community courts: an evolving modelcommunity courts an evolving model c ommunityj ustices eriesu.s....

COMMUNITY COURTSAN EVOLVING MODEL

C O M M U N I T Y J U S T I C E S E R I E S

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance


#2

MonographMonograph

1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page grnC1

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Daniel MarcusActing Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou LearyActing Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. GistDirector, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice ProgramsWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice AssistanceWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contactU.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by the Center for Court Innovation under grant number96–DD–BX–0090,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positionor policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page C2


October 2000

NCJ 183452

Prepared by Eric Lee, Deputy Director Center for Court Innovation

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page i

The community court movement has come a long way since the firstcourt opened in midtown Manhattan in 1993. The concepts pioneered bythat court have taken root across the country. Nearly a dozen communitycourts are now open in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, New York,Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas. Another 13 communities plan to opencourts in the near future.

Midtown Community Court has succeeded by asking a new set of ques-tions about the role of the court in a community’s daily life: What can acourt do to solve neighborhood problems? What can courts bring to thetable beyond their coercive power and symbolic presence? And what rolescan community residents, businesses, and service providers play in improv-ing justice?

The community courts that were established after Midtown are answeringthese questions in different ways. Most focus on one neighborhood, butothers are exploring ways to serve an entire city. Still others are expandingtheir scope beyond low-level criminal offenses to juvenile delinquency andhousing code violations.

But these pioneering courts also seek a set of common, important goals.All have implemented a new way of doing business that imposes immediate,meaningful sanctions on offenders, truly engages the community, and helpsoffenders address problems that are at the root of their criminal behavior.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance continues to support the efforts ofjudges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other local leaders who areusing community courts to transform the way justice is administered intheir communities.

iiiBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

From the Director

Nancy E. GistDirectorBureau of Justice Assistance

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page iii

vBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How Do You Plan a Community Court? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Which Community Should Be Served and Where Should the Court Be Located? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

How Should the Court Link Offenders to SocialServices?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Can Punishment and Help Be Combined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

What Kinds of Cases Are Appropriate for Community Courts? . . 6

What Role Should the Community Play? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Are Community Courts Creating System Change?. . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Community Court Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Midtown Community Court, New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

North/Northeast and Southeast Community Courts, Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Hartford Community Court, Hartford, Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 11

Hennepin County Community Court Calendar, Minneapolis, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Hempstead Community Court, Hempstead, New York . . . . . . . 13

West Palm Beach Community Court, West Palm Beach, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Downtown Austin Community Court, Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . 15

Frayser Community Court, Memphis, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Atlanta Community Court, Atlanta, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Red Hook Community Justice Center, Brooklyn, New York. . . . 18

IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page v

COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODEL

vi

V. Resources on Community Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VI. For More Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page vi

1BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

In recent years cities and townsacross the country have embarkedon an experiment to test the propo-sition that courts can play a rolein solving complex neighborhoodproblems and building strongercommunities. Since the 1993 open-ing of New York City’s MidtownCommunity Court, the nation’s first,dozens of cities have begun plan-ning community courts. Elevencommunity courts are now operat-ing in communities across thenation, and six more will open bythe end of 2000. At their outset,each court must address the follow-ing set of questions:

• Can courts assume a problem-solving role in the life of a com-munity, bringing people togetherand helping to craft solutions toproblems that communities face?

• How can courts address theimpact that chronic offendinghas on a community?

• Can courts improve the qualityof life in a community?

• Can local voices—residents,merchants, community groups—

engage in the administration ofjustice?

To answer these questions, com-munity courts have developed individual programs that differ inimportant ways. Although mostof these new courts focus on oneneighborhood, several jurisdictionsare exploring ways to serve anentire city. Many community courtshandle criminal cases only, but others are experimenting with abroader range of matters, includingjuvenile delinquency and housingcode violations. Some communitycourts were initiated by courts, andsome have been championed by adistrict attorney.

These differences reflect a centralaspect of community courts: theyfocus on neighborhoods and aredesigned to respond to the particu-lar concerns of individual communi-ties. Moreover, community courtsare shaped by the particular politi-cal, economic, and social land-scapes in each community.

The Center for Court Innovation(CCI), with support from the Bureauof Justice Assistance (BJA), hasprovided technical assistance

I. Introduction

About the AuthorEric Lee is deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. Research,

ideas, and text were contributed by Courtney Bryan, Jimena Martinez, BridgetRegan, and Robert Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 1


2

to each community court anddocumented the emergence of thisfield. This monograph provides a

snapshot of these early communitycourts and explores emergingissues in their development.



In January 1998, the MidtownCommunity Court was the onlycommunity court in the UnitedStates. By March 2000, nearly adozen had opened across the coun-try in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,Minnesota, New York, Oregon,Tennessee, and Texas. New YorkCity and Portland, Oregon, eachhost two community courts, andorganizers in both cities intend toopen a third court in 2000. Another13 jurisdictions, in California,Colorado, Delaware, Florida,Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, NewYork, Oregon, Pennsylvania, andTexas, plan to establish communitycourts in the near future.

Community courts grow out offrustration. Observers have notedthat justice has become remotefrom communities and the peoplewho live in them. Community resi-dents have reported feeling out oftouch with courts. They want courtsto address low-level crime that ispart of daily life. The MidtownCommunity Court offered a modelfor addressing these problems byemphasizing the following:

• Locating the court in the com-munity, close to where crimestake place.

