Title: Developing an Evaluation Plan for Community Courts: Assessing the
Hartford Community Court Model
Series: Monograph (6 x 9)
Author: John S. Goldkamp, Doris Weiland, and Cheryl Irons-Guynn
Published: July 2001
Subject: courts -- general, court management
44 pages
110,592 bytes

----------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Developing an Evaluation Plan for Community Courts: Assessing the Hartford
Community Court Model

July 2001

NCJ 185689

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance
Monograph

Community Justice Series #4

----------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft 
Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response
Center 1-800-421-6770

This document was prepared by the Center for Effective Public Policy, under
grant number 97-DD-BX-K002, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice.

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

----------------------------

Contents

I. Introduction

o The Midtown Community Court Prototype

II. Development of the Hartford Community Court

III. Key Elements of the Hartford Community Court Model

o Target Problems
o Target Locations
o Target Populations
o Court Processing Focus and Adaptations
o Identifying, Screening, and Enrolling Participants
o Dispositional Options and the Structure and Content of Services
o Community Involvement
o Extent of Systemwide Support and Participation
o Special Significance of the Hartford Police Department

IV. Implementation and Outcome Goals in the Early-Stage Evaluation of the
Hartford Community Court

V. Evaluation Design: Data Collection Strategy

o Assessing Implementation-Related Objectives
o Assessing the Early-Stage Impact of the Hartford Community Court:
Descriptive and Comparative Analysis

VI. Conclusion

VII. Notes

VIII. For More Information

----------------------------

I. Introduction

When the Midtown Community Court began operation in Manhattan in 1993, it
posed a fundamental challenge to traditional assumptions about the role of
American courts in dispensing justice and, in particular, about how they should
relate to the "community." The Midtown experiment was a catalyst for
innovation and encouraged the diffusion of the community court model to other
jurisdictions with different settings and challenges. In fact, for the Midtown
innovators, an important question posed by the community court experiment
was whether its goals and methods could be adapted in places quite unlike
New York City.[1]

As other jurisdictions sought to adapt the principles, methods, and goals of the
Midtown experiment, it became evident that the next generation of community
courts would not necessarily resemble the Manhattan prototype and that
important variations of the original model would emerge. Although a next
generation of community court innovation continued in New York locations as
well (e.g., Red Hook, Harlem, and Crown Heights), the model was adapted to
a variety of settings across the United States. These included Portland, Oregon;
Austin, Texas; both West Palm Beach and Miami, Florida; Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and, most notably, Hartford,
Connecticut.

The Hartford Community Court opened in 1998 and, as one of the first
post-Midtown community courts, represents a test of the transferability of the
community court model to more "typical" American settings. This monograph
describes Hartford's adaptations of the model and outlines an evaluation plan
for assessing its progress and impact. The evaluation plan provides a means for
measuring the progress of the Hartford Community Court in meeting its
ambitious objectives. It also offers a framework for evaluating adaptations of
the model that will have broader application as other jurisdictions recognize the
need to assess their newly formed community court initiatives.

The Midtown Community Court Prototype

The nation's first community court opened in midtown Manhattan in October
1993 after 2 years of planning. The Midtown Community Court was the
product of a collaboration among a large number of partners, including the
Fund for the City of New York, the New York State Unified Court System,
and representatives of the business and residential communities in and around
Times Square and the Clinton and Chelsea neighborhoods in Manhattan. The
planning process included input from numerous corporations and foundations,
social service agencies, and civic groups. The main focus of the Midtown court
was to respond to low-level, quality-of-life crimes that affect life, civility, and
safety in these neighborhoods and to make the justice system more accessible
and responsive to local residents and businesses. It was designed to respond to
a growing need in these communities to address crime-related problems that
were ignored or given low priority by the larger justice system because of the
high volume of more serious matters it was struggling to address. By default,
low-level misdemeanors, and public order and nuisance offenses--which, in the
view of residents, affected the quality of life in these areas more than murders,
rapes, robberies, and drug trafficking--seemed to occur with impunity or
received no more than a "revolving door" response of arrest and release with
few formal consequences.

The ambitious aims of the Midtown Community Court have been described in
detail elsewhere.[2] In addition to having a dramatic impact in the targeted
areas of New York City, the philosophy, methods, and aims of the Midtown
experiment reflected the concerns of other communities across the United
States as they struggled with problems of minor and nuisance offenses affecting
everyday life in their neighborhoods. The community court model views graffiti,
prostitution, littering, public drinking, public urination, excessive noise, and a
host of other "nuisance" offenses as potentially serious and by no means
"victimless" crimes because they have detrimental effects on the neighborhoods
and business districts. Built on the belief that these offenses, left unchecked,
create negative perceptions of the attractiveness and safety of particular areas,
as well as an impression of tolerance for disorder that may invite more serious
crime, the Midtown strategy targeted these kinds of crimes.[3]

Some of the priorities identified by the Manhattan prototype that appealed to
other jurisdictions included the need for a tangible response to communities
affected by crime, the need to restore the credibility of the justice system among
both the public and offenders, the need to provide community members with
regular access to the justice process, and the need to reduce the behaviors
contributing to these problems in targeted neighborhoods by providing access
to a broad range of social services to both offenders and law-abiding
community residents. Assignments of community service as sanctions for cases
processed by the community court provided visible evidence of the court's
response to community crime problems and direct compensation to the
community for some of the harm suffered from low-level crime. Community
service is the principal sanction employed by the Midtown court to link court
processes to the community.

The Midtown model sought to provide an appropriate response to low-level
crimes by devising a range of sanctions and services to hold offenders
accountable, help offenders lead more productive lives, and demonstrate to
residential and business community members that their problems and concerns
were being addressed constructively. At the same time, community court
advocates argued that the larger court system would benefit from the
community court's effort to remove processing of low-level misdemeanors and
ordinance violations from their caseloads, freeing up court resources to deal
with more serious cases.

Thus, the objectives of the community court center around providing a more
effective response to low-level crimes than the traditional courts. Offenders
learn that their actions have consequences, the police are assured that their
arrests of low-level offenders will have an impact, and community members
know that when they report minor offenses, action will be taken. The justice
system becomes more credible to offenders and law-abiding citizens alike, as
well as more visible, accessible, and accountable to the citizens.

The Midtown strategy also facilitates access to a range of social services to
help offenders address problems that contribute to their criminal behavior,
including drug and/or alcohol addiction, mental illness or disability,
homelessness, lack of basic education or job skills, or, in the case of young
offenders, lack of parental supervision combined with a lack of positive outlets
and guidance. The Midtown court provides onsite services such as English as a
Second Language and general equivalency diploma classes, basic health
screening, AIDS/ HIV awareness programs, vocational and employment
counseling, and facilitated access to a network of drug, alcohol, and mental
health treatment providers. The services are also available to the surrounding
community.

----------------------------

II. Development of the Hartford Community Court

Rae Ann Palmer, director of Hartford's Comprehensive Communities
Partnership, credits the beginnings of the Hartford Community Court to the
vision of the city's mayor, Michael Peters. When the mayor took office in
December 1993, Hartford's neighborhoods were suffering from gang warfare
and drug-related crime. Many children of Hartford residents were leaving to
raise their own families elsewhere, and the city's owner-occupied housing rate
had declined to 20 percent. At the time, the mayor spoke with Palmer, a policy
analyst on temporary assignment to the police department, about his vision for
improving neighborhood conditions in Hartford. Hartford applied for and
received a $2.2 million federal grant to address these issues under the
Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) sponsored by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance. Hartford used the grant to develop a strategic plan for
neighborhood problem-solving committees to involve citizens in making
neighborhoods more livable, and to improve the working relationship among
law enforcement agencies and between the criminal justice system and the
community. Using federal prosecution as a tool under provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act[4] to reduce the gang
problem, Hartford then turned its attention to the challenge of finding a way to
address quality-of-life issues that plagued the city's neighborhoods.

In exploring different strategies, Palmer learned of the community court
approach piloted by the Midtown Community Court. The concept appeared to
have potential for addressing Hartford's quality-of-life concerns and was
proposed to Hartford State's Attorney Jim Thomas and other justice and
municipal agency heads. In October 1996, a multiagency group including
Palmer, the city manager, the chief of police, the state's attorney, and the
director of the Office of Alternative Sanctions visited the Midtown court and
were encouraged by what they learned. A working group representing key
criminal justice agencies was assembled to begin planning for a community
court in Hartford.

The community court concept represented a major challenge for the
Connecticut judicial system, which was fairly traditional in many of its functions.
One of the most difficult initial tasks for the planners was promoting the view
that the community court should be a separate entity with distinct operations,
functions, and dedicated resources and not merely a special session added on
to business of the regular court. Aaron Ment, then chief administrator of the
Superior Court for Connecticut, was one of the project's early supporters. In
May 1997, the Connecticut Senate passed legislation specifying the types of
cases the community court would handle and the penalties offenders would
face. The chief court administrator would evaluate the pilot program and
provide recommendations to the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee on
whether to expand the program to other Connecticut cities.[5]

Raymond Norko, former executive director of the Hartford County Legal Aid
Society, became involved in the planning when he was appointed as the
Hartford Community Court's first judge in July 1997. In October 1997, the
Hartford City Council gave its official support to the effort by voting to enter
into agreements with the state to implement the community court.[6] Four
homicides that fall gave Hartford residents additional incentive to focus on crime
and safety issues. Interestingly, although 5 of the city's 22 homicides occurred in
one neighborhood that year, its residents nevertheless argued that prostitution,
drug dealing, and nuisance offenses were the issues they wanted addressed by
the city and the police. They, like residents of other neighborhoods, viewed the
establishment of the community court as part of a multipronged strategy to deal
with these problems and make their neighborhoods more livable.

