Title: Community Courts: An Evolving Model.
Series: Monograph (6 x 9)
Author: Eric Lee
Published: October 2000
Subject: Courts--General, Court Management, Case Processing
25 pages
57,344 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

Community Courts: An Evolving Model

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance

Community Justice Series #2

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

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

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Daniel Marcus
Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary
Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

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 Court Innovation under grant
number 96-DD-BX-0090, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations 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.

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

Community Courts: An Evolving Model

October 2000

NCJ 183452

Prepared by Eric Lee, Deputy Director 
Center for Court Innovation

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

From the Director

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

Midtown Community Court has succeeded by asking a new set of questions
about the role of the court in a community's daily life: What can a court do to
solve neighborhood problems? What can courts bring to the table beyond their
coercive power and symbolic presence? And what roles can community
residents, businesses, and service providers play in improving justice?

The community courts that were established after Midtown are answering these
questions in different ways. Most focus on one neighborhood, but others are
exploring ways to serve an entire city. Still others are expanding their scope
beyond low-level criminal offenses to juvenile delinquency and housing code
violations. 

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

The Bureau of Justice Assistance continues to support the efforts of judges,
prosecutors, public defenders, and other local leaders who are using community
courts to transform the way justice is administered in their communities.

Nancy E. Gist
Director
Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Overview

o How Do You Plan a Community Court?
o Which Community Should be Served and Where Should the Court Be
Located?
o How Should the Court Link Offenders to Social Services?
o Can Punishment and Help Be Combined?
o What Kinds of Cases are Appropriate for Community Courts?
o What Role Should the Community Play?
o Are Community Courts Creating System Change?

III. Community Court Profiles

o Midtown Community Court, New York City
o North/Northeast and Southeast Community Courts,Portland, Oregon
o Hartford Community Court, Hartford, Connecticut1
o Hennepin County Community Court Calendar, Minneapolis, Minnesota
o Hempstead Community Court, Hempstead, New York
o West Palm Beach Community Court, West Palm Beach, Florida
o Downtown Austin Community Court, Austin, Texas
o Frayser Community Court, Memphis, Tennessee
o Atlanta Community Court, Atlanta, Georgia
o Red Hook Community Justice Center, Brooklyn, New York

IV. Conclusion

V. Resources on Community Justice

VI. For More Information

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

 I. Introduction

In recent years cities and towns across the country have embarked on an
experiment to test the proposition that courts can play a role in solving complex
neighborhood problems and building stronger communities. Since the 1993
opening of New York City's Midtown Community Court, the nation's first,
dozens of cities have begun planning community courts. Eleven community
courts are now operating in communities across the nation, and six more will
open by the end of 2000. At their outset, each court must address the following
set of questions:

o Can courts assume a problem-solving role in the life of a community, bringing
people together and helping to craft solutions to problems that communities
face?

o How can courts address the impact that chronic offending has on a
community?

o Can courts improve the quality of life in a community?

o Can local voices--residents, merchants, community groups--engage in the
administration of justice?

To answer these questions, community courts have developed individual
programs that differ in important ways. Although most of these new courts
focus on one neighborhood, several jurisdictions are exploring ways to serve an
entire city. Many community courts handle criminal cases only, but others are
experimenting with a broader range of matters, including juvenile delinquency
and housing code violations. Some community courts were initiated by courts,
and some have been championed by a district attorney. 

These differences reflect a central aspect of community courts: they focus on
neighborhoods and are designed to respond to the particular concerns of
individual communities. Moreover, community courts are shaped by the
particular political, economic, and social landscapes in each community.

The Center for Court Innovation (CCI), with support from the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), has provided technical assistance to each community
court and documented the emergence of this field. This monograph provides a 
snapshot of these early community courts and explores emerging issues in their
development.

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

About the Author

Eric Lee is deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. Research, ideas,
and text were contributed by Courtney Bryan, Jimena Martinez, Bridget Regan,
and Robert Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation.

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

II. Overview

In January 1998, the Midtown Community Court was the only community court
in the United States. By March 2000, nearly a dozen had opened across the
country in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, New York, Oregon,
Tennessee, and Texas. New York City and Portland, Oregon, each host two
community courts, and organizers in both cities intend to open a third court in
2000. Another 13 jurisdictions, in California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas, plan
to establish community courts in the near future.