• Repaying a community damagedby low-level crime by requiringoffenders to compensate

neighborhoods through commu-nity service.

• Using the leverage of the court tosentence offenders to completesocial services that will helpthem address problems such asdrug addiction or involvement inprostitution.

• Bringing the court and the com-munity closer by making thecourthouse accessible, establish-ing a community advisory board,and publishing a quarterlynewsletter.

• Using the court as a gateway totreatment and making social ser-vices available to offenders rightat the courthouse.

The Midtown model was thor-oughly documented in an indepen-dent evaluation conducted by theNational Center for State Courtsand in publications prepared by theU.S. Department of Justice (see p.21 for a list of publications on com-munity justice). With a well-definedand carefully documented model inNew York City, community courtplanners elsewhere faced questionsabout whether the Midtown modelwould meet the needs of their jurisdictions. Planners in other juris-dictions have made significant de-partures from the Midtown model,reflecting both the distinct needs oftheir communities and the practical

II. Overview



4

reality of what they believed theycould accomplish given localresources and local support.

The following sections examinethe questions that planners askedas they designed their communitycourts and how they resolved them.

How Do You Plan aCommunity Court?

Community courts are complexprojects that involve rethinkingcourt operations, raising substantialresources, and building partnershipswithin and without the justice sys-tem. Decisions about who shouldlead the planning of a communitycourt varied from state to state.Judges or local court administratorsled the planning effort in 4 of the11 operating courts. Planning foranother five courts was led by elect-ed district attorneys. Notably, allfive of these courts run communityprosecution programs and the dis-trict attorneys’ interest in communi-ty courts was sparked by hearinghow dissatisfied their constituentswere with the justice system’s insuf-ficient attention to quality-of-lifeproblems. The local mayor’s officeand a countywide criminal justicecommission initiated the communi-ty court effort in the remaining twocities.

Many projects recognized earlythat a dedicated planner would beneeded to move the community

court from conception to imple-mentation. This approach reflectsthe complexities of raising money,building community participation,developing sanctions, establishingpartnerships, and so forth. Six ofthe operating community courtswere staffed with a full-time coordi-nator during the planning period;the planning of three courts was ledby a staff person who dedicated amajority of his or her attention tothe project. To ensure that the part-nerships necessary for successwere established early in the plan-ning process, nine jurisdictions con-vened formal planning committees.The committees typically includedrepresentatives from the courts, district attorneys’ offices, policedepartments, social service agen-cies, and communities. Publicdefenders were included on five ofthe planning teams. In the projectsthat did not create planning com-mittees, lead planners worked infor-mally with other stakeholders.

The scope of the communitycourt project, the readiness of localplayers to support the concept, andthe planners’ success in garneringfunds and in-kind support all affect-ed the length of the planning pro-cess. Three jurisdictions openedcommunity courts within a year ofbeginning the planning process.Although the average planning peri-od was 2 years, some jurisdictionsneeded 3 or more years to plan acommunity court.


Overview


Which Community ShouldBe Served and WhereShould the Court BeLocated?

The Midtown Community Courtserves the central business districtof America’s largest city. One chal-lenge faced by planners outsideNew York City was whether the con-cept of a community court isapplicable to smaller cities andother types of neighborhoods.

The community court approachwas recognized as a promisingsolution to quality-of-life problemsby many different communities.Today, 6 of the 11 operating com-munity courts serve inner-city residential neighborhoods facingserious problems, including highcrime rates, property abandonment,and conditions of disorder. Twocommunity courts serve downtownareas and tackle the low-level crimeand public disorder that can be bar-riers to social and economic revital-ization of city centers. One courtis located in a suburban area withpockets facing problems similar tothose of its urban neighbors. Finally,two cities are testing the idea of acommunity court that serves anentire medium-size city. In one, thecity has been divided into 17 neigh-borhoods, each with a committeedesigned to promote a close work-ing relationship between the com-munity and the court.

Another decision planners facedwas selecting an appropriate build-ing in which to locate the community

court. The decision involved bal-ancing community court goals suchas visibility and accessibility to thepublic with the need to find suffi-cient space for onsite partners.Expense and the logistical issues ofprocessing defendants also wereconsidered. The projects arrived ata variety of solutions. Three courtscurrently operate within centralizedcourthouses. One of these projectsplans to relocate to a dedicatedbuilding in the near future; the othertwo hold open the possibility ofrelocating to separate space in thefuture. Another project holds pro-ceedings in the central court andconducts other community courtactivities such as community ser-vice, social services, and communi-ty meetings in the neighborhoodbeing served by the court.

Seven courts are located in theneighborhoods they serve. Threeprojects have adapted existingspace in the community: two inneighborhood centers and one ina strip mall storefront. Four under-took significant renovations to cre-ate a space for their communitycourts.

The decision about court locationis closely tied to a program’s focalpoint. All of the planners, and manycommunity members, describecommon goals such as establishingcommunity norms and creating anenvironment supporting revitaliza-tion efforts, but the focal point ofthe programs vary with neighbor-hoods and the problems confrontingindividual communities. Courts in



6

residential neighborhoods are morelikely to address housing issues andyoung offenders as well as low-levelcriminal offenses, whereas thosein downtown areas prioritize issuessuch as homelessness, illegalcamping, and disorderly conduct.