Originally scheduled to open early in 1998, the Hartford Community Court's
debut was delayed because of the extensive renovation of the building selected
as its location. According to officials, the extra planning time was put to good
use refining operational details and completing work on the information system.
When the court opened on November 10, 1998, it had a clear and effective
operational plan.

----------------------------

III. Key Elements of the Hartford Community Court Model 

The Midtown Community Court served as the model and the inspiration for
many community court initiatives, including Hartford's. As more jurisdictions
have adapted the Midtown model to their local needs and circumstances,
variations of the original approach have emerged. To help focus on key
structural elements of the community court model for the purposes of evaluation
and understanding its variations, the authors have proposed a working typology
of community courts.[7] The nine critical dimensions upon which courts vary--
and around which evaluation of aspects of community courts can be organized-
-are the following:

o Target problems. Community courts differ in the kinds of problems they have
been designed to address, including a wide range of low-level offenses, from
public order violations, graffiti, nuisance crimes, prostitution, and minor drug
offenses to illegal vending and panhandling.

o Target locations. Community court strategies differ in their geographic foci:
some focus on specific neighborhoods while others focus on downtown
business districts, rural areas, or entire cities.

o Target populations. Depending on the highest priority problems and the
locations selected by community court strategies, courts also differ in the
specific types of offenders and/or cases they will process.

o Court processing focus and adaptations. Community courts differ in structure
to deal with the cases over which they have jurisdiction, whether as a special
calendar of the regular criminal court calendar, a special part of the criminal
court located in the same courthouse, or a separate unit located closer to the
targeted geographic locations with an identity distinct from the larger court
system. Different arrangements for the processing and disposition of community
court cases are related to the different structural arrangements that characterize
community courts.

o Identifying, screening, and enrolling participants. Community courts differ in
the way they obtain their caseloads, ranging from formal diversion and
reassignment of all minor matters from the larger caseload, to special
arrangements with police and other screening agencies. How defendants are
processed into the court and are screened for services and recommended for
particular sanctions also differ across the country.

o Dispositional options and the structure and content of services. The Midtown
model piloted the concept of locating a large array of services in the court
building so problems associated with court participants could be identified and
addressed immediately. Courts vary in the kinds of dispositional options,
sanctions, and services they employ and in the way they provide, locate, and
structure sanctions and services.

o Community involvement. An important aspect of the community court
innovation is "community involvement." This is translated in different ways in
different localities, sometimes referring primarily to a business community,
sometimes to a residential community, or often to a mix of both. How that
community gains access to the court and the role of the community differ from
site to site as well.

o Productivity (services delivered and impact per resource). This dimension of
community courts is especially important for evaluation. Courts differ in what
they produce in terms of services delivered, offenders processed, sanctions
assigned, community service produced, and linkages created. The productivity
of the community court is tied to the resources available and consumed in the
process.

o Extent of systemwide support and participation. Building on the collaborative
model of drug courts, community courts vary in the extent to which they
represent a cooperative effort of a variety of agencies, including not only the
obvious criminal justice partners but also health, treatment, and other
government and social service agencies. Support from allied agencies
determines the extent to which the community court is integrated into the justice
system and the community.

Hartford Community Court planners knew they needed to adapt the Midtown
model to meet the special challenges of Hartford neighborhoods. Like other
community courts, the Hartford model represents new working relationships
among the court, other criminal justice agencies, social service agencies, and
the community. Other key ingredients of the Hartford model include the interior
architecture of the court (designed with the flow of court business in mind), the
availability of in-house social services, the presence of state and city social
services representatives onsite, the use of community service sanctions, and the
initial and ongoing connection to the community. One of the most compelling
features of the Hartford model--making it stand out from other versions of the
community court--is its incorporation of the concept of community by
establishing real and direct links with the city's 17 neighborhoods. The following
discussion describes the Hartford Community Court model using the
framework of the community court typology. 

Target Problems

The problems disturbing the Hartford neighborhoods that contributed to the
adoption of a community court strategy varied by location across the city. At a
meeting of Hartford Areas Rally Together in 1997, a Frog Hollow resident
expressed hope that the court would address his neighborhood's particularly
troublesome problem with street prostitution.[8] In the South End, a chief
complaint appeared to be public drinking and excessive noise.[9] In Asylum
Hill, despite four homicides in fall 1997, residents cited prostitution and drug
dealing as major concerns, along with drug possession, vandalism, and
littering.[10] Collectively, they were similar to the nuisance problems dealt with
in Midtown and other community court sites, including graffiti, noise
(particularly from "boom boxes" in cars "cruising" during late hours), low-level
drug activity, young people loitering, public drinking, emergency room
disorderly conduct, prostitution, and vagrancy. Excessive noise was the most
frequent complaint.

Target Locations

The Hartford Community Court was designed to serve all of the city's
neighborhoods, a reasonable approach given Hartford's medium size, with a
population of about 130,000 inhabitants, and an area that the planners believed
could be served by a single, centrally located court. The citywide approach was
necessitated by the already strong organization and mobilization of Hartford's
17 neighborhoods in its CCP effort, started in 1995. To focus on one or some
of the neighborhoods would have appeared a breach of trust with others and
raised serious political problems for the community court. In adopting this more
inclusive approach, the Hartford target area nevertheless incorporated a
population base smaller than that of the Midtown court.

The decision to include all of Hartford's neighborhoods meant that the court
must serve 17 neighborhoods distinct from one another in their racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic composition. This created a dynamic more complex than
that of courts serving more homogeneous target areas. As a matter of policy,
the community court leaders involved each neighborhood in the planning from
the start, in what officials describe as a grassroots effort, and the neighborhoods
have maintained their active participation. This direct connection between the
Hartford Community Court and community leaders has ensured that responding
to the concerns of the different neighborhoods is central to the court's
philosophy and operation.

CCP laid the groundwork for active involvement of the neighborhoods in
planning strategies to reduce crime. Community organizations included
residents, business owners, and community institutions, all considered to be
stakeholders in the planning and operation of the community court. Court policy
required that individuals who participated in community court guidance
represent a group, so that individuals on their own could not take advantage of
the community role to press personal or business agendas. Private service
providers, for example, who might be inclined to view the neighborhood
exclusively as their problem, were not at the table.

In practice, most of the court's cases since November 1998 have come from
15 neighborhoods. On its face, Hartford's decision to include the entire city
within the scope of a single, centrally located community court appears to
contradict the location-specific principle of the community court concept, which
posits that a community court should be physically close to the people it serves.
Holding aside the fact that the population base served by the Hartford
Community Court is probably still less than that targeted by the Midtown
Community Court in Manhattan, the Hartford planners have devised an
approach that, despite its citywide scope, involves each of the designated
neighborhoods in a very direct way. Despite the fact that the courthouse is not
"around the corner" for many residents, neighborhoods appear to feel strongly
invested in the court. Hartford has accomplished this through an inclusive
process that builds in a role for the community, in a real and practical way, and
through careful design of the courthouse space that creates an atmosphere that
is open and welcoming, and processes that are comprehensible, respectful, and
accessible. Thus, although the scope of the target area is ambitious and
challenging for the court, the medium size, geographic layout, and make-up of
the city appear to make such an approach feasible.

Target Populations

The Hartford Community Court processes cases of defendants in a wide range
of nonviolent public nuisance complaints (ordinance violations) and
misdemeanor offenses that are not eligible for other specialty courts. These
cases include public drinking, underage drinking, disorderly conduct, excessive
noise, prostitution, solicitation, loitering, trespassing, littering, illegal gambling,
larceny, and graffiti. According to the court's estimates, drug involvement is high
among offenders who commit the targeted offenses. Statistics maintained by the
court's social services team indicate that about 60 percent of the court's
caseload involves drugs, including most theft cases and 100 percent of
prostitution cases. To have their cases heard in community court, offenders
must be at least 16 years of age (the age at which juveniles are treated as adults
in Connecticut's criminal justice system).[11] About 1 to 2 percent of the
offenders targeted by the Hartford Community Court are undocumented
immigrants.

Court Processing Focus and Adaptations

The court operates 5 days a week, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. The bail
commissioners start work early to begin receiving the first defendants.
Community service staff arrive at 8 a.m. Court hours are not fixed. Although the
first session generally begins at about 10 a.m., the hours depend on the size of
the docket on a given day. A typical day brings between 20 and 40
arraignments, with an average in 1999 of 30 per day and an astounding peak of
125.[12] The judge spends about 3 hours on the bench, divided between
morning and afternoon sessions. But the court is productive even when the
judge is not on the bench. In addition to the judge's time, there are five blocks
of time involved in the court process for each defendant: meetings with the bail
commissioner, the prosecutor, the public defender, community service agencies,
and social services. Courtroom days involve little wasted time because some
staff are always working with the defendant.

The jurisdiction of the Hartford court was established during the planning stage
by both state statute and local ordinance. In May 1997, the Connecticut
Legislature passed a bill establishing the community court's jurisdiction in terms
of the types of cases it could hear and the sanctions it could impose, with a
view toward creating a model in Hartford that could be emulated in other
locations in the state. The Hartford City Council designated specific categories
of ordinance violations as community court eligible.[13] Except in instances in
which defendant chooses to go to trial in Superior Court, the community court's
jurisdiction in these types of cases is not negotiable, as it may be in many
community courts such as Midtown where the prosecutor may determine which
cases are eligible. 