Community courts grow out of frustration. Observers have noted that justice
has become remote from communities and the people who live in them.
Community residents have reported feeling out of touch with courts. They want
courts to address low-level crime that is part of daily life. The Midtown
Community Court offered a model for addressing these problems by
emphasizing the following:

o Locating the court in the community, close to where crimes take place.

o Repaying a community damaged by low-level crime by requiring offenders to
compensate neighborhoods through community service.

o Using the leverage of the court to sentence offenders to complete social
services that will help them address problems such as drug addiction or
involvement in prostitution.

o Bringing the court and the community closer by making the courthouse
accessible, establishing a community advisory board, and publishing a quarterly
newsletter.

o Using the court as a gateway to treatment and making social services
available to offenders right at the courthouse.

The Midtown model was thoroughly documented in an independent evaluation
conducted by the National Center for State Courts and in publications
prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice (see p. 21 for a list of publications
on community justice). With a well-defined and carefully documented model in
New York City, community court planners elsewhere faced questions about
whether the Midtown model would meet the needs of their jurisdictions.
Planners in other jurisdictions have made significant de-partures from the
Midtown model, reflecting both the distinct needs of their communities and the
practical reality of what they believed they could accomplish given local
resources and local support.

The following sections examine the questions that planners asked as they
designed their community courts and how they resolved them.

How Do You Plan a Community Court?

Community courts are complex projects that involve rethinking court
operations, raising substantial resources, and building partnerships within and
without the justice system. Decisions about who should lead the planning of a
community court varied from state to state. Judges or local court administrators
led the planning effort in 4 of the 11 operating courts. Planning for another five
courts was led by elected district attorneys. Notably, all five of these courts run
community prosecution programs and the district attorneys' interest in
community courts was sparked by hearing how dissatisfied their constituents
were with the justice system's insufficient attention to quality-of-life problems.
The local mayor's office and a countywide criminal justice commission initiated
the community court effort in the remaining two cities. 

Many projects recognized early that a dedicated planner would be needed to
move the community court from conception to implementation. This approach
reflects the complexities of raising money, building community participation,
developing sanctions, establishing partnerships, and so forth. Six of the
operating community courts were staffed with a full-time coordinator during the
planning period; the planning of three courts was led by a staff person who
dedicated a majority of his or her attention to the project. To ensure that the
partnerships necessary for success were established early in the planning
process, nine jurisdictions convened formal planning committees. The
committees typically included representatives from the courts, district attorneys'
offices, police departments, social service agencies, and communities. Public
defenders were included on five of the planning teams. In the projects that did
not create planning committees, lead planners worked informally with other
stakeholders.

The scope of the community court project, the readiness of local players to
support the concept, and the planners' success in garnering funds and in-kind
support all affected the length of the planning process. Three jurisdictions
opened community courts within a year of beginning the planning process.
Although the average planning period was 2 years, some jurisdictions needed 3
or more years to plan a community court.

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

The Midtown Community Court serves the central business district of
America's largest city. One challenge faced by planners outside New York City
was whether the concept of a community court is applicable to smaller cities
and other types of neighborhoods.

The community court approach was recognized as a promising solution to
quality-of-life problems by many different communities. Today, 6 of the 11
operating community courts serve inner-city residential neighborhoods facing
serious problems, including high crime rates, property abandonment, and
conditions of disorder. Two community courts serve downtown areas and
tackle the low-level crime and public disorder that can be barriers to social and
economic revitalization of city centers. One court is located in a suburban area
with pockets facing problems similar to those of its urban neighbors. Finally,
two cities are testing the idea of a community court that serves an entire
medium-size city. In one, the city has been divided into 17 neighborhoods, each
with a committee designed to promote a close working relationship between the
community and the court.

Another decision planners faced was selecting an appropriate building in which
to locate the community court. The decision involved balancing community
court goals such as visibility and accessibility to the public with the need to find
sufficient space for onsite partners. Expense and the logistical issues of
processing defendants also were considered. The projects arrived at a variety
of solutions. Three courts currently operate within centralized courthouses. One
of these projects plans to relocate to a dedicated building in the near future; the
other two hold open the possibility of relocating to separate space in the future.
Another project holds proceedings in the central court and conducts other
community court activities such as community service, social services, and
community meetings in the neighborhood being served by the court.

Seven courts are located in the neighborhoods they serve. Three projects have
adapted existing space in the community: two in neighborhood centers and one
in a strip mall storefront. Four undertook significant renovations to create a
space for their community courts. 

The decision about court location is closely tied to a program's focal point. All
of the planners, and many community members, describe common goals such
as establishing community norms and creating an environment supporting
revitalization efforts, but the focal point of the programs vary with
neighborhoods and the problems confronting individual communities. Courts in
residential neighborhoods are more likely to address housing issues and young
offenders as well as low-level criminal offenses, whereas those in downtown
areas prioritize issues such as homelessness, illegal camping, and disorderly
conduct.