How Should the CourtLink Offenders to SocialServices?

All planners agreed that makingsocial services available to defen-dants who appear at communitycourt is important, but they havemade different decisions aboutwhether to locate these servicesonsite. Of the 11 community courtsnow operating, 6 provide servicessuch as drug treatment, counseling,and assistance with entitlementsonsite, as well ongoing case man-agement by project staff for defen-dants mandated to services suchas long-term treatment. Three sitesprovide referral to services plusongoing case management; twoprovide referral to social servicesonly.

Can Punishment and HelpBe Combined?

All of the nation’s communitycourts are experimenting with thebroad use of both community ser-vice and social service sanctions.Mandating defendants to social ser-vices is universally accepted as alegitimate sentence to curb recidi-vism. However, for several, the inte-gration of social service sanctionshas been gradual. Judges in some

jurisdictions have questioned theappropriateness of using social ser-vice as a sanction. How, asked onejudge, could a service designed tohelp an individual with personalproblems also serve as punish-ment? Community members andothers on the advisory board havebeen emphatic about the need toaddress underlying problems suchas drug addiction.

What Kinds of Cases Are Appropriate forCommunity Courts?

Five of the community courtsare exploring ways to expand theirmandates beyond hearing criminalcases. These experiments rangefrom a judge in one courtroomhearing criminal, civil, and familymatters, to judges with criminalcourt calendars working closelywith the police and prosecutors onmatters such as housing code viola-tions, to two judges sitting jointlyat one court of which one hearscriminal cases and the otherreviews environmental matters. Two jurisdictions are exploring ways to handle youthful offenders at community court.

What Role Should theCommunity Play?

Although all the projects recog-nized that community involvementwas a critical goal, planners grap-pled with how and when to involvethe community, raising the ques-tion: Who is the community? Formost court planners, the answer

6


Overview


included residents, social serviceproviders, beat cops, and local mer-chants. Community members par-ticipated in the planning of all of thecourts, but in different ways and todiffering degrees.

Planners used a variety of tools toestablish community participation.In every community, plannersattended neighborhood meetingsand conducted interviews with abroad range of stakeholders. Allbut two courts created a communityadvisory panel during the planningperiod, and most of the projectsheld community meetings to deter-mine priorities for the new court.Five projects held focus group dis-cussions to better understand com-munity members’ concerns andrecommendations. In Portland,Oregon, community memberswere involved in shaping sanction-ing options. In Brooklyn, New York,community members chose thebuilding in which to locate thecourt.

Since opening, each court hastaken a different approach toinvolving the community. Eightcourts have convened a communityadvisory board that meets regularlyand a ninth is forming such aboard. Eight community courtshave mechanisms for solicitingcommunity involvement in makingcommunity service assignments,and four have committees thatdevise ways to use community service to address hot spots andother neighborhood problems. Two community courts conduct

door-to-door surveys to determinepublic safety concerns and prioritiesof neighborhood residents. Threecourts distribute a newsletter togive community members visibleevidence that the court is account-able to the community.

Are Community CourtsCreating System Change?

Community courts are changingthe way court systems conductbusiness within the court itself and,more broadly, within the justice sys-tem. In the two cities where commu-nity courts have been open thelongest, New York City and Portland,the lessons of community involve-ment in the administration of justicehave begun to spread to the rest ofthe system.

In Portland, the success of theNorth/Northeast Community Courthas convinced the district attorney,the courts, and other justice agen-cies to open two other communitycourts that together will serve everyneighborhood in Portland. In NewYork City, the success of MidtownCommunity Court has led to thedevelopment of two other commu-nity courts, encouraged greater useof community service and socialservice sanctions throughout thecourt system, introduced the role of“resource coordinator” (a liaisonbetween the court and social ser-vice agencies) to other courts,started the trend of problem-solvingcourts throughout the state, and ledto the creation of a not-for-profit



8

organization to be an engine forongoing court innovation.

In every jurisdiction, these initia-tives have demonstrated new waysof doing business. Planners of 10of the projects have brought newresources to the system to supporta community court—ranging fromstate legislative and city councilappropriations, to federal grants, tocontributions from private founda-tions and corporations. Two down-town courts and two neighborhoodcourts have secured private fundingfor their projects.

At nine community courts, staffare testing the use of technology toprovide more complete and accu-rate information to the judge andother decisionmakers, to raise thestandard of accountability on court-ordered sanctions, and to link thenumerous partners that must work

together for a community court tosucceed. Six of the courts haveinstalled information technology forthe community court and three oth-ers have information systems indevelopment.

In planning community courts,new players have been involved.Two of the courts now operatingand two opening in 2000 haveinvolved not-for-profit organizationsthat coordinated planning andimplementation of the projects.The innovative involvement of not-for-profit organizations in projectimplementation—such as the suc-cess in finding new funding sources,the use of technology, the experi-mentation with multijurisdictionalcalendars, and the impact on othercourts—indicates the extent towhich community courts are pro-moting significant change in courtoperations.



III. Community Court Profiles

As the profiles in this sectionillustrate, community courts varysignificantly. As varied as these pro-jects are, the field of communitycourts is conspicuously young—the model is evolving as the experi-ences of these first courts deepen.