The Hartford Community Court is primarily a plea court, although it heard up to
10 contested cases during its first 18 months, usually involving a municipal
ordinance violation and always resulting in a bench trial. Most defendants
appear in court without a lawyer (which sometimes raises due process concerns
and defendants occasionally alleging coercion), although the public defender is
on hand to provide legal counsel.

Offenders charged with community-court-eligible offenses may be issued a
summons or arrested. The clerk's office receives police reports and compiles
other relevant information for the court as soon as an arrest occurs. About 80
percent are issued summonses to appear within 2 court business days. When a
summons is issued, the police do an immediate check for outstanding Hartford
warrants. The court's summons process was developed to provide a more
immediate response to the illegal act and have a stronger impact on the offender
than the lengthy processing that occurs in traditional courts. Individuals with
prior records, histories of Failure to Appear (FTA), or other issues that warrant
secured release are placed under arrest and, if they fail to post bail, are held in
custody until their hearings. These so-called "lockup" cases are processed
separately.[14] 

Failures To Appear 

Defendants who fail to appear on summonses are taken off the community
court track. Expedited bench warrants are issued on defendants who have been
released from custody on a Promise to Appear (PTA) and who subsequently
fail to appear in court, as well as on defendants who fail to appear for
community service, or who have a series of FTAs. Their names are placed on a
Take Into Custody (TIC) List. Defendants who come out of lock-up or who
chronically fail to appear (three or more times) are given a "no mercy"
designation. When they are apprehended, the judge usually will accept no
excuses and may impose a jail sentence of up to 30 days, then take a plea,
send the defendant to social services, and give credit for time served.

Defendants who successfully complete the terms of their sentences are placed
on the disposition docket approximately 30 days after completion for dismissal
of their cases and ultimate expungement of their arrest records. They are not
required to return to court for the dismissal of their cases. This feature is a
benefit for defendants and facilitates movement of the caseload within the court.
Drug cases, limited to first-time simple possession of marijuana of less than 4
ounces, are not dismissed.

Regardless of their case outcomes, the court maintains a list of all participants.
With the exception of drug cases, defendants rearrested on eligible charges are
allowed to return to community court as long as there is continuing need and
opportunity for social intervention. The court expects a certain amount of
recidivism and views it as an opportunity for further intervention. The court
takes a harder stance on purely criminal repeat offending and/or repeated
FTAs, often requiring additional community service hours and/or jail time for
subsequent offenses. Defendants charged with simple possession of marijuana
can receive only one community court disposition. Subsequent drug arrests are
referred to the regular court.

Physical Setting 

Hartford planners believed that the court needed to be a physically separate
entity and facility, designed to facilitate the court process. Although the court
uses a network of community-based social service providers, planners believed
that, as far as possible, a community court should provide social services onsite
and create an atmosphere different from the impersonal, dehumanizing
experience associated with the regular criminal courts, making court processes
and services more accessible, comprehensible, and "user friendly" to both
offenders and community members. 

Site selection was one of the more difficult aspects of planning, raising the
question of whether to lease private space or renovate state-owned property.
The site chosen was at 80 Washington Street, a state-owned property on the
periphery of the downtown area in the Frog Hollow neighborhood, which has
one of the higher crime rates in Hartford. Centrally located in the judicial
corridor between Hartford's criminal and civil courthouses, it offered
convenience to the population accustomed to appearing for judicial matters in
this neighborhood, eliminating the need to promote a new location and possibly
keeping down the FTA rate among defendants. Also, the site was easily
accessible by bus, car, or foot from most neighborhoods and close to other
services. 

Building renovations were expected to be more cost effective in the long run
than leasing private property.[15] The state provided $5.5 million in bond
money for the renovations.[16] It took planners 6 months to figure out the flow
of defendants through the community court process and develop the
architectural plan to support it. Each revision of the architects' plans was
publicly posted for review and comment. A jury box was included in the design
of the courtroom to provide maximum flexibility (for use as a standard
courtroom if the need should ever arise).

The building provides 54,000 square feet of space. The upper level houses the
bail commissioners, community court, housing court, public defender's office,
and human services. The lower level houses judicial and administrative offices.
The proximity of the "regular" court across the street serves as a visual reminder
to offenders of the other alternatives. Not surprisingly, most defendants seem to
prefer the community court option. Although sharing the space with the housing
session required some design concessions in terms of traffic flow in the building,
the layout nevertheless effectively mirrors and facilitates the movement of
defendants through the court process. The building is well appointed and the
atmosphere is orderly and pleasant, a visual affirmation of the belief that the
community court should treat its "clients" and community members who come
to participate in the process with dignity and respect.

Identifying, Screening, and Enrolling Participants

Hartford Community Court defendants pass through a 5-step process, usually
completed in 1 day, which is described below and illustrated in figure 1. (An
entire episode of community court involvement from summons or arrest through
dismissal takes 30 to 45 days, barring delays in completing community service
or issues that call for longer term monitoring and repeated court visits.)

Interview with the bail commissioner. When defendants arrive at the court, their
first stop is the office of the bail commissioners. Two onsite bail commissioners
interview defendants, playing a role similar to that of pretrial services. They
verify personal information, review criminal records, and check for outstanding
warrants and documented mental health issues. For the community court, a
psychosocial component has been added to the standard bail interview. The
information is entered directly into the court's management information system
(MIS) and will be available to the court in determining pretrial release
conditions. If a defendant comes to court under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, or in an otherwise unstable condition, the bail commissioner is authorized
immediately to send the defendant to the appropriate facility for evaluation and
treatment. In addition to their traditional court role, each of the two bail
commissioners contributes special expertise and connections that they use to
benefit defendants. Both are very good in working with young adult defendants
and both conduct youth groups in addition to their regular duties.

Negotiations with the prosecutor. Although the court session generally begins at
10 a.m., courtroom activity starts at about 9 a.m. In open court, the state
prosecutor begins to review the cases on the docket and discusses with
defendants the specifics of their cases, the requirements of participation in the
court (i.e., a guilty or conditional guilty plea and a community service sentence),
and whether or not they are willing to enter a plea in exchange for subsequent
dismissal of the case.

Appearance before the judge. The judge takes the bench at about 10 a.m with
defendants seated in the courtroom. The court maintains five dockets: an
arraignment docket, an 8 a.m. regular (or community service) docket, a 10 a.m.
regular docket, a disposition docket, and a Prostitution Protocol docket. The
arraignment docket includes first appearances for defendants who have
received summonses to appear within 48 hours of their arrest (the "A" list), or
who have been taken into custody (the "B" list). The 8 a.m. regular docket
consists of defendants required to appear at that time to carry out their
community service assignments. The 10 a.m. regular docket consists of
defendants whose cases have been continued for any of a variety of reasons,
including an immediate need for social services prior to court appearance or an
attempt to resolve an issue through mediation. Defendants who have been
unsuccessful in mediation are scheduled for a return visit to court on the regular
docket and receive standard community service sentences.

----------------------------

Figure 1 is not  not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document
in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this
Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

After the judge takes the bench, he reads the Advisement of Rights, advising
defendants of their Miranda rights to trial and to counsel. A translator repeats
the Advisement in Spanish. As each arraignment case is called, the prosecutor
presents the case to the judge, indicates the charges, and announces whether or
not a plea agreement has been reached. Defendants who have obvious issues
involving stability or ability to understand what is going on are referred to social
services, and their hearings are continued. If an agreement has been reached, it
is read into the record and the prosecutor presents a statement of the facts that
includes all of the elements of the crime charged. If the defendant does not
admit all the facts, but has decided to plead anyway, the judge explains an
Alford (or conditional guilty) plea, and accepts this. If the defendant changes his
mind and denies the facts, he is given an opportunity to consult with the public
defender or his investigator as to where he stands should he elect to go to trial.
Young defendants are given an opportunity to confer with parents or other
individuals who have accompanied them to the hearing.

A defendant who claims to have an explanation or justification for the actions of
which he or she is accused may be granted a continuance to provide
documentation in support of that claim and, upon presentation, the case may be
dismissed. Accessing the community court's management information system
from the bench, the judge checks the defendant's record for open cases. In the
same MIS, he examines his own notes, social services notes, and any remarks
entered by the bail commissioner that pertain to the defendant's ability to
perform community service. He questions the defendant about whether the plea
was voluntary and ascertains that the defendant understands that he is waiving
the right to trial and to counsel by entering an admission in community court. 

Once the defendant acknowledges his understanding of the proceedings, the
judge informs the defendant of the amount of community service he is required
to serve, the date and time that the service is to be performed, and that he
should appear appropriately dressed to work. The defendant is also informed
that the charges will be dismissed when the service has been completed in a
satisfactory manner and given a date when this should happen. The defendant is
then told that he need not appear in court to have his charges dismissed.

Defendants who are belligerent or disruptive during their interview with the
prosecutor are heard later in the schedule so they have an opportunity to calm
down and observe what happens to other defendants on similar cases. During
one court session, a defendant charged with playing his car stereo too loudly, in
violation of the local ordinance, was on the docket. He had been fairly loud in
protesting his innocence, disparaging of the court and its proceedings, and
refusing to do community service. His case was called toward the end of the
docket after several similar cases had been heard and disposed of with a plea
and community service. The judge was told that this defendant wanted a trial,
so he was given time to consult with the public defender's investigator. When he
returned to court, the defendant elected to enter an Alford plea and do
community service, continuing to complain, although not as loudly as before,
that it was unfair that the judge believed the police officer's version of the facts
instead of his.

In-custody defendants include those who were unable to make bail. Generally
these are defendants with histories of FTAs and more extensive criminal
records. On one occasion, custody defendants included two young girls
charged with larceny with no prior record, who would have been released to
the custody of their parents had the parents appeared. Also included was a
defendant charged with prostitution whose lengthy criminal history (four prior
convictions) and numerous FTAs made her ineligible for the Prostitution
Protocol. She had been held on $5,000 cash bail and was returned to the
detention facility by the judge, with her case scheduled to be heard again in 1
month, allowing time for the drugs that she was on to clear her system.