How Should the Court Link Offenders to Social Services?

All planners agreed that making social services available to defendants who
appear at community court is important, but they have made different decisions
about whether to locate these services onsite. Of the 11 community courts now
operating, 6 provide services such as drug treatment, counseling, and assistance
with entitlements onsite, as well ongoing case management by project staff for
defendants mandated to services such as long-term treatment. Three sites
provide referral to services plus ongoing case management; two provide referral
to social services only.

Can Punishment and Help Be Combined?

All of the nation's community courts are experimenting with the broad use of
both community service and social service sanctions. Mandating defendants to
social services is universally accepted as a legitimate sentence to curb
recidivism. However, for several, the integration of social service sanctions has
been gradual. Judges in some jurisdictions have questioned the appropriateness
of using social service as a sanction. How, asked one judge, could a service
designed to help an individual with personal problems also serve as
punishment? Community members and others on the advisory board have been
emphatic about the need to address underlying problems such as drug
addiction.

What Kinds of Cases Are Appropriate for Community Courts?

Five of the community courts are exploring ways to expand their mandates
beyond hearing criminal cases. These experiments range from a judge in one
courtroom hearing criminal, civil, and family matters, to judges with criminal
court calendars working closely with the police and prosecutors on matters
such as housing code violations, to two judges sitting jointly at one court of
which one hears criminal cases and the other reviews environmental matters. 
Two jurisdictions are exploring ways to handle youthful offenders at community
court.

What Role Should the Community Play?

Although all the projects recognized that community involvement was a critical
goal, planners grappled with how and when to involve the community, raising
the question: Who is the community? For most court planners, the answer
included residents, social service providers, beat cops, and local merchants.
Community members participated in the planning of all of the courts, but in
different ways and to differing degrees. 

Planners used a variety of tools to establish community participation. In every
community, planners attended neighborhood meetings and conducted
interviews with a broad range of stakeholders. All but two courts created a
community advisory panel during the planning period, and most of the projects
held community meetings to determine priorities for the new court. Five
projects held focus group discussions to better understand community
members' concerns and recommendations. In Portland, Oregon, community
members were involved in shaping sanctioning options. In Brooklyn, New
York, community members chose the building in which to locate the court. 

Since opening, each court has taken a different approach to involving the
community. Eight courts have convened a community advisory board that meets
regularly and a ninth is forming such a board. Eight community courts have
mechanisms for soliciting community involvement in making community service
assignments, and four have committees that devise ways to use community 
service to address hot spots and other neighborhood problems. Two
community courts conduct door-to-door surveys to determine public safety
concerns and priorities of neighborhood residents. Three courts distribute a
newsletter to give community members visible evidence that the court is
accountable to the community.

Are Community Courts Creating System Change?

Community courts are changing the way court systems conduct business within
the court itself and, more broadly, within the justice system. In the two cities
where community courts have been open the longest, New York City and
Portland, the lessons of community involvement in the administration of justice
have begun to spread to the rest of the system. 

In Portland, the success of the North/Northeast Community Court has
convinced the district attorney, the courts, and other justice agencies to open
two other community courts that together will serve every neighborhood in
Portland. In New York City, the success of Midtown Community Court has
led to the development of two other community courts, encouraged greater use
of community service and social service sanctions throughout the court system,
introduced the role of "resource coordinator" (a liaison between the court and
social service agencies) to other courts, started the trend of problem-solving
courts throughout the state, and led to the creation of a not-for-profit
organization to be an engine for ongoing court innovation.

In every jurisdiction, these initiatives have demonstrated new ways of doing
business. Planners of 10 of the projects have brought new resources to the
system to support a community court--ranging from state legislative and city
council appropriations, to federal grants, to contributions from private
foundations and corporations. Two downtown courts and two neighborhood
courts have secured private funding for their projects.

At nine community courts, staff are testing the use of technology to provide
more complete and accurate information to the judge and other
decisionmakers, to raise the standard of accountability on court-ordered
sanctions, and to link the numerous partners that must work together for a
community court to succeed. Six of the courts have installed information
technology for the community court and three others have information systems
in development.

In planning community courts, new players have been involved. Two of the
courts now operating and two opening in 2000 have involved not-for-profit
organizations that coordinated planning and implementation of the projects. The
innovative involvement of not-for-profit organizations in project implementation-
-such as the success in finding new funding sources, the use of technology, the
experimentation with multijurisdictional calendars, and the impact on other
courts--indicates the extent to which community courts are promoting significant
change in court operations.