Midtown CommunityCourt, New York City

Launched in 1993, the MidtownCommunity Court targets quality-of-life offenses such as prostitution,illegal vending, graffiti, shoplifting,fare beating, and vandalism in mid-town Manhattan. Often in suchcases judges are forced to choosebetween a few days of jail time andno sentence at all—results that failto impress the victim, the commu-nity, or the defendant that theseoffenses are taken seriously. In contrast, the Midtown CommunityCourt sentences low-level offendersto pay back the neighborhoodthrough community service whileoffering them help with problems(addiction, mental illness, lack ofjob skills) that underlie their crimi-nal behavior. Residents, businesses,and social service agencies collabo-rate with the court by supervisingcommunity service projects andby providing onsite social services,including drug treatment, healthcare, and job training.

Social services are available onsiteat the Midtown Court, providing the

judge a range of services to includein a mandate, such as onsite drugtreatment, a health education classfor prostitutes and “johns,” one-on-one counseling for young offendersand mentally ill persons, andemployment training. For defen-dants with a long criminal recordand a history of substance abuse,the court offers an alternative-to-incarceration program that sen-tences defendants to long-termdrug treatment. Many defendantsreturn to court voluntarily to takeadvantage of services offered at thecourt, including English as a secondlanguage and General EducationalDevelopment (GED) classes.

The court uses an award-winningcomputer application to craft indi-vidualized sanctions for eachoffender and monitor compliance.The system also provides policeofficers with regular feedback aboutthe outcomes of their arrests.

Community involvement is exten-sive at the Midtown CommunityCourt. The community advisoryboard, which reviews court opera-tions and results, meets quarterly;the community conditions panel,which keeps the court abreast oflocal problems and emerging hotspots, meets monthly. Communitymembers participate in impact panels, meeting face-to-face withoffenders to discuss how theirbehavior harmed the community.



10

The court also publishes a newslet-ter to keep stakeholders informedabout its work.

The court seeks to solve commu-nity problems through a partnershipwith the police known as the StreetOutreach Services program. Toaddress problems before they resultin an arrest, social workers fromthe court join police officers on thebeat. Together, they engage thehomeless and other street peopleand encourage them to come to thecourt voluntarily for social services.

North/Northeast andSoutheast CommunityCourts, Portland, Oregon

Community court planners inPortland sought to build on the success of the NeighborhoodDistrict Attorney program and hadtwo objectives: address public safe-ty problems as close as possibleto where they occur and furtherinvolve community members indetermining priorities for the justicesystem.

Community participation in plan-ning Portland’s community courtstook the form of the Citizen Ad-visory Committee. The committees(one for each court) gave plannersa sense of which problems weremost important to the community.They shared ideas on every aspectof the project—helping form sen-tencing guidelines, suggesting community service projects, anddetermining what the courtroomwould look like. In addition to the

advisory committees, Portland planners convened focus groupsto further document community priorities.

Planning for the North/NortheastCommunity Court began when thearea was designated a Weed andSeed site in 1996. The North/Northeast Community Court servesa 15-neighborhood area of Portlandcommonly known as Albina, acommunity of mostly single-family,owner-occupied homes that has thehighest crime, high school dropout,and unemployment rates in the city.

Modeled after the North/NortheastCommunity Court, the SoutheastCommunity Court addresses quality-of-life crime in Portland’s Brentwood-Darlington and Lents communities.The Southeast Community Courtserves a diverse population of morethan 285,000 residents. The areahas a large population of immi-grants from Eastern Europe andAsia.

When Portland’s communitycourts began operating, cases weredeferred to them following a defen-dant’s initial appearance at thedowntown court. In June 2000,both courts began arraigning casessent directly by the police, includingmisdemeanors and person-to-personmatters such as assault of a publicsafety officer, child neglect, harass-ment, and stalking. The courtsoperate a full day every other weekand will expand soon to a full dayevery week.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 10

Community Court Profiles


In addition, the two courts willsoon begin hearing housing viola-tions involving chronic offenders.The city’s Office of Planning,Development, and Review, whichhas traditionally handled housingviolations, will institute a system inwhich housing code violators willaccrue points for the number of violations they receive. Once viola-tors reach a determined numberof points, they will be consideredchronic violators. Their cases willbe referred to the neighborhood dis-trict attorney, who can then prose-cute the case at the appropriatecommunity court.

Brentwood-Darlington, home ofthe Southeast Community Court,has the highest concentration ofprobationers and parolees in thecity. A probation officer who sits onthe Citizen Advisory Committeereviews the court docket prior toeach community court session andchecks defendants for probationstatus. Soon, a neighborhood pro-bation office also will be located atthe Southeast Community Court.

At both community courts, stafffrom social service agencies areavailable onsite to refer offendersfor services. The North/Northeastcourt offers a mentor program,through which more than 50 defen-dants have developed life plans andlong-term goals. A public defenderis present at each court session toanswer questions and give legaladvice.

By the end of 2000, Portlandplans to open a third communitycourt that will serve the city’s west-side and downtown communities.When the Westside CommunityCourt opens, all noncustodial mis-demeanor cases in Portland will bearraigned at a community court.

Hartford CommunityCourt, Hartford,Connecticut

The Hartford Community Courthas its roots in the federally fundedComprehensive Communities Part-nership program that sought toimprove coordination among crimi-nal justice agencies and Hartfordcommunities. The program initiallyfocused on community policing andantigang initiatives, but communityparticipants wanted something tobe done about low-level crime aswell. Planning for the communitycourt began in 1996 and includedenacting state legislation to man-date alternative sentences for ordi-nance violations.