Screening by the social services department. Following arraignment, defendants
are sent to the social services team in the same building for screening and
service referrals. Social services screening is mandatory for all defendants, even
those who elect to have their cases heard in the regular court. The sheriff's
deputy escorts them to make sure they get there.

Meeting with the community service coordinator. The last step in the process is
a meeting with the community service coordinator, who gives defendants
information on the type of community service they are likely to perform and
clarifies their schedule. The coordinator then reviews and has the defendant sign
a community service contract, detailing the behavioral and other requirements of
service. In most cases, work assignments are made on the day the defendant
appears for service.

Court operations are facilitated by an integrated MIS that was designed for the
court by Frank DeLuca and has been in use since the opening day.[17] The
system imports client data from the state bail commission application and adds
the results of the human services interview, community service notes, and other
indicators of the defendant's performance. The application has a community
service job bank and can track community service assignments and
compliance.[18] The judge and key court personnel have input and access and
the community can provide online information on conditions in their
neighborhoods. In addition to tracking community service outcomes, the
application is now being used to follow up on social services referrals.

Dispositional Options and the Structure and Content of Services

The Hartford Community Court places a priority on providing social services to
defendants, or at least trying to link them to services they can pursue after their
community court experience. Unless referred directly to drug or other health
services or found ineligible or uninterested in community court (some prefer to
face trial on the charges), most defendants are sentenced to community service.
Some cases are resolved through mediation but rarely with the assessment of
fines.

Community Service

Approximately 80 percent of the sanctions imposed by the community court are
for community service in one of Hartford's 17 neighborhoods. The most
common community service sentence for a first offense is 6 hours, while
returning defendants or those charged with more serious offenses, such as
simple possession of marijuana, may receive sentences of 12 hours or more.
Sentences are generally to be served within 2 weeks. Many offenders choose
to complete their sentences quickly and ask to perform their service the
following day. The judge accommodates their preference--for the court, too,
the sooner the better. The judge is equally willing to take into consideration
work and school obligations that make it difficult to complete the sentence in
the required time and may delay serving of the sentences on those grounds. If
the judge believes it may be beneficial or make the task less onerous,
co-defendants are put on the same work crew.

The community service unit has three vans and a truck to transport offenders to
and from work sites. Participants wear blue vests bearing the community court
logo, clearly identifying them as members of the community court work crew.
They are required to report to the courthouse at 8 a.m. on the day or days they
have been scheduled to perform community service. Crews arrive at their
designated work sites at 9 a.m. and work until 11 a.m. They are returned to the
courthouse for lunch and group counseling, provided by the court, then
transported back to the work site. Projects are usually completed by 2 p.m.,
when defendants are returned to court. Crew supervisors are from the
neighborhoods. All tools are supplied by the court. Once a project is
completed, a sign is put up and left for 4 days identifying the location as a
community court service site and warning passersby that if they litter, they may
be on the next crew. Reports vary as to the efficacy of these signs--some
residents report that they keep litter down for the days they are in place, while
others say that the litter merely accumulates around them.

There are currently approximately 180 community service projects in the court
computer for the 17 neighborhoods that make up the city of Hartford; with few
exceptions, these are court-run projects. Below is a breakdown of the number
of community service sites by neighborhood:

o Northeast--54

o Frog Hollow--42
o Asylum Hill--40
o Barry Square--40
o Clay Arsenal--40
o Behind the Rocks--39
o Upper Albany--36
o Downtown--25
o Sheldon/Charter Oak--20
o South Green--16
o North Meadows--14
o South End--14
o Blue Hills--13
o Parkville--7
o West End--6
o South Meadows--5
o Southwest--1

Project ideas stem from initial surveys of community groups and continued input
from the neighborhoods. The MIS can generate reports on completed projects
and indicate whether neighbors would like to see more work done. The MIS
also lists additional projects, which the Sanctions Committee reviews
periodically.

The court initially tried to assign offenders to work in the neighborhoods where
they had committed their offenses, to show the residents that there had been a
response and that some reparations were being made. That approach, however
desirable, proved to be impractical in part because most projects require entire
crews, not individuals. Now the community service coordinator allocates work
crews to neighborhoods in proportion to the arrests they generate. Some
neighborhoods do not generate enough arrests to receive community service.
On occasion, an offender who has committed a particularly public offense in a
certain location may still be placed in that neighborhood to perform service, not
only to "pay back" the residents in a direct way but also to send a message to
other potential offenders that the behavior in question will not be tolerated.

Anecdotal information on community service suggests a positive response by
both participants and community residents. Neighborhood residents are so
appreciative that they will sometimes join the cleanup effort. Some participants,
particularly young adults, talk about finding themselves doing things for others
that they have never even done for themselves or their families. Many derive a
degree of satisfaction and some actually feel as if they are doing volunteer
work. One standing work assignment, delivering food to the homeless and the
needy for Food Share, a local food bank, was reported as bringing participants
particular satisfaction. Despite the good feelings, however, the consensus of the
Sanctions Committee is that for most participants, public service in a bright blue
vest emblazoned with the court logo is a humiliation they are not eager to
experience again and a deterrent to repeating the same acts.

The Prostitution Protocol 

Defendants arrested for prostitution and without extensive criminal histories or
prior FTAs may be eligible for the Prostitution Protocol, a program of intensive
counseling and education designed to show women involved in prostitution that
alternatives exist. Women who participate in the program attend a series of five
weekly training sessions covering topics such as physical and emotional care,
stress reduction and avoidance, self-esteem, goal setting, and achieving
success. These sessions are followed by an individual counseling session to
examine the participant's progress and needs. The protocol sessions are
followed by a social services assessment and referrals to treatment and other
services the participant may need. Completion of the program is also followed
by 4 days of community service, not only to reinforce the fact that the
participant's behavior has legal consequences but also to allow the court to
maintain longer contact with the participant and make needed changes in
long-term treatment. Protocol participants are required to appear in court for
monitoring on a separate prostitution docket that is scheduled every 6 to 8
weeks. To date, according to court officials, there has been no recidivism for
those who complete the program.

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Testing Protocol

On June 29, 2000, the community court, in collaboration with the City of
Hartford Health Department and the State of Connecticut Department of Public
Health STD Control Program, implemented court-mandated testing for sexually
transmitted diseases for defendants involved in sexually related offenses such as
prostitution, solicitation, and public indecency.[19] The STD Protocol is a joint
effort by these agencies to reach persons at high risk for STDs. It is based on
work in other cities that has shown that screening in nonclinical,
community-based settings is an effective STD prevention strategy. The primary
target populations for the program are persons charged with solicitation,
prostitutes who have not already been incarcerated and tested by the
corrections department, and defendants facing charges of other sexually related
crimes or fact patterns. A secondary target population who may be voluntarily
referred for testing includes defendants exhibiting patterns of substance abuse
problems, especially men and women under 25; defendants who may be
considered at risk because of the fact patterns of their cases; and defendants
recommended for testing by the Hartford Community Court social services
staff. Defendants who test positive for STDs receive treatment from the City of
Hartford Health Department. The court hopes to expand the program and
make it an integral part of the Prostitution Protocol as well as of an education
program for defendants charged with solicitation of prostitutes.

The first group of defendants was sent for testing on June 29, 2000, followed
by a second group on July 20, and after that on alternating Thursdays.
Defendants are transported directly from court to the health department for
testing, then given transit fare to return home. To maintain individuals'
confidentiality, test results are reported back to the court in aggregate form.

Mediation

When community court arrests stem from disputes between two or more
individuals, defendants are frequently referred to mediation as an initial step.
The Hartford Area Mediation Program (HAMP) has been providing services to
the community court since its opening, using a staff of trained volunteer
mediators. HAMP was founded in 1984 as a pro bono project of the Aetna
Law Department. It has been affiliated with the Connecticut Prison Association
and has been providing community mediation services for the superior court
since 1993. It is funded by the Office of Alternative Sanctions.

Mediation services are provided by full-time staff and trained community
volunteers. In the process, a panel of mediators works with parties in conflict to
help them reach a mutually acceptable, realistic resolution to the dispute that
both parties will view as fair.[20] Participationis entirely voluntary. Once the
defendants have gone through this process, they are required to make another
court appearance. If mediation has been successful and the dispute has been
resolved in a mutually agreeable manner, the parties sign a written agreement,
which is provided to the state's attorney's office. No further sanctions are
imposed and the case is dismissed. If mediation has been unsuccessful, the
judge will impose a regular community service sanction on the disputing parties.
According to the court's statistics, about 365 cases a year go through this
process, with a success rate of approximately 65 percent.[21] 

Essays

The essay, a sanction devised by the court with Hartford's student population in
mind, is assigned primarily to students charged with underage drinking and
public disorder. Students from local colleges, universities, and high schools are
often required to write essays on their behavior and sometimes letters of
apology to neighborhoods or individuals affected by their actions. Followup by
the court may include contact with parents and/or school officials advising them
of the sanction and the reasons for it. This sanction has yielded some thoughtful
essays, recently compiled and analyzed for the court.[22] About two-thirds of
the 132 essays analyzed were by students of one area university, 9 percent
were by students of a local college, and 23 percent were by other students and
Hartford citizens. Topic areas identified included remorse, lessons learned from
the experience, the fairness of the punishment, and the quality of the program.
Of the university and college groups, one-half to two-thirds expressed remorse
in their essays, and the majority (84 and 83 percent, respectively) felt that the
experience had taught them a valuable lesson. Few expressed opinions about
the fairness of the punishment (10 and 42 percent of the student groups,
respectively, believed it was fair, but the majority did not offer an opinion).
Fewer still expressed any thoughts about the quality of the program.