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

III. Community Court Profiles

As the profiles in this section illustrate, community courts vary significantly. As
varied as these projects are, the field of community courts is conspicuously
young--the model is evolving as the experiences of these first courts deepen.

Midtown Community Court, New York City

Launched in 1993, the Midtown Community Court targets quality-of-life
offenses such as prostitution, illegal vending, graffiti, shoplifting, fare beating,
and vandalism in midtown Manhattan. Often in such cases judges are forced to
choose between a few days of jail time and no sentence at all--results that fail
to impress the victim, the community, or the defendant that these offenses are
taken seriously. In contrast, the Midtown Community Court sentences low-
level offenders to pay back the neighborhood through community service while
offering them help with problems (addiction, mental illness, lack of job skills)
that underlie their criminal behavior. Residents, businesses, and social service
agencies collaborate with the court by supervising community service projects
and by providing onsite social services, including drug treatment, health care,
and job training.

Social services are available onsite at the Midtown Court, providing the judge a
range of services to include in a mandate, such as onsite drug treatment, a
health education class for prostitutes and "johns," one-on-one counseling for
young offenders and mentally ill persons, and employment training. For
defendants with a long criminal record and a history of substance abuse, the
court offers an alternative-to-incarceration program that sentences defendants
to long-term drug treatment. Many defendants return to court voluntarily to take
advantage of services offered at the court, including English as a second
language and General Educational Development (GED) classes.

The court uses an award-winning computer application to craft individualized
sanctions for each offender and monitor compliance. The system also provides
police officers with regular feedback about the outcomes of their arrests.

Community involvement is extensive at the Midtown Community Court. The
community advisory board, which reviews court operations and results, meets
quarterly; the community conditions panel, which keeps the court abreast of
local problems and emerging hot spots, meets monthly. Community members
participate in impact panels, meeting face-to-face with offenders to discuss how
their behavior harmed the community. The court also publishes a newsletter to
keep stakeholders informed about its work. 

The court seeks to solve community problems through a partnership with the
police known as the Street Outreach Services program. To address problems
before they result in an arrest, social workers from the court join police officers
on the beat. Together, they engage the homeless and other street people and
encourage them to come to the court voluntarily for social services.

North/Northeast and Southeast Community Courts, Portland, Oregon

Community court planners in Portland sought to build on the success of the
Neighborhood District Attorney program and had two objectives: address
public safety problems as close as possible to where they occur and further
involve community members in determining priorities for the justice system.

Community participation in planning Portland's community courts took the form
of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The committees (one for each court) gave
planners a sense of which problems were most important to the community.
They shared ideas on every aspect of the project--helping form sentencing
guidelines, suggesting community service projects, and determining what the
courtroom would look like. In addition to the advisory committees, Portland 
planners convened focus groups to further document community priorities. 

Planning for the North/Northeast Community Court began when the area was
designated a Weed and Seed site in 1996. The North/ Northeast Community
Court serves a 15-neighborhood area of Portland commonly known as Albina,
a community of mostly single-family, owner-occupied homes that has the
highest crime, high school dropout, and unemployment rates in the city.

Modeled after the North/Northeast Community Court, the Southeast
Community Court addresses quality-of-life crime in Portland's Brentwood-
Darlington and Lents communities. The Southeast Community Court serves a
diverse population of more than 285,000 residents. The area has a large
population of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia. 

When Portland's community courts began operating, cases were deferred to
them following a defendant's initial appearance at the downtown court. In June
2000, both courts began arraigning cases sent directly by the police, including
misdemeanors and person-to-person matters such as assault of a public safety
officer, child neglect, harassment, and stalking. The courts operate a full day
every other week and will expand soon to a full day every week. 

In addition, the two courts will soon begin hearing housing violations involving
chronic offenders. The city's Office of Planning, Development, and Review,
which has traditionally handled housing violations, will institute a system in
which housing code violators will accrue points for the number of violations they
receive. Once violators reach a determined number of points, they will be
considered chronic violators. Their cases will be referred to the neighborhood
district attorney, who can then prosecute the case at the appropriate community
court.

Brentwood-Darlington, home of the Southeast Community Court, has the
highest concentration of probationers and parolees in the city. A probation
officer who sits on the Citizen Advisory Committee reviews the court docket
prior to each community court session and checks defendants for probation
status. Soon, a neighborhood probation office also will be located at the
Southeast Community Court.

At both community courts, staff from social service agencies are available onsite
to refer offenders for services. The North/Northeast court offers a mentor
program, through which more than 50 defendants have developed life plans and
long-term goals. A public defender is present at each court session to answer
questions and give legal advice.