The Hartford Community Courtis testing the idea of a communitycourt that serves the entire city. Toensure that the court is responsiveto local concerns, the court worksclosely with problem-solvingcommittees in the city’s 17 neigh-borhoods. The problem-solvingcommittees articulate priorities foreach neighborhood and send a rep-resentative to the court’s advisoryboard. The court sends communityservice crews to every neighborhood

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 11


12

and, when possible, assigns offend-ers to perform community servicein the neighborhood in which theywere arrested.

A member of the bail commis-sioner’s office screens defendantsfor arraignment. This interviewserves as a criminal backgroundcheck and is the first line of inquiryfor social services screening.

After speaking with the state’sattorney in court, if the defendantaccepts a plea agreement, JudgeRaymond Norko issues a sentencethat includes community serviceand/or social service mandates.Upon completion of the service,the defendant’s case is dismissed30 days later without the defendanthaving to appear in court. If thedefendant refuses the plea offer,the case stays in the court to pre-vent “forum shopping.” The judgehears bench trials at the communitycourt; cases that are eligible for jurytrials are transferred to superiorcourt.

Each defendant is required tomeet with the court’s social serviceteam, which includes staff fromthe city’s Department of HumanServices, the state’s Department ofSocial Services and Department ofMental Health and Addiction, andthe Capitol Region Mental HealthCenter. The interview covers issuessuch as substance abuse treatment,education services, health care, andhousing options. Defendants arethen linked with necessary socialservices.

The Hartford Community Courtregularly employs mediation inresolving criminal cases. Mediationis voluntary, requiring the willingparticipation of both the victim andthe offender. If an agreement isreached between the parties andrestitution is required, the judge willmake the mediation agreement partof the court’s order and continuethe case until the restitution andother terms of the agreement arefulfilled.

Hennepin CountyCommunity CourtCalendar, Minneapolis,Minnesota

The Hennepin County CommunityCourt Calendar serves two dozenneighborhoods and 100,000 resi-dents in South Minneapolis using adowntown courtroom located in theHennepin County GovernmentCenter. Planners targeted SouthMinneapolis, including the Phillipsand Powderhorn neighborhoods,because the area had significantcrime problems and a highly orga-nized community leadership, andbecause it is home to two majorcorporations, Honeywell and Allina.

Although the court is not locatedin the neighborhood it serves, it isbuilding ties to the neighborhoodby coordinating social servicesand community service programsthrough a community-based part-ner. Administered by a collaborativeof county social service depart-ments known as the Hennepin/

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 12



Powderhorn Partners, offendersappear at the Hennepin/PowderhornCenter to fulfill their community ser-vice or social service sanctions andtake advantage of a broad range ofservices on a voluntary basis. Aprobation officer in the courtroomacts as a resource coordinator forthe judge, making recommenda-tions for social service sanctionsand linking the defendant to theappropriate social service provider.Staff at the Hennepin/PowderhornCenter monitor compliance andreport the results to the court-basedprobation officer.

“We located the court downtownand located everything else in thecatchment area—social services,community service, all of our com-munity meetings,” said JudgeRichard Hopper.

The court tackles a multijurisdic-tional calendar including felony andmisdemeanor property offensesfrom the Third Police Precinct inSouth Minneapolis and nuisanceabatement cases from the entirecity. The Community Court Cal-endar handles cases of varying lev-els of severity. The judge and courtplanners devised a broad range ofcommunity service and social ser-vice sanctions that are appropriatefor misdemeanor and felonycharges. Applying sanctions inthese different cases involves acareful assessment of the riskinvolved in returning an offenderto the community. Moreover, thejudge reports that working withchronic offenders, whose behaviors

are harder to change with short-term social service interventions,is more difficult than working withfirst-time offenders. Nonetheless,the broad range of cases reflectsthe priorities of the South Minne-apolis community, which leads thecity in arrests for quality-of-lifecrimes, including drug sales, prosti-tution, and gang-related offenses.

In addition to these criminal mat-ters, the court hears civil nuisanceactions that typically involve prop-erties that are used for criminalactivities such as prostitution anddrug dealing. The court uses tradi-tional sanctions as well as media-tion with community members asremedies and ensures a high levelof scrutiny. If the property ownerfails to comply with the court’sorder, the property can be boardedup.

Hempstead CommunityCourt, Hempstead,New York

Although the first communitycourts appeared in urban areas,many suburban communities facesimilar challenges. On suburbanLong Island, Hempstead and sur-rounding towns are testing the com-munity court model to addressquality-of-life problems such asprostitution, drug use and low-levelsales, public drinking, vandalism,and graffiti.

The Hempstead CommunityCourt initially handled quality-of-lifeoffenses committed within the

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 13


14

village of Hempstead. Recently, itexpanded its catchment area to thefour neighboring communities ofNew Cassel/Westbury, FreeportVillage, Uniondale, and Roosevelt.

The first year of operations hasbeen a learning period. The courthas been hearing cases adjournedfollowing arraignment from the tra-ditional court, including prostitution,drug possession, and disorderlyconduct cases. The judge imposessentences of community service orcrafts a social service mandate,typically involving drug or alcoholtreatment. Planners are reviewingwhich crimes are best prosecutedin the court, which treatment pro-grams and services are most effec-tive in addressing defendants’underlying problems, and whichtypes of community service areappropriate for suburban areas.Planners also are exploring ways towork collaboratively with NassauCounty’s many village courts.