Other Sanctions

Fines and jail sentences are both options that are available to the community
court judge but are rarely used. A noise ordinance violation, for example, may
bring a penalty of community service, a fine of up to $90, or a jail sentence of
up to 25 days by the community court.[23] Monetary restitution may be
imposed. These matters are sent to either the mediation unit or the public
defender for tracking of payments and cases are continued until the restitution is
paid.

Social and Health Services

By design, the Hartford Community Court provides services in a way that
reorganizes the social aspects of their delivery, integrates state and city
agencies, and creates a client-centered delivery system. The agencies and the
court accommodate the needs of the client/offender, as well as the concerns of
the community, in a way that the regular court system and large bureaucratic
social services agencies, operating independently and in the traditional manner,
have been unable to do.

The social service providers onsite--the City of Hartford Human Services
Department, the State Department of Social Services, and the State
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS)--are the same
agencies that serve clients from large downtown offices, but in the community
court setting they are able to deliver these services more efficiently, in a more
personal, client-friendly environment. According to agency representatives, the
constellation of agencies in the court has been a significant benefit. For example,
the State Department of Social Services is usually able to arrange immediate
activation of entitlements for its community court clients, which in turn may
enable DMHAS to access a wider range of treatment resources and arrange
for clients to be placed in treatment directly from court. The arrangement also
provides continuity for the client and avoids duplication of efforts by the
agencies. Defendants who are already clients of the state social services system
are referred to a state social services representative.

Although a wide range of services is available to defendants, the court has
avoided imposing so many social services conditions that they would make a
defendant prone to failure. The belief is that the brief contact with the system
that a single community court arrest provides is not sufficient to affect a major
change in a defendant's life. Nevertheless, any social services that the defendant
is determined to need are mandated by the court, and social workers have the
authority to inform the defendant that the conditions they impose are part of the
court's order. In special cases, these mandates are placed in court during
sentencing, after the social services interview.

By policy, the Hartford Community Court's onsite services are available to both
defendants and community residents. The social services representatives
conduct needs assessments of all defendants who enter the court process, even
those who decline to enter a plea and are sent back to the regular court. These
assessments may result in referrals to substance abuse treatment, medical and
mental health services, or on-the-spot processing of applications for medical
assistance, general assistance, food stamps, and other entitlements. Defendants
and community residents alike have access to services such as general
equivalency diploma classes, job training and placement assistance, and housing
information. Groups are conducted in English and Spanish for substance abuse
education and life skills training.

Special interventions for the mentally or behaviorally disabled are provided
onsite by two mental health social workers and one registered nurse from
DMHAS who have immediate access to a full range of mental health services.
Each day, the names on the court docket are compared to the DMHAS
database to identify any defendants who have had prior contacts related to
mental health or substance abuse issues. DMHAS staff interview all defendants
found in the DMHAS system as well as any referred by the court staff, family
members, or community agencies to determine current treatment needs and
arrange for services. The unit conducts weekly substance abuse education
classes in English and Spanish for defendants arrested on alcohol- or
drug-related charges.[24] Approximately 20 percent of court defendants
require mental health services. Often, defendants with obvious or serious issues
are not required to perform community service and are sent directly to social
services.

The social services representatives who are placed in the community court find
that they are able to be more responsive to their clients than they might be at the
main office, partly as a function of scale. Defendants are treated with more
respect than they encounter in the impersonal environment of the main office.
They are assisted in accessing services that they may have needed and been
unable to get on their own. Often, these are individuals who have fallen through
the cracks of the social services system, such as the homeless and the mentally
ill who may not know that they need help or where to go for it. The intent of the
court is to keep these individuals out of jail by getting them the assistance they
need.

Community Involvement

Planning and implementation of the Hartford Community Court began in a
climate of community coalition building, the groundwork for which had been
laid through the efforts of the CCP program. By the time discussions of the
proposed court began, community groups from Hartford's 17 neighborhoods
were mobilized and convinced that such an effort would help to address their
needs and concerns. To restrict the court to a single neighborhood, even in a
pilot phase, would at that point have been unthinkable to the Hartford planners.
Thus, they decided to build on the strength of that community involvement and
go citywide with their effort.

Planning involved coalitions such as Hartford Areas Rally Together, the United
Connecticut Action for Neighborhoods (UCAN), and the Southside Institutions
Neighborhood Alliance, as well as neighborhood groups such as the Blue Hills
Civic Association, the Asylum Hill Organizing Project, and the Asylum Hill
Revitalization Association. The idea of the community court was first presented
to neighborhood groups in Hartford in late 1996 and they embraced it. UCAN
played a particularly active role in research for the planning of court operations.
From the beginning, there was a sense that the new court had to be
accompanied by changes in the way the Hartford police conducted business
and recognized the importance of responding to low-level matters.[25]

A review of the archives of the local newspaper, the Hartford Courant, from
late 1996 onward shows the community court as a standing item on the
agendas of most neighborhood associations. Neighborhood residents were
vocal in their anticipation of the court and the impact it would have on their
neighborhoods. They were equally vocal in expressing their concerns over
delays in the opening of the court.

Beyond the planning and implementation stages, neighborhood groups and
residents have continued to be included in the functioning of the court. Formally,
community involvement still involves CCP. Community court representatives go
to CCP meetings and CCP community organization members then go to
community court. Although the community organizations realize they cannot
directly address the more serious crimes such as homicides, they now feel they
can have an immediate impact on quality-of-life matters.

Community residents are strong supporters of the court. They are most directly
affected by the issues the community court addresses, and they feel empowered
because they have played a role in the structuring of the court. They have been
asked which types of crime problems are most important to them, which areas
of town have the most pressing issues, what types of community services are
needed, and where community services should be performed.[26] When a
community service project is completed, residents are even asked if it was done
right.

Community members have access to all the administrative areas of the
courthouse. They attend staff meetings and participate in making operational
decisions and setting priorities for the court, including identifying problems in the
neighborhoods that they would like the court to address and pinpointing areas
that would benefit from the work of a community service crew. A Sanctions
Committee of representatives from each of Hartford's neighborhoods and some
of the organizers who initially participated in community relations development
meet monthly to discuss these issues. In addition, community members are
recruited to serve as mediators in HAMP.

Extent of Systemwide Support and Participation

Despite the success of community courts across the country, the challenges they
pose to traditional roles continue to make systemwide support and participation
an issue for discussion and evaluation. As the history of the Hartford court's
implementation demonstrates, its planners were fortunate in finding a broad
base of support early in the process from the municipal administration, the
criminal justice system, and the city and state health and social services systems.
At the municipal level, support and collaboration came from the mayor, the city
manager, the city council, the Department of Information Services, and the
Department of Human Services. From the Connecticut judicial branch, the
Office of Alternative Sanctions was involved from the early planning stages
onward, as was the Bail Commission, whose two representatives in the
courthouse are the important first step in the court process.

The willingness of the judge to assume a role that involves social work as much
as it does administering justice is critical to the operation of a community court,
as is a willingness to be constantly under public scrutiny. Judge Norko,
appointed early during the planning stage, accepted both aspects of the role and
immediately became deeply immersed in the community-driven planning
process.

Hartford's Chief State's Attorney Jim Thomas was initially skeptical, but
following a visit to the Midtown court, he became an enthusiastic supporter of
the community court concept. He was a key player in the planning and his full
"buy in" is evident from the completely nonadversarial role that the state's
prosecutor plays in the court process. Glenn Kaas, the assistant state's attorney
who has served as prosecutor since the court opened, derives satisfaction from
the nontraditional role he plays in the courtroom, ". . . not as much enforcing
state statutes and city ordinances as . . . seeking compliance with contemporary
community standards."[27] In Hartford, the public defender still takes a more
traditional view of his clients' best interests and continues to express concerns
about due process and net widening in the community court.

An important feature of the Hartford court is the collaborative participation of
state and city social services agencies. Although the city took the early lead in
providing social services, an arrangement was negotiated whereby responsibility
could be shared with state agencies. The resulting service delivery system is
virtually seamless. Defendants who are already clients of the state social
services system have the benefit of continuity of services in the court setting
and, in general, the arrangement is more efficient for all the agencies. Agency
representatives find that the collaboration enhances their ability to provide
effective services to their clients.

Special Significance of the Hartford Police Department

Cooperation between the Hartford Police Department and the Hartford
Community Court is important to the success of the court and the enforcement
of quality-of-life violations. During the planning stages, the Hartford police were
active participants, particularly in resolving two major issues confronting the
court: the summons procedure and the 48-hour processing of paperwork to
facilitate movement of cases into the court. A great deal of turmoil within the
Hartford Police Department in recent months contributed to reduced
enforcement of quality-of-life crimes. The police chief and several top
administrators retired, and permanent leadership has not emerged to give the
department direction. Additionally, an independent evaluation of the Hartford
Police Department covering every aspect of its organization and operations
engendered a great deal of controversy. One consequence of these difficulties
was a reduction in community policing. For the most part, the department
reverted to a reactive, 911-driven operation, organized primarily to respond to
service calls. 

These problems led to a reduction in the numbers of police officers serving the
department as well as low morale. Although the reduction in arrests produced a
lower court caseload in the system overall, the impact was particularly felt by
the community court. Without officers on the streets making arrests for the
types of low-level crimes and ordinance violations that enter the community
court, the numbers of community court cases were down, threatening the
viability of the innovation. During the court's 15th and 16th months of operation,
the reduction in cases became alarmingly apparent. 