By the end of 2000, Portland plans to open a third community court that will
serve the city's westside and downtown communities. When the Westside
Community Court opens, all noncustodial misdemeanor cases in Portland will
be arraigned at a community court.

Hartford Community Court, Hartford, Connecticut


The Hartford Community Court has its roots in the federally funded
Comprehensive Communities Partnership program that sought to improve
coordination among criminal justice agencies and Hartford communities. The
program initially focused on community policing and antigang initiatives, but
community participants wanted something to be done about low-level crime as
well. Planning for the community court began in 1996 and included enacting
state legislation to mandate alternative sentences for ordinance violations.

The Hartford Community Court is testing the idea of a community court that
serves the entire city. To ensure that the court is responsive to local concerns,
the court works closely with problem-solving committees in the city's 17
neighborhoods. The problem-solving committees articulate priorities for each
neighborhood and send a representative to the court's advisory board. The
court sends community service crews to every neighborhood and, when
possible, assigns offenders to perform community service in the neighborhood
in which they were arrested.

A member of the bail commissioner's office screens defendants for arraignment.
This interview serves as a criminal background check and is the first line of
inquiry for social services screening. 

After speaking with the state's attorney in court, if the defendant accepts a plea
agreement, Judge Raymond Norko issues a sentence that includes community
service and/or social service mandates. Upon completion of the service, the
defendant's case is dismissed 30 days later without the defendant having to
appear in court. If the defendant refuses the plea offer, the case stays in the
court to prevent "forum shopping." The judge hears bench trials at the
community court; cases that are eligible for jury trials are transferred to superior
court.

Each defendant is required to meet with the court's social service team, which
includes staff from the city's Department of Human Services, the state's
Department of Social Services and Department of Mental Health and
Addiction, and the Capitol Region Mental Health Center. The interview covers
issues such as substance abuse treatment, education services, health care, and
housing options. Defendants are then linked with necessary social services. 

The Hartford Community Court regularly employs mediation in resolving
criminal cases. Mediation is voluntary, requiring the willing participation of both
the victim and the offender. If an agreement is reached between the parties and
restitution is required, the judge will make the mediation agreement part of the
court's order and continue the case until the restitution and other terms of the
agreement are fulfilled.

Hennepin County Community Court Calendar, Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Hennepin County Community Court Calendar serves two dozen
neighborhoods and 100,000 residents in South Minneapolis using a downtown
courtroom located in the Hennepin County Government Center. Planners
targeted South Minneapolis, including the Phillips and Powderhorn
neighborhoods, because the area had significant crime problems and a highly
organized community leadership, and because it is home to two major
corporations, Honeywell and Allina.

Although the court is not located in the neighborhood it serves, it is building ties
to the neighborhood by coordinating social services and community service
programs through a community-based partner. Administered by a collaborative
of county social service departments known as the Hennepin/ Powderhorn
Partners, offenders appear at the Hennepin/Powderhorn Center to fulfill their
community service or social service sanctions and take advantage of a broad
range of services on a voluntary basis. A probation officer in the courtroom acts
as a resource coordinator for the judge, making recommendations for social
service sanctions and linking the defendant to the appropriate social service
provider. Staff at the Hennepin/Powderhorn Center monitor compliance and
report the results to the court-based probation officer.

"We located the court downtown and located everything else in the catchment
area--social services, community service, all of our community meetings," said
Judge Richard Hopper.

The court tackles a multijurisdictional calendar including felony and
misdemeanor property offenses from the Third Police Precinct in South
Minneapolis and nuisance abatement cases from the entire city. The Community
Court Calendar handles cases of varying levels of severity. The judge and court
planners devised a broad range of community service and social service
sanctions that are appropriate for misdemeanor and felony charges. Applying
sanctions in these different cases involves a careful assessment of the risk
involved in returning an offender to the community. Moreover, the judge reports
that working with chronic offenders, whose behaviors are harder to change with
short-term social service interventions, is more difficult than working with first-
time offenders. Nonetheless, the broad range of cases reflects the priorities of
the South Minneapolis community, which leads the city in arrests for quality-of-
life crimes, including drug sales, prostitution, and gang-related offenses.

In addition to these criminal matters, the court hears civil nuisance actions that
typically involve properties that are used for criminal activities such as
prostitution and drug dealing. The court uses traditional sanctions as well as
mediation with community members as remedies and ensures a high level of
scrutiny. If the property owner fails to comply with the court's order, the
property can be boarded up.

Hempstead Community Court, Hempstead, New York

Although the first community courts appeared in urban areas, many suburban
communities face similar challenges. On suburban Long Island, Hempstead and
surrounding towns are testing the community court model to address quality-of-
life problems such as prostitution, drug use and low-level sales, public drinking,
vandalism, and graffiti.