A grant from BJA’s Byrne Pro-gram was recently secured by theNassau County Department of Drugand Alcohol Services to help ex-pand the court’s programs andcoordinate its work with the localvillage courts. Planners hope toextend the availability of services toaddress the special problems facedby prostitutes and substance-abusingyouth. The court is in session 3days a week and plans to continueto expand to other areas of thecounty.

West Palm BeachCommunity Court, WestPalm Beach, Florida

The West Palm Beach Commu-nity Court serves the West PalmBeach Weed and Seed area, a resi-dential neighborhood on the out-skirts of downtown struggling witha high crime rate. Although WestPalm Beach is less than 1 mile fromPalm Beach, one of the most afflu-ent cities in the country, 41 percentof the neighborhood’s 5,360 resi-dents live in poverty and the unem-ployment rate stands at 20 percent.The physical characteristics of thecommunity are striking: deteriorat-ed houses and businesses, vacantlots with discarded mattresses andpiles of trash, and litter strewnthroughout the streets, sidewalks,yards, and parks. No new business-es have opened in the area, and fewnew houses have been built inrecent years.

Police were frustrated with theepidemic of quality-of-life offensesin the area and the limited conse-quences imposed following anarrest. Seeking a community-basedapproach, the Palm Beach CountyCriminal Justice Commission, thechief of police, and the local prose-cutor began planning a communitycourt.

The West Palm Beach Commu-nity Court handles nonviolent misdemeanors. Defendants arescheduled to appear before JudgeBarry M. Cohen 4 to 10 days afterreceiving a police citation. Cases of

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 14



defendants pleading guilty stay incommunity court; cases headed totrial are adjourned to the downtowncourt.

Court planners surveyed area residents and created a communityadvisory panel to set priorities forcommunity service. “We foundthat the community wanted to getcleaned up first—that trash and litter were by the far the top con-cern—so we focused on that,” saidTom Becht, coordinator of thecourt.

The community court offerssocial services onsite, includingemployment counseling, educationprograms, and case management.Because so many of its clients areindigent, the court provides trans-portation services to and from jobinterviews and social serviceappointments for defendants andresident nonoffenders alike.

The court coordinates closelywith community policing efforts.Local police allocated Local LawEnforcement Block Grants funds toincrease bike patrol officers in thecourt’s catchment area. These community-focused officers oftenbring residents in need of servicesto the court, sometimes as an alter-native to arresting them.

The court is also developing acommunity service project in part-nership with the police departmentthat enforces the housing code.Soon, community service crewsfrom the court will be available to

restore and repair the property ofproperty owners who are not incompliance with the housing code.

Downtown AustinCommunity Court,Austin, Texas

In 1997, Travis County DistrictAttorney Ronnie Earle called for thecreation of a community court tohelp clean up downtown Austin.With a high concentration of restau-rants, nightclubs, and bars, the 7-square-mile area was a magnetfor disorder, public drinking, under-age drinking, and homelessness.

Demonstrating that the traditionalmunicipal court was in many waysa revolving door, a survey conduct-ed by court planners found that 55percent of those arrested for disor-derly conduct had been arrestedbefore. The planners also foundthat more than 56 percent of thosecommitting quality-of-life offensesreported suffering from chemicaldependency. Community courtplanners sought to do somethingdifferent: use community service asa sanction for low-level offenses,respond to repeat offenses withgraduated sanctions, and usesocial services sanctions to address underlying problems such as drugaddiction.

Mayor Kirk Watson and Austin’swell-organized business communityrallied around the idea of a commu-nity court, and the project gainedsupport from community residents,service providers, and the city

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 15


16

council. Supporters believed thatthe court would help enforce stan-dards of behavior and ensure thatthe downtown area remained safe,clean, and inviting. They alsothought the court would promoteconfidence in the justice system.

Since opening, the court hasoperated in a room in the AustinMunicipal Court complex, with staffsetting up offices in the gallery ofthe court. The court has adjudicat-ed more than 4,000 cases in its first7 months.

Judge Elisabeth Earle says thegoals of the court are to stop therevolving door for low-level offend-ers and to resolve cases quickly. Asentence of “time served” is never apunishment option. Sentences inmost cases are carried out immedi-ately and warrants are served withinhours, not days, of their issuance.

The judge can craft a sentenceusing a variety of tools. She canrequire the defendant to pay backthe neighborhood by performingcommunity service. Also, workingwith the resource coordinator, shecan craft rehabilitative plans thatinclude a range of social servicessuch as acupuncture detoxification,peer counseling, day and residentialtreatment for substance abuse, andmental health counseling. The com-munity court helps offenders reen-ter the work force in collaborationwith partnering agencies. Socialservices are coordinated by court-based social workers.

Frayser Community Court,Memphis, Tennessee

The Frayser Community Courtcatchment area, the West Frayserneighborhood of Memphis, wasonce home to two large manufac-turing plants and an active blue-collar work force. When theseplants closed in the mid-1980s,many workers left and the neigh-borhood declined. Housing pricesdropped, small businesses closed,and the unemployment rate surged.The area became a magnet forgangs and drugs.

