other people’s ideas, who listens, who is informed, who is impartial. All of us have colleagues who are brilliant and colleagues who are boors. Obviously, we don’t want bad judges in these courts. If we put aside the real bad people who probably shouldn’t be on the bench anyway, most judges could do this job, many more than do. By way of example, let me tell you about a colleague of mine on the bench. He’s actually the senior judge in our court, who everybody would define as a traditional judge, to the extent we all have a stereotype of that. Years ago, he served as the judge in our local drug court. Yesterday, he absolutely shocked me by saying that his year on the drug court was the single most meaningful experience he’s had in 22 years of being a judge. I said: “Gosh, that surprises me. Why is that?” He said: “Because in many ways I was able, with complete fidelity to all my principles, to do a better job of being a judge in that context than I ever was doing anything else.” I say this just to underline that if we’re doing this right, it shouldn’t be a tiny little fraternity and sorority of select jurists who are up to the task.

Judy Harris Kluger, Administrative Judge, New York City Criminal Court: I don’t think you need a particular ideology. That would be terrible. I do believe that, except for our problem judges, most judges could do this job well. In my experience, once the Midtown Community Court got started in New York, judges said: “Could I sit there?” These judges were very different, but the common denominator was they were tired of having their competence evaluated on how many arraignments they could do. You know, for a long time my claim to fame was that I arraigned 200 cases in one session. That’s ridiculous. When I was arraigning cases, I’d be handed the papers, say the sentence is going to be five days, ten days, whatever, never even looking at the defendant. At a community court, I’m able to look up from the papers and see the person standing in front of me. It takes two or three more minutes, but I think a judge is much more effective that way.