The Hempstead Community Court initially handled quality-of-life offenses
committed within the village of Hempstead. Recently, it expanded its catchment
area to the four neighboring communities of New Cassel/Westbury, Freeport
Village, Uniondale, and Roosevelt.

The first year of operations has been a learning period. The court has been
hearing cases adjourned following arraignment from the traditional court,
including prostitution, drug possession, and disorderly conduct cases. The judge
imposes sentences of community service or crafts a social service mandate,
typically involving drug or alcohol treatment. Planners are reviewing which
crimes are best prosecuted in the court, which treatment programs and services
are most effective in addressing defendants' underlying problems, and which
types of community service are appropriate for suburban areas. Planners also
are exploring ways to work collaboratively with Nassau County's many village
courts.

A grant from BJA's Byrne Program was recently secured by the Nassau
County Department of Drug and Alcohol Services to help expand the court's
programs and coordinate its work with the local village courts. Planners hope to
extend the availability of services to address the special problems faced by
prostitutes and substance-abusing youth. The court is in session 3 days a week
and plans to continue to expand to other areas of the county.

West Palm Beach Community Court, West Palm Beach, Florida

The West Palm Beach Community Court serves the West Palm Beach Weed
and Seed area, a residential neighborhood on the outskirts of downtown
struggling with a high crime rate. Although West Palm Beach is less than 1 mile
from Palm Beach, one of the most affluent cities in the country, 41 percent of
the neighborhood's 5,360 residents live in poverty and the unemployment rate
stands at 20 percent. The physical characteristics of the community are striking:
deteriorated houses and businesses, vacant lots with discarded mattresses and
piles of trash, and litter strewn throughout the streets, sidewalks, yards, and
parks. No new businesses have opened in the area, and few new houses have
been built in recent years. 

Police were frustrated with the epidemic of quality-of-life offenses in the area
and the limited consequences imposed following an arrest. Seeking a
community-based approach, the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice
Commission, the chief of police, and the local prosecutor began planning a
community court. 

The West Palm Beach Community Court handles nonviolent misdemeanors.
Defendants are scheduled to appear before Judge Barry M. Cohen 4 to 10
days after receiving a police citation. Cases of defendants pleading guilty stay in
community court; cases headed to trial are adjourned to the downtown court.

Court planners surveyed area residents and created a community advisory
panel to set priorities for community service. "We found that the community
wanted to get cleaned up first--that trash and litter were by the far the top
concern--so we focused on that," said Tom Becht, coordinator of the court.

The community court offers social services onsite, including employment
counseling, education programs, and case management. Because so many of its
clients are indigent, the court provides transportation services to and from job
interviews and social service appointments for defendants and resident
nonoffenders alike.

The court coordinates closely with community policing efforts. Local police
allocated Local Law Enforcement Block Grants funds to increase bike patrol
officers in the court's catchment area. These community-focused officers often
bring residents in need of services to the court, sometimes as an alternative to
arresting them. 

The court is also developing a community service project in partnership with the
police department that enforces the housing code. Soon, community service
crews from the court will be available to restore and repair the property of
property owners who are not in compliance with the housing code.

Downtown Austin Community Court, Austin, Texas

In 1997, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle called for the creation of
a community court to help clean up downtown Austin. With a high
concentration of restaurants, nightclubs, and bars, the 7-square-mile area was a
magnet for disorder, public drinking, underage drinking, and homelessness. 

Demonstrating that the traditional municipal court was in many ways a revolving
door, a survey conducted by court planners found that 55 percent of those
arrested for disorderly conduct had been arrested before. The planners also
found that more than 56 percent of those committing quality-of-life offenses
reported suffering from chemical dependency. Community court planners
sought to do something different: use community service as a sanction for low-
level offenses, respond to repeat offenses with graduated sanctions, and use
social services sanctions to address underlying problems such as drug
addiction.

Mayor Kirk Watson and Austin's well-organized business community rallied
around the idea of a community court, and the project gained support from
community residents, service providers, and the city council. Supporters
believed that the court would help enforce standards of behavior and ensure
that the downtown area remained safe, clean, and inviting. They also thought
the court would promote confidence in the justice system.

Since opening, the court has operated in a room in the Austin Municipal Court
complex, with staff setting up offices in the gallery of the court. The court has
adjudicated more than 4,000 cases in its first 7 months.