Leaders of the Memphis commu-nity formed the Memphis/ShelbyCounty Crime Commission, whichrecommended creating a communi-ty court as a way to integrate activeenforcement practices of the Mem-phis Police Department’s communi-ty policing initiatives, communityprosecution, and the court. Themultijurisdictional community court,which opened in February 2000,operates out of a storefront in alocal shopping mall, and the twojudges handle both criminalmisdemeanors and environmentalordinance violations.

Misdemeanor cases in the Fraysercatchment area, such as low-leveldrug possession, disorderly con-duct, reckless driving, criminal tres-pass, public intoxication, and otheralcohol-related violations, arereferred to community court.

The court also has jurisdictionover city and county ordinance

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 16



violations, reflecting communityresidents’ concerns about neglectedand abandoned property. Eightpolice officers assigned to theTodd’s Creek CO–ACT Unit (a sub-precinct within the catchment area)look for code violations, especiallythose involving properties withjunk cars, tires, and other debris.Usually, the judge orders the prop-erty cleaned up by a certain date.If violators fail to comply with theorder, the judge may apply “injunc-tive relief,” including jail sentencesand fines. If owners clean up theproperty and sign a court orderstating that they agree to remain incompliance, charges are dismissed.To date, approximately 100 derelictand neglected properties have beencleaned up, according to ProsecutorBart Dickinson.

Dickinson, who prosecutes bothmisdemeanors and code violations,reports that the juvenile court delin-quency cases from the area areprocessed in conjunction with juve-nile court, and eviction actions areadjudicated under the district attor-ney’s Drug Dealer Eviction Program.

Chris Kirby of Shelby CountyPretrial Services coordinates allcommunity service projects at thecourt and serves as a liaison withservice providers.

Atlanta Community Court,Atlanta, Georgia

The Atlanta business community,worried that quality-of-life crimeswere scaring away shoppers and

tourists, pushed for the creation ofthe Atlanta Community Court. Thecity’s Criminal Justice CoordinatingCouncil, composed of criminal jus-tice leaders, elected officials, andgovernment agencies, worked withthe downtown improvement district,Central Atlanta Progress, to developthe Atlanta Community Court as aseparate calendar that operateswithin Municipal Court Judge BillRiley’s general session.

Although the court serves theentire city, which has a populationof approximately 440,000, JudgeRiley is working to make justicemore visible and more relevant toAtlanta’s neighborhoods throughthe use of community service. Thejudge keeps abreast of communityconcerns and neighborhood hotspots by attending communitymeetings and building relationshipswith community members. Thedeployment of community courtdefendants performing communityservice to neighborhoods sufferingfrom quality-of-life crime strength-ens the link between the court andAtlanta’s neighborhoods.

Defendants are eligible for com-munity court if they have beenarrested or received a summons fora selected misdemeanor or violationin the city of Atlanta. Prior toarraignment, staff from the correc-tions department assess a defen-dant’s social service needs andmake a sentencing recommenda-tion to the judge. The court usesmandated long-term drug treatment

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 17


18

to address a defendant’s underlyingsubstance abuse issues.

The court is working with thePardon and Parole Board to createreparative boards in the neighbor-hoods of Mechanicsville, a Weedand Seed site, and Old FourthWard, an Empowerment Zone.Judge Riley refers defendants wholive in those neighborhoods to theboards as a sanction.

Red Hook CommunityJustice Center,Brooklyn, New York

Operating in the heart of a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood,the Red Hook Community JusticeCenter has allowed judges to trans-form their responses to the peoplewho appear before the court. AtRed Hook, a single judge hearsneighborhood cases that ordinarilyare heard in three different courts—civil, family, and criminal. Thismodel did not emerge by accident.Justice center planners felt that theproblems faced by families andindividuals do not conform to juris-dictional boundaries. By having asingle judge handle matters tradi-tionally heard by different decision-makers at different locations, thejustice center offers a swift andcoordinated judicial response.

The Red Hook judge has an arrayof sanctions and services available,including community restitutionprojects, onsite job training, drugtreatment, and health counseling—all of which are rigorously monitored

to ensure accountability and toencourage individual responsibility.Court staff supervise offenders per-forming community service, andstate-of-the-art technology helpsthe judge monitor compliance.

In addition, the courthouse is thehub of programs that engage localresidents in “doing justice.” Theseprograms include mediation, com-munity service projects that putlocal volunteers to work repairingconditions of disorder, and a youthcourt where teenagers resolveactual cases involving their peers.Through these initiatives, RedHook seeks to engage the commu-nity in aggressive crime prevention.Planners see this strategy workingin two ways: by solving local prob-lems before they become a courtproblem and by helping knit togeth-er the fabric of the neighborhood.

By using its coercive power tolink defendants to drug treatmentand by providing onsite serviceslike domestic violence counseling,health care, and job training, RedHook seeks to strengthen familiesand help individuals avoid furtherinvolvement with the court system.Services are not limited to courtusers but are available to anyone inthe community who needs help.

The Red Hook CommunityJustice Center is housed in a formerparochial high school, a site select-ed by community members. NewYork City financed the cost of reno-vating the long-vacant building.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 18

IV. Conclusion


Community court planners acrossthe country are motivated by differ-ent concerns. In Portland, the com-munity court program was a naturaloutgrowth of the neighborhood pros-ecutor program. Having succeededin bringing the justice system closerto the problem, Multnomah CountyDistrict Attorney Michael Shrunkconcluded that the best extensionof this effort involved the courts.

