Judge Bonner recently stepped down from the Seattle Community Court after presiding over it since its opening in March 2005. He has served on Seattle’s Municipal Court bench for nearly two decades. In February 2007 he spoke with Center for Court Innovation staff about the community court.
How did you get involved in community court?
The city attorney and the court were looking at ways to address the recycling of individuals who’d been coming through court on quality-of-life issues and to reduce our jail population. We decided to look at how other jurisdictions were dealing with those issues. We had heard quite a bit about the Portland operation so we took a trip and viewed their community court. We were impressed by what we saw. It made me view these lesser crimes differently; we can say that a quality-of-life crime is insignificant when compared to more serious charges, but somebody still has to pay for it. And the idea of having the defendant pay back something to the community through the performance of community service was a great incentive for us to do this. We opened our own community court in March 2005. I had been in a traditional court all my life, so it was quite a change for me.
How has your interaction with defendants changed?
We’ve slowed the process down. We establish relationships with these people, and as a result their attitudes have changed. They become much more respectful, and I see them trying to transform. We’ve had people who’ve cleaned themselves up and found jobs, and returned to court to thank us. Before, most people did not look at courts as places where you receive help. We also see our people on the street in their colored vests, doing the work outside rather than being in jail, and that’s satisfying.
When I now preside in courtrooms that are not community courts, I bring the community court philosophy with me. In the traditional court I treat the defendants the same way I do when I am on the therapeutic track. I look at the individual’s record to see if there is some problem that caused them to do what they did. And if it fits within the parameters of what I would see in community court, then I refer defendants to the probation department to perform a needs assessment, to hook them up with housing and treatment rather than incarceration. I do not have to take off one hat and put on another hat because it’s part of me now, looking at a defendant in this new way.
Do you find that the community court is supported by the court system as a whole?
Changing judges’ attitudes is like pulling teeth. But I think some see the positive response that you get, and everybody likes to be involved with something that is positive.
What’s unique about the Seattle model is that the community court was started with the collaboration of the city attorney. In fact, the defense agency, the city attorney, and the court were all of the same accord when we started, so we didn’t have to twist arms.
A year ago, didn’t the court expand its population as well as actual catchment area?
The city attorney’s office was able to obtain a Bureau of Justice Assistance grant, with the assistance of the court. The purpose of that grant was to hire individuals to expand the community service sites citywide, and as we expanded the community service sites we started to expand the catchment areas. Now we’re getting in quality-of-life offenders from all over the city, and we have multiple community service sites.
Can you tell me more about the community service component?
Everyone performs community service. Communities like to see individuals paying back for the harm they may have caused. After making contact with the potential community service sites, we invite the staff to community court to see what we’re actually doing there. As they see the court in action, they understand—and that’s the selling point. If the defendant has physical problems we find sites where they can sit down and perform their service. Those that are at a higher functional level will do manual labor—sweeping the sidewalks, picking up trash.
Can you tell me about the Court Resource Center on the second floor of your downtown courthouse facility?
The Court Resource Center’s original purpose was to create a clearinghouse, a place where individuals could be assessed to determine eligibility for publicly funded services such as chemical dependency and mental health treatment. We wanted to make this somewhat of a one-stop shopping center. We conduct our community court orientation there; we have chemical dependency and mental health evaluators; the State Department of Corrections facilitates a Moral Reconation Therapy group; we provide access to free housing for Community Court and Day Reporting defendants through the Court Specialized Access & Treatment Services (CO-STARS) program; we link individuals with education, literacy and employment services; we offer free Relapse Prevention and STD/HIV classes for individuals charged with a prostitution-related offense, as well as a low-cost alcohol and drug information school and a life skill component for those repeat offenders who are trying to learn how to cope—catch the bus, write a resume, etc.
Do you have any advice for people looking to start a problem-solving initiative?
I would tell them all to go back to New York and start at Midtown Community Court and work their way down. I visited New York in November; we started in Midtown, then observed Bronx Community Solutions and wrapped up with the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The visit was the most illuminating experience that I’ve had since I have been involved with community court. I would tell anybody to go see what it is that is happening at Midtown first. There are no community courts that are the same. Every one has its own local flavor. But observing those courts gives you an idea of what can be accomplished.
What kind of long-term impact do you think your community court will have?
I think it will have a tremendous impact in the future. We are still learning, and expect this will be a learning process for quite a while. Rather than send people to jail for things they’ve done in order to survive, if we actually look at the reason they are doing those things and find a way to help, then I think not only will the amount of money we spend on jails go down, but we can really rehabilitate people. If we rehabilitate only a fraction of the individuals who come through our courts, we’ve still saved some lives. I think it’s better to save one and lose 100 than to do nothing at all.
February 2007