Judge Elisabeth Earle says the goals of the court are to stop the revolving door
for low-level offenders and to resolve cases quickly. A sentence of "time
served" is never a punishment option. Sentences in most cases are carried out
immediately and warrants are served within hours, not days, of their issuance. 

The judge can craft a sentence using a variety of tools. She can require the
defendant to pay back the neighborhood by performing community service.
Also, working with the resource coordinator, she can craft rehabilitative plans
that include a range of social services such as acupuncture detoxification, peer
counseling, day and residential treatment for substance abuse, and mental health
counseling. The community court helps offenders reenter the work force in
collaboration with partnering agencies. Social services are coordinated by
court-based social workers.

Frayser Community Court, Memphis, Tennessee

The Frayser Community Court catchment area, the West Frayser
neighborhood of Memphis, was once home to two large manufacturing plants
and an active blue-collar work force. When these plants closed in the mid-
1980s, many workers left and the neighborhood declined. Housing prices
dropped, small businesses closed, and the unemployment rate surged. The area
became a magnet for gangs and drugs. 

Leaders of the Memphis community formed the Memphis/Shelby County
Crime Commission, which recommended creating a community court as a way
to integrate active enforcement practices of the Memphis Police Department's
community policing initiatives, community prosecution, and the court. The
multijurisdictional community court, which opened in February 2000, operates
out of a storefront in a local shopping mall, and the two judges handle both
criminal misdemeanors and environmental ordinance violations.

Misdemeanor cases in the Frayser catchment area, such as low-level drug
possession, disorderly conduct, reckless driving, criminal trespass, public
intoxication, and other alcohol-related violations, are referred to community
court. 

The court also has jurisdiction over city and county ordinance violations,
reflecting community residents' concerns about neglected and abandoned
property. Eight police officers assigned to the Todd's Creek CO-ACT Unit (a
subprecinct within the catchment area) look for code violations, especially those
involving properties with junk cars, tires, and other debris. Usually, the judge
orders the property cleaned up by a certain date. If violators fail to comply with
the order, the judge may apply "injunctive relief," including jail sentences and
fines. If owners clean up the property and sign a court order stating that they
agree to remain in compliance, charges are dismissed. To date, approximately
100 derelict and neglected properties have been cleaned up, according to
Prosecutor Bart Dickinson.

Dickinson, who prosecutes both misdemeanors and code violations, reports
that the juvenile court delinquency cases from the area are processed in
conjunction with juvenile court, and eviction actions are adjudicated under the
district attorney's Drug Dealer Eviction Program.

Chris Kirby of Shelby County Pretrial Services coordinates all community
service projects at the court and serves as a liaison with service providers.

Atlanta Community Court, Atlanta, Georgia 

The Atlanta business community, worried that quality-of-life crimes were
scaring away shoppers and tourists, pushed for the creation of the Atlanta
Community Court. The city's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, composed
of criminal justice leaders, elected officials, and government agencies, worked
with the downtown improvement district, Central Atlanta Progress, to develop
the Atlanta Community Court as a separate calendar that operates within
Municipal Court Judge Bill Riley's general session.

Although the court serves the entire city, which has a population of
approximately 440,000, Judge Riley is working to make justice more visible
and more relevant to Atlanta's neighborhoods through the use of community
service. The judge keeps abreast of community concerns and neighborhood hot
spots by attending community meetings and building relationships with
community members. The deployment of community court defendants
performing community service to neighborhoods suffering from quality-of-life
crime strengthens the link between the court and Atlanta's neighborhoods. 

Defendants are eligible for community court if they have been arrested or
received a summons for a selected misdemeanor or violation in the city of
Atlanta. Prior to arraignment, staff from the corrections department assess a
defendant's social service needs and make a sentencing recommendation to the
judge. The court uses mandated long-term drug treatment to address a
defendant's underlying substance abuse issues. 

The court is working with the Pardon and Parole Board to create reparative
boards in the neighborhoods of Mechanicsville, a Weed and Seed site, and Old
Fourth Ward, an Empowerment Zone. Judge Riley refers defendants who live
in those neighborhoods to the boards as a sanction.

Red Hook Community Justice Center, Brooklyn, New York

Operating in the heart of a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood, the Red Hook
Community Justice Center has allowed judges to transform their responses to
the people who appear before the court. At Red Hook, a single judge hears
neighborhood cases that ordinarily are heard in three different courts--civil,
family, and criminal. This model did not emerge by accident. Justice center
planners felt that the problems faced by families and individuals do not conform
to jurisdictional boundaries. By having a single judge handle matters traditionally
heard by different decisionmakers at different locations, the justice center offers
a swift and coordinated judicial response. 