Police cooperation in the enforcement of quality-of-life offenses and in working
with the courts and neighborhoods to address community crime problems is
essential to the community court strategy. The Community Response Division of
the Hartford Police Department is a critical link between the aims of the court
and the community policing aspirations of the department. Currently, the
division is not sufficiently supported to realize its full potential in dealing with
neighborhood problems. Individually, certain community service officers have
developed constructive relationships with the community court, believing that
the court offers an immediate and visible response to the quality-of-life offenses
that are so disruptive to the community and a convenient way to process the
most frequent types of complaints.

To these officers, issuing summonses makes processing offenders much easier
than completing the paperwork required for a normal arrest that would be
adjudicated in the traditional court, where little may happen to the offender for
the efforts involved. They believe the risk of a community court arrest deters
criminals from carrying guns or drugs because they fear being caught with these
when arrested on a minor matter such as loitering. The officers also believe the
community service sanction is a strong deterrent for the types of offenders
targeted by the court. They have noted a particularly positive impact on open
prostitution in some neighborhoods.

In May 2000, as part of a quality-of-life enforcement action supported by a
BJA Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and conducted by the Community
Response Division, police officials met with the community court team and
community representatives to identify quality-of-life problems and high-priority
target areas or "hotspots" in each neighborhood. Those priority areas have been
reviewed periodically since then and have been the focus of enforcement
activity. During that time, the community court has seen a steady growth in the
number of cases it receives, leveling off near expected peak levels, particularly
in the area of crimes identified by residents and the court as vital for
enforcement: public drinking and excessive noise.[28]

IV. Implementation and Outcome Goals in the Early-Stage Evaluation of the
Hartford Community Court

As remarkable as the development of the Hartford Community Court appears
to have been, design of an evaluation approach must begin with the recognition
that the court has been in operation for a relatively short period of time. It is
reasonable to consider the first 2 years of operation of such an ambitious new
approach as formative, when planned procedures move from paper to practice
and a wide variety of implementation issues have to be addressed. During the
pilot period of a planned model, the new program places greater emphasis on
implementation (putting the full model into operation and making adjustments)
and less emphasis on outcomes (tracing the longer term effects of its activities)
than a more established program. The evaluation plan we propose will measure
both implementation-oriented and outcome-related aspects of the Hartford
Community Court, focusing on critical dimensions of its operation as suggested
by the community court typology.

To prioritize the questions the evaluation might reasonably address, table 1
organizes the court's implementation and outcome objectives under three
headings: those dealing with the individual participant or offender, those having
implications for the larger court and/or larger justice system, and those involving
the community. So, for example, the evaluation can ask how well the
community court has identified candidates from its self-defined target population
and how effectively the court process has screened participants for need and
linked them to relevant services. The evaluation can also ask how well the court
has disposed of individual cases in a way reflecting the aims of the community
court model. Implementation-level questions would focus on the volume of
cases entering, case dispositions, referrals to services, and the use of
community service in the context of resources expended.

The community court approach was argued to have positive effects on the
larger court and justice system. Thus, the evaluation will also assess the extent
to which planned mechanisms were actually put in place and the anticipated
impact was achieved, for example, measuring the extent to which cases were
actually transferred from traditional processing to the community court. Building
a sufficient and appropriate caseload is an important implementation aim that
has implications for the community court's effectiveness overall as well as for
the larger court system. In its implementation focus, the evaluation will also
examine the role of the community in the operations of the court, and how the
community was involved in problem identification and problem solving. Given
the centrality of "community" in the community court model, measuring the
extent to which a new working relationship with the community has been put
into operation and identifying the issues and problems associated with that
process are critical implementation subjects. 


----------------------------

Table 1 not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its
entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

Admittedly, the difference between implementation and outcome measures is
not always clear. For example, one might argue that enrolling targeted
participants in the community court is an outcome--a desired end result--not
just an implementation stage goal. That is, the question might be, "Compared to
practically nothing being done about certain kinds of nuisance offenders, what
impact is the community court having?" In this case, mobilizing the police to
attend to these matters and to issue summonses to community court might
represent an important impact or outcome, regardless of what else happens in
individual cases.

One might equally argue that simply putting services in place that never before
existed, or that were never made accessible to the target population, is an
outcome, a desired end product. That overlap between implementation and
outcome measures noted, however, some objectives are more results oriented
and can be viewed as an effect or impact that a community court is expected to
deliver. Thus, for example, the evaluation will measure the extent to which the
targeted population of nuisance offenders is reached using community court
numbers of persons enrolled in court processes in contrast to the number
available in the target population. The dispositions of the cases processed in
community court will be examined, with a special emphasis on the assignment of
community service.

The extent to which the community court enrolls its population might be
considered an important implementation question. The types of dispositions in
those cases, services delivered, and community service assigned might be
viewed as outcomes delivered by the court. At the individual level, outcomes
include whether or not arrestees attended court, the sentences in their cases, the
services employed, the results of participation in services, the requirements of
the sentences fulfilled, and whether or not individuals reoffended. These
outcomes could also be evaluated in the context of resources expended.

Outcomes or impacts related to the larger court and justice system might be
related to the number of cases redirected from the traditional court caseload to
the community court; the different dispositions employed; the rates of
compliance with fines, community service, or other sanctions; and the treatment
provided and completed in various physical and behavioral health areas that
would not normally have been the case. System impacts of importance might be
effects on other agencies in the justice system--such as the role of the police--
or in the health or other social services systems to determine whether
procedures and outcomes have been improved by the community court
approach.

Measuring of the impact of the community court on the community may be the
most difficult evaluation task. However, several presumed impacts can be
identified from the aims of the Hartford Community Court, which rest on
developing a new kind of involvement by the community in the matters of the
court. That involvement implies a new role in problem identification and
problem solving. The evaluation can determine through interviews and
observation to what extent this has occurred. Second, a premise underlying the
Hartford approach is that the dispositions meted out in community court will in
some way restore or repay the community for the harms it has suffered by
means of community service assignments carried out by offenders and/or
through assistance provided to community justice residents who are offenders
within the jurisdiction of the court. The evaluation will seek to measure these
kinds of tangible impacts posited by the community court model.

Finally, the community court model has another important community-level
objective that is much harder to measure, namely, greater access to and
satisfaction with court and justice processes by the community. Improved
access to the courts, receptiveness by court personnel, and user satisfaction
with the community court experience are all difficult outcomes to measure.
However, perhaps the most challenging outcomes are changed attitudes of
communities toward the justice system and their perceptions about the quality
of life in their neighborhoods. 

V. Evaluation Design: Data Collection Strategy

This chapter describes in more detail how, within resource constraints, some of
the more important evaluation questions can be addressed. The proposed
approach is intended to serve as the basis for discussion among Hartford
Community Court officials, so that specific issues or data may be included or so
that the general approach can be adapted to reflect the issues and questions
viewed as most important locally. 

Assessing Implementation-Related Objectives

Before the evaluation asks what difference the community court makes in a
comparative sense, it should investigate questions related to its implementation.
Logically, before research can answer the question "Does it work?" using an
acceptable comparative framework, it should ascertain whether and to what
extent the community court model was actually implemented. Measurement of
implementation objectives is critical, particularly in assessing the contributions of
young programs. Assessing progress in reaching implementation-stage
objectives can provide useful feedback for making adjustments to improve
performance. 

Table 2 organizes the proposed data collection plan for the early-stage
evaluation of the Hartford Community Court according to implementation and
outcome evaluation questions. The first section (table 2a) suggests seven
different data collection approaches designed to measure progress the court has
made in implementing its strategy.

1. Descriptive History of the Hartford Community Court

An important early evaluation task will be to compile a history of the planning,
development, and implementation of the Hartford Community Court. This task
will involve assembling available documentation, grant applications, meeting
minutes, and other relevant materials, as well as conducting interviews with
relevant actors in the process. The aim of this descriptive task is to create a
record of the kinds of issues addressed and the ways in which the Midtown
model was adapted to meet the needs of the Hartford setting. Obstacles to
implementation are of particular interest as are solutions to difficult problems
that the implementation process encountered.

----------------------------

Table 2a not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its
entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

2. Context of Crime in Hartford's Neighborhoods 

The evaluation will place the establishment of the Hartford Community Court in
the context of the crime problems in Hartford's neighborhoods, first for the
period immediately preceding implementation of the court and second during
the court's operation. Theoretically, the community court strategy was pursued
to respond to crime-related problems affecting Hartford's neighborhoods. Thus,
the evaluation staff will need to collect location-specific arrest, summons, and
call-for-service data reflecting the two periods of time to place court efforts in
the larger context of the citywide crime problems it was intended to address.
Neighborhood-specific analysis of crime and calls for service should both set
the stage for the "assignment" implicit for the court and provide a baseline
against which changes in that picture, possibly related to the court's efforts, can
be assessed. One would expect that nuisance offenses did not result in police
responses as often before the implementation of the community court as after.
(Below it is noted that these data could be supplemented by neighborhood
survey or focus group data that ask about neighborhood conditions before and
during the court's first phase of operation and about the possible contributions
of the court in changing conditions or perceptions of neighborhood quality of
life.)

3. Volume and Flow of Target Category Cases Into the Judicial System Before
and During the First Phase of the Hartford Community Court

A basic assumption of the Hartford Community Court approach is that a large
number of quality-of-life offenses have gone unaddressed without the special
focus brought by the innovation. Theoretically, this untapped caseload has
existed in one of two places: in the normal judicial system where they have been
given short shrift, or in the form of nuisance offenses that have not found their
way into the judicial system. The second category of the untapped
nuisance-offense caseload is difficult to measure and may be addressed in 2
above through neighborhood-specific analysis of calls for service, arrests, and
summonses. 