Portland is pursuing a model inwhich community prosecution andcommunity courts will serve theentire city. In this model, neighbor-hood district attorneys and com-munity courts will focus on thelow-level matters that shape thequality of life of all city residents.

In West Palm Beach, Florida,the initiative for a community courtgrew out of justice system practi-tioners’ frustration with the tradi-tional model. Looking for newapproaches, the local crime com-mission embraced the community

court concept as a way to focustheir efforts in a neighborhood withchronic public safety concerns.

In Hartford, Connecticut, thecommunity court emerged from aprocess designed to solicit greatercommunity involvement in settinglaw enforcement priorities. Lawenforcement and the courts hadfocused on major crimes for severalyears, and community memberswanted to focus attention on lessserious, and far more frequent,quality-of-life crimes.

These differences in focus high-light that while our nation’s firstgeneration of community courtsseek common goals—imposingimmediate, meaningful sanctions onoffenders and forming genuineproblem-solving partnerships withthe neighborhoods they serve—theyare most effective when respondingto the unique concerns of individualcommunities.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 19


V. Resources on Community Justice

Publications discussing innovativecommunity justice initiatives, in-cluding those listed below, are avail-able from the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS).Call 1–800–851–3420 or e-mailNCJRS at [email protected]. ManyNCJRS publications also may beviewed online at the JusticeInformation Center World Wide Website at www.ncjrs.org.

Beyond Community Policing:Community Justice. Issue Paper.Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice. 1997. NCJ 165529.

“Community Courts: Prospects andLimits.” National Institute of JusticeJournal. August 1996. NCJ175939.

Improving State and Local CriminalJustice Systems: A Report on HowPublic Defenders, Prosecutors, andOther Criminal Justice SystemPractitioners Are CollaboratingAcross the Country. Monograph.Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance. 1998. NCJ 173391.

In New York City, a “CommunityCourt” and a New Legal Culture:Program Description. Washington,DC: National Institute of Justice.1996. NCJ 158613.

Innovative Court Programs: ResultsFrom State and Local ProgramWorkshops. Washington, DC:Justice Research and StatisticsAssociation (JRSA). 1995.Available from JRSA by calling202–842–9330.

Key Elements of SuccessfulAdjudication Partnerships. Bulletin.Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance. 1999. NCJ 173949.

Opening the Courts to theCommunity: Volunteers inWisconsin’s Courts. Bulletin.Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance. 2000. NCJ 178935.

Overcoming Obstacles to Com-munity Courts: A Summary ofWorkshop Proceedings. Monograph.Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance. 1998. NCJ 173400.

Responding to the Community:Principles for Planning and Creatinga Community Court. Bulletin.Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance. 1997. NCJ 166821.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 21


VI. For More Information

The Center for Court Innovationfunctions as the New York StateUnified Court System’s independentresearch and development arm,creating demonstration projects thattest new approaches to problemslike addiction, family dysfunction,juvenile delinquency, and domesticviolence.

CCI’s community justice projectsinclude the Midtown CommunityCourt, the Red Hook CommunityJustice Center, and the HarlemCommunity Justice Center. With thesupport of the U.S. Department ofJustice, CCI encourages courtsacross the country to solve prob-lems locally and to build strongerlinks with communities. CCI alsoprovides hands-on assistance tojurisdictions that are exploring top-ics of court and justice systemreform, including community justiceand drug court technology.

For more information about com-munity court initiatives, contact:

Center for Court InnovationBridget Regan520 Eighth Avenue18th FloorNew York, NY 10018212–397–3050E-mail: [email protected] Wide Web: www.courtinnovation.org

For more information about BJAprograms, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531202–514–6278World Wide Web:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice AssistanceClearinghouseP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–60001–800–688–4252World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are availableMonday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to beplaced on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of JusticeResponse Center1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response Center staff are avail-able Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.to 5 p.m. eastern time.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 23

Bureau of Justice AssistanceInformation

General Information

❒ MailP.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 1–800–688–4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

❒ Fax301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general informa-tion or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and informationon training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities,requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of theNational Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program informationwith state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information spe-cialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities.The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Pagewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web www.ncjrs.org

❒ [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO NewsletterE-mail to [email protected] the subject line blankIn the body of the message,type:subscribe justinfo[your name]

1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page C3

PR

ES

OR

TE

D S

TAN

DA

RD

PO

STA

GE

& F

EE

S P

AID

DO

J/B

JAP

ER

MIT

NO

.G–9

1

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of

Jus

tice

Offi

ce o

f Ju

stic

e P

rogr

ams

Bu

rea

u o

f Ju

stic

e A

ssis

tan

ce

Wa

shin

gto

n,D

C

20

53

1

Offi

cial

Bus

ines

sP

enal

ty f

or P

rivat

e U

se $

300

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of

Jus

tice

Offi

ce o

f Ju

stic

e P

rogr

ams

Bu

rea

u o

f Ju

stic

e A

ssis

tan

ce

Wa

shin

gto

n,D

C

20

53

1

Offi

cial

Bus

ines

sP

enal

ty f

or P

rivat

e U

se $

300

1-Covers 10/11/00 3:59 PM Page C4

community courts: an evolving modelcommunity courts an evolving model c ommunityj ustices eriesu.s....

Documents