The Red Hook judge has an array of sanctions and services available, including
community restitution projects, onsite job training, drug treatment, and health
counseling--all of which are rigorously monitored to ensure accountability and
to encourage individual responsibility. Court staff supervise offenders
performing community service, and state-of-the-art technology helps the judge
monitor compliance. 

In addition, the courthouse is the hub of programs that engage local residents in
"doing justice." These programs include mediation, community service projects
that put local volunteers to work repairing conditions of disorder, and a youth
court where teenagers resolve actual cases involving their peers. Through these
initiatives, Red Hook seeks to engage the community in aggressive crime
prevention. Planners see this strategy working in two ways: by solving local
problems before they become a court problem and by helping knit together the
fabric of the neighborhood.

By using its coercive power to link defendants to drug treatment and by
providing onsite services like domestic violence counseling, health care, and job
training, Red Hook seeks to strengthen families and help individuals avoid
further involvement with the court system. Services are not limited to court
users but are available to anyone in the community who needs help. 

The Red Hook Community Justice Center is housed in a former parochial high
school, a site selected by community members. New York City financed the
cost of renovating the long-vacant building.

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

IV. Conclusion

Community court planners across the country are motivated by different
concerns. In Portland, the community court program was a natural outgrowth of
the neighborhood prosecutor program. Having succeeded in bringing the justice
system closer to the problem, Multnomah County District Attorney Michael
Shrunk concluded that the best extension of this effort involved the courts. 

Portland is pursuing a model in which community prosecution and community
courts will serve the entire city. In this model, neighborhood district attorneys
and com-munity courts will focus on the low-level matters that shape the quality
of life of all city residents.

In West Palm Beach, Florida, the initiative for a community court grew out of
justice system practitioners' frustration with the traditional model. Looking for
new approaches, the local crime commission embraced the community court
concept as a way to focus their efforts in a neighborhood with chronic public
safety concerns.

In Hartford, Connecticut, the community court emerged from a process
designed to solicit greater community involvement in setting law enforcement
priorities. Law enforcement and the courts had focused on major crimes for
several years, and community members wanted to focus attention on less
serious, and far more frequent, quality-of-life crimes.

These differences in focus highlight that while our nation's first generation of
community courts seek common goals--imposing immediate, meaningful
sanctions on offenders and forming genuine problem-solving partnerships with
the neighborhoods they serve--they are most effective when responding to the
unique concerns of individual communities.

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

V. Resources on Community Justice

Publications discussing innovative community justice initiatives, including those
listed below, are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS). Call 1-800-851-3420 or e-mail NCJRS at askncjrs@ncjrs.org.
Many NCJRS publications also may be viewed online at the Justice Information
Center World Wide Web site at www.ncjrs.org.

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

"Community Courts: Prospects and Limits." National Institute of Justice Journal.
August 1996. NCJ 175939.

Improving State and Local Criminal Justice Systems: A Report on How Public
Defenders, Prosecutors, and Other Criminal Justice System Practitioners Are
Collaborating Across the Country. Monograph. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Assistance. 1998. NCJ 173391. 

In New York City, a "Community Court" and a New Legal Culture: Program
Description. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 1996. NCJ
158613.

Innovative Court Programs: Results From State and Local Program
Workshops. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association
(JRSA). 1995. Available from JRSA by calling 202-842-9330. 

Key Elements of Successful Adjudication Partnerships. Bulletin. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1999. NCJ 173949.

Opening the Courts to the Community: Volunteers in Wisconsin's Courts.
Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2000. NCJ 178935.

Overcoming Obstacles to Community Courts: A Summary of Workshop
Proceedings. Monograph. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
1998. NCJ 173400.

Responding to the Community: Principles for Planning and Creating a
Community Court. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
1997. NCJ 166821.

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

VI. For More Information

The Center for Court Innovation functions as the New York State Unified
Court System's independent research and development arm, creating
demonstration projects that test new approaches to problems like addiction,
family dysfunction, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence.

CCI's community justice projects include the Midtown Community Court, the
Red Hook Community Justice Center, and the Harlem Community Justice
Center. With the support of the U.S. Department of Justice, CCI encourages
courts across the country to solve problems locally and to build stronger links
with communities. CCI also provides hands-on assistance to jurisdictions that
are exploring topics of court and justice system reform, including community
justice and drug court technology.

For more information about community court initiatives, contact: 

Center for Court Innovation
Bridget Regan
520 Eighth Avenue
18th Floor
New York, NY 10018
212-397-3050
E-mail: info@courtinnovation.org.
World Wide Web: 
www.courtinnovation.org

For more information about BJA programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-6278
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]