The first category, nuisance cases entering the judicial system but showing less
than effective results, should be measurable. With the cooperation of the judicial
system, researchers will need to obtain aggregate data showing the processing
of these matters in the local courts prior to the establishment of the community
court. These data will, on an aggregate level, provide a baseline of the state of
affairs prior to the innovation. These same data for the period of the court's
operation should reflect a number of changes, such as reduction in numbers, as
jurisdiction was transferred to the community court. These analyses will require
computerized aggregate data from the judicial system reflecting the processing
and disposition of nuisance cases. They will provide a frame of reference
against which community court processing of cases can be compared. Thus, not
only can we determine whether the shift of jurisdiction from the larger court
system has occurred, but also contrast the disposition of the normal court
system cases with community court dispositions, again on an aggregate level.
This analysis will also demonstrate whether the community court caseload is
principally a shift of cases from other courts or created by the new emphasis on
neighborhood crime and police response that previously had not existed.


4. Reaching the Targeted Population

Another important implementation question is "How well has the community
court enrolled target population cases into its process?" One would assess the
impact of a community court that enrolls only a small proportion of its targeted
caseload of nuisance offenders (and produces great results) differently from one
that reaches upward of 80 or 90 percent of its target population. A community
court that misses most of its target population cannot have much impact, no
matter how well it is run. Using police call-for-service, arrest, or summons data,
or judicial system data to represent the target cases that should or could
potentially be handled by the community court, aggregate and case-specific
data from the Hartford Community Court can be employed to estimate how
effectively the court reaches its intended population. The same analysis will
provide feedback on the effectiveness of particular aspects of the model as
implemented that may account for its relative effectiveness in reaching its target.
This analysis can also provide neighborhood-by-neighborhood results,
assuming the data include location information.

5. Flow Analysis of the Hartford Community Court Process

Having placed the Hartford Community Court in context (of neighborhood
crime problems, of police practices, and of the larger court caseload) in the
data collection and analyses tasks 1 to 4 above, the evaluation should next
examine the cases entering the community court throughout its operation and
their dispositions. The focus of this analysis--which can be carried out with
aggregate and individual case-level data--is to consider the nature and volume
of cases reaching the court and the manner in which they are processed to
conclusion. In a sense, the data for this task (all cases from the first day of the
court's operation forward) will be employed to map the court's process and
identify issues raised by the findings. Thus, flow analysis will follow cases from
arrest to each event that occurs in the community court. On an aggregate level,
the analysis will determine the numbers and kinds of dispositions associated
with all cases entering the court, needs identified, services provided, and any
other outcomes available in court data.

6. Services Delivered by the Hartford Community Court

An important feature of the community court strategy involves identifying
problems that persons facing charges may have (e.g., physical and mental health
disorders, substance abuse, poor education, unemployment, lack of housing,
and need for public assistance.) and providing them access to needed services.
Evaluation of implementation issues will also include analysis of aggregate data
from the community court on the numbers and kinds of needs for assistance
identified in the screening process and the relative use of services (and referrals
made) during the first 10,000 cases. These data will be useful for two reasons.
First, they will provide information to the court showing how the actual needs of
persons processed in the program compared to those anticipated during the
planning stages. Second, they will provide data for estimating the costs of
resources involved in the delivery of services to court participants. (Many are
not new resource costs, but rather resources made more accessible to
participants through the community court mechanism.)

7. Analysis of (Average Daily) Community Court Workload 

The final implementation emphasis of the proposed evaluation plan answers the
question "What does the community court do on an average day?" This analysis
seeks to describe the average community court day in the aggregate over time
in two ways: by looking at all activities on a typical day and by studying the
court's daily docket over time. Thus, this task requires aggregate data listing all
events and transactions reflecting "business done" that are recorded in the
organization on a given day as well as all dockets of the courtroom showing
numbers and types of matters set and their dispositions. These two measures of
daily workload--community court organization and community court
courtroom--can be tracked over time. Analysis will focus on changes in the
substance of these workload measures over time, which will reflect changes in
the target population and in the way the court operates. The analysis may
reveal, for example, greater numbers of cases involving homeless or mentally ill
persons, and may raise issues for the court about how to meet the new
challenges. Analysis of matters organized by neighborhood may show changes
or raise issues reflecting changing conditions in particular areas, and may
provide useful information in attending to the distinct needs of the different
neighborhoods. These changes can then be discussed in light of the court's
original aims and any resource implications. 

Assessing the Early-Stage Impact of the Hartford Community Court:
Descriptive and Comparative Analysis

Against this background of implementation analysis, the evaluation plan
proposes selective assessment of early outcome measures. We refer to
early-stage outcomes to emphasize the relative youth of the Hartford
Community Court and the different expectations associated with younger
compared to more established programs. These proposed measures
presuppose an appropriate comparative framework.

Assuming that the Hartford Community Court model was perfectly
implemented, observers of the innovation would still want to know how well it
works. That question implies a comparative analysis, contrasting the outcomes
produced by the court to those that would have occurred without the
innovation. The most rigorous way to frame such an analysis is to design
implementation of the court in advance to include random assignment of some
members of the target population to "traditional" processing, while the
remainder would be handled through the community court.

Under this approach, evaluation of outcomes compares results for the two
groups of similar cases processed during the same time period. The differences
in outcomes would support or fail to support the hypothesis that the community
court leads to improvements in agreed-upon areas. With the innovation already
in operation for 2 years, the evaluation approach must look back over the initial
period of operation and construct an after-the-fact comparison that permits fair
analysis of the impact of the community court in light of what would have
occurred without it. 

Although we would recommend an experimental design as being the most
informative way to form the necessary comparison, the retrospective nature of
this evaluation precludes such an approach in the Hartford setting. Construction
of an appropriate comparison group is made more difficult because the
implementation of the court, according to its design, may have caused most of
the targeted cases (arrests or summonses) to go through the community court,
leaving no target category cases left to serve as a natural comparison group.
The evaluation plan will, then, necessarily be required to address questions of
impact using other comparative strategies, such as contrasting the approach to
target offenses before and during the operation of the Hartford Community
Court, that will be less rigorous but still informative. The choice of a final
comparative framework will be made in consultation with the Hartford
Community Court leaders (table 2b.)

----------------------------

Table 2b not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its
entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

8. Analysis of Participant Outcomes During the First 2 Years of Court
Operation

Most of the evaluation tasks outlined so far have involved collec-tion and
analysis of overall or aggregate-level data. Because the Hartford Community
Court approach seeks to make differences with individual offenders and
through them have impacts in specific neighborhoods, this analysis focuses on
samples of individual cases and the offenders involved. We would propose to
draw samples of incoming cases from several periods during the operation of
the court (or stratify a sample of participants on the basis of time period). The
purpose would be to study cohorts of persons whose cases entered the court
during different periods to describe them, their backgrounds, their cases, their
apparent needs as reflected in screening interviews, the disposition of their
cases, the services delivered, the sanctions imposed, and reoffending during
some short followup period. (We propose a sample of about 500 to 600 cases
drawn from periods between November 1998 and August 2000, with 6-month
followups.)

Data collection will be more in-depth and resource intensive for this analysis,
involving both computer-generated and manually assembled and coded records
relating to demographics, residential history, location of residence and offense,
criminal history, location of prior arrests, prior treatment, substance abuse and
health histories, and charged offenses. In addition, data collection will track the
need for services identified in the intake process, the disposition of the case, the
performance of community service or any other sanction assigned, and whether
referrals to treatment or services of any sort were made and followed through
by the participant.

The 6-month followup would chart whether persons were rearrested and the
location of their rearrest, whether they returned to community court, and
whether they used services to which they had been referred. The followup
would track any other changes in status relevant to the original community court
matter and assessment of needs. Data collection would require access to
criminal history, community court screening, case disposition, and, to the extent
possible, records of relevant service-providing agencies. (All data would be
treated confidentially according to protocols acceptable to all participating
agencies and usual research practice, so that no individual could be identified in
the data.)

Assuming we have identified an appropriate comparison group with which to
contrast the community court participants, analysis would look in depth at the
backgrounds and problems of persons processed by the court, examine how
they and their cases were treated, and describe their experiences during the
next 6 months. The community court model would at least presume that
community court participants would receive more services, perform more
community service sanctions, link voluntarily with referred services, and return
to the justice system less frequently than their noncommunity court
counterparts.[29] 

The experience of individuals participating in the community court also can be
partly captured through agency exit interviews, interviews with samples of
participants (all entering, not just those completing) and/or focus groups of
participants, depending on resource availability.

9. Analysis of Participant Outcomes by Neighborhood of Residence and
Offense

The data collected for the analysis of offender outcomes can be used to
examine the impact of the community court on specific neighborhoods.
Geographic analysis of the location of offender residences and the locations of
the crimes with which they were charged can provide estimates of the court's
impact in several ways. First, the research can look at the contributions of
different neighborhoods to the court's caseload, by type of offense, to measure
the extent to which the court is dealing with nuisance offenses in various
geographic areas. Second, it can look at the geographic distribution of court
participants and other community members who receive services from the court
(bearing in mind that defendants do not necessarily commit their offenses in the
neighborhoods where they reside). To the extent that these individuals receive
services that may improve their lives and social functioning, the court can have
an impact on neighborhoods. Finally, the research can look at the geographic
distribution of community service projects as a measure of the court's impact on
neighborhoods.

10. Analysis of Community Service Delivery to Neighborhoods 

The use of community service should be an important focus of the Hartford
Community Court because of the impact it can have on both offenders and
neighborhoods. The aggregate community court data described above under
evaluation tasks 5 and 6 can be used to show the distribution of community
service. Community court records can be used to show the kinds and
distribution of community service over time and how neighborhood needs have
been taken into consideration. These analyses can be examined in more depth
using the individual data sets described in task 8. In addition, observation of
work sites in the neighborhoods, as well as photographic documentation, can
add depth to the analysis and assessment of the use of community service by
the court.

11. Perception of the Hartford Community Court Within the Neighborhoods

Ideally--but impractically--it would be very helpful to survey the residents of
each of the neighborhoods over time to determine whether they are familiar with
the court and its work and how they believe it may have affected quality of life
in their areas. Without the resources to collect such resident attitude survey
data, it may be informative to conduct focus groups in the principal
neighborhoods to tap the feedback and opinions of residents in a less costly
way. In fact, this may be one of the easiest ways to gather timely feedback on
residents' perceptions of the court and its impact on specific locations.

VI. Conclusion

This report has sought to describe the Hartford Community Court as an
important adaptation of the original Midtown prototype with distinct features--
particularly its linkage with 17 distinct neighborhoods. The evaluation plan
seeks to focus on some of the critical elements of the Hartford model as it has
been tailored to address local needs and quality-of-life problems. We outline a
range of implementation and impact-oriented questions and related data tasks
that could provide a sound assessment of the court, reflecting its initial stages of
development and operation.

This monograph is offered for the purposes of discussion and comment.
Clearly, a number of questions concerning emphasis, method, and data can only
be answered by those most involved with the operation of the court.

Although the evaluation plan outlined in this paper was specifically designed for
the Hartford Community Court, it was developed with the broader purpose of
providing a model for the evaluation of community court programs that will be
applicable to such initiatives nationwide.

VII. Notes

1. The Midtown Community Court, now in its seventh year of operation, was
initially planned as a 3-year demonstration project. Its early and widely
publicized success rapidly made it a model for jurisdictions both across the
United States and abroad that were experiencing similar problems with
quality-of-life crimes and a similar disconnect between the traditional justice
system and the public it was intended to serve. The Center for Court
Innovation, an entity originally created to coordinate the planning and
implementation of the Midtown court and several other New York area
experimental courts for the state court system and the Fund for the City of New
York, was led by the response to assist other jurisdictions in developing similar
approaches. See www.communitycourts.org; The Midtown Community Court
Experiment: A Progress Report, Center for Court Innovation (n.d.); Doris
Weiland, John S. Goldkamp, and Mark Collins, Facilitating Innovation in
Community Justice: The Role of the Center for Court Innovation in the
Community Court Movement, Crime and Justice Research Institute (1999).

2. See John Feinblatt and Greg Berman, Community Courts: A Manual of
Principles, Center for Court Innovation and Bureau of Justice Assistance (n.d.);
Responding to the Community: Principles for Planning and Creating a
Community Court, Bureau of Justice Assistance (2001); Michelle Sviridoff,
Richard Curtis, David Rottman, and Brian Ostrom, Dispensing Justice Locally:
The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court, New York:
Gordon and Breach Publishing Group (2000); Doris Weiland, John S.
Goldkamp, and Mark Collins, Facilitating Innovation in Community Justice: The
Role of the Center for Court Innovation in the Community Court Movement,
Crime and Justice Research Institute (1999).

3. James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, "Broken Windows," The Atlantic
Monthly (March):29-38 (1982).

4. U.S.C. 18(1):96 (October 15, 1970).

5. Hartford Courant, "Community Court Passes Senate: Hartford Would
Establish First of Its Kind in the State," p. A6, June 1, 1997, statewide edition.

6. Hartford Courant, "City Council Favors Establishment of Community Court,"
p. B1, October 15, 1997, edition 7 Hartford North Final.

7. John S. Goldkamp, presentation at Practitioners Institute: Community Court
Coordinators Report on the State of the Art, Austin, Texas, February 29,
2000.

8. Hartford Courant, "Opening Date for State's First Community Court Pushed
to January," p. B4, July 8, 1997, edition 7 Hartford North Final.

9. Hartford Courant, "Jury Still Out on Court's Opening: Delays Anger
Neighborhood Activists," p. B1, May 13, 1998, edition 7 Hartford North
Final.

10. Hartford Courant, "Killings Serve as Rallying Point," p. B4, December 5,
1997, edition 7 Hartford North Final.

11. Judge Raymond Norko, interviewed on May 24, 2000.

12. These figures reflect court business prior to a recent marked reduction in
arrests, both community court and otherwise. On the day the authors visited the
court, May 24, 2000, there were only eight arraignments.

13. State statutory crimes heard by the court include breach of peace (53a-
181), larceny (53a-125b),simple possession of marijuana (21a-279 (c)),
interference (no injury to the officer) (53a-167a), prostitution (53a-82),
solicitation (53a-83), disorderly conduct (53a-182), threatening (53a-62),
criminal trespass (53a-109), and criminal mischief (53a-117). City of Hartford
ordinance violations heard include public nuisance (24-2), loitering (25-8),
public drinking (4-3), and excessive noise (23-1).

14. One of the few problems withthe court facility that both Rae Ann Palmer
and Judge Norko mentioned was the inadequacy of the lockup space for the
numbers of in-custody defendants that the court receives.

15. According to Chief Court Administrator Aaron Ment (Hartford Courant,
"All Community Court Needs Now Is a Home," p. B1, November 19, 1997,
edition 7 Hartford North Final).

16. Hartford Courant, "Jury Still Out on Court's Opening: Delays Anger
Neighborhood Activists," p. B1, May 13, 1998, edition 7 Hartford North
Final.

17. The MIS is a Microsoft Access -based system. The innovation earned the
designer Second Place in the Microsoft Windows World Open (April 1999) in
the Justice/Public Safety category. Variations of this program are being
implemented in the Waterbury Community Court in Connecticut and in other
courts across the United States.

18. Hartford Community Court Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998.

19. Chris Pleasanton provided through the www.courtbuilders.org listserv on
July 5, 2000. The testing is permitted by and governed under C.G.S. Sec. 54-
102a, which allows the court to mandate STD and/or HIV testing of defendants
charged with sexually related offenses. The court has not mandated HIV testing
to date, although it is available through the STD Testing Protocol on a voluntary
basis.

20. Hartford Community Court Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998.

21. Judge Raymond Norko, interviewed on May 24, 2000.

22. "Evaluation of Essays," Amariliz Gonzalez, Hartford Community Court
Intern, University of Connecticut (August 2000).


23. City of Hartford Ordinances Sec. 23 1-5, paragraph 23-5, assigns
jurisdiction in violations of this ordinance to the community court.

24. This description of mental health services comes from information provided
through the www.courtbuilders.org listserv by Sally Cadmus, DMHAS, March
27, 2000.

25. Editorial by Don Noel, Hartford Courant, "Community Policing,
Community Court Go Hand in Hand," p. A25, February 7, 1997, statewide
edition.

26. These views were expressed to the authors at a meeting of the Sanctions
Committee in May 2000.

27. Center for Court Innovation, Hartford Community Court. Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC: p.4.

28. From July 21 to August 20, 2000, enforcement by the Community
Response Division citywide resultedin 120 arrests/summons for alcohol
violations, 145 for loitering/breach of peace, 96 for excessive noise, and 10 for
disorderly conduct/prostitution.

29. Although court officials view reduction of recidivism as an important goal, in
the short term defendants with serious behavioral, health, and social problems
are expected to have multiple contacts with the court before interventions affect
their lives and behavior. The court views a certain degree of recidivism under
these circumstances as affording additional opportunities to provide needed
social services. Recidivism can serve as a useful measure of impact if analyzed
thoughtfully and controlling for various factors having to do with defendant
characteristics. We might expect to see a reduction in rearrests for individuals
committing offenses they did not know were illegal and for whom a single
episode of community service can be a deterrent. We might see the impact of
community court in terms of reduction in return visits and perhaps longer times
to rearrest for seriously troubled individuals who need repeated social services
intervention. And we might be able to identify individuals whose primary
problem is habitual criminal behavior and on whom the benefits of the
community court experience may be lost.

VIII. For More Information

Please use the contact information below to learn more about the programs
discussed in this monograph.



John S. Goldkamp, Professor of Criminal Justice
Crime and Justice Research Institute
520 North Columbus Boulevard
Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-627-3766
Fax: 215-627-7810
E-mail: info@cjri.com

Doris Weiland, Research Associate
Crime and Justice Research Institute
520 North Columbus Boulevard
Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-627-3766
Fax: 215-627-7810
E-mail: doris.weiland@cjri.com

Cheryl Irons-Guynn, Research Associate
Crime and Justice Research Institute
520 North Columbus Boulevard
Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-627-3766
Fax: 215-627-7810
E-mail: cheri.irons-guynn@cjri.com

For additional information on BJA grants and programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance 
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-616-6500
Fax: 202-305-1367
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org


Clearinghouse staff are available Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
eastern time. Ask to be placed on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480

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

----------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for
general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant
applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center, call
1-800-421-6770 or write to 1100 Vermont 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 the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and
community groups across the country. Information specialists 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

o Mail 
P.O. Box 6000 
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

o Visit
2277 Research Boulevard 
Rockville, MD 20850

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

o Fax 
301-519-5212

o Fax on Demand 
1-800-688-4252

o BJA Home Page 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

o NCJRS World Wide Web 
www.ncjrs.org

o E-mail 
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

o JUSTINFO Newsletter 
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org Leave the subject line blank In the body of the
message, type: subscribe justinfo [your name]