DEVELOPING AN

EVALUATION PLAN FOR

COMMUNITY COURTS

ASSESSING THE HARTFORD

COMMUNITY COURT MODEL

C OMMUNITY J USTICE S ERI

DEVELOPING AN

EVALUATION PLAN FOR

COMMUNITY COURTS

ASSESSING THE HARTFORD

COMMUNITY COURT MODEL

Monograph
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 Crime and Justice Research Institute 

number 1999–DD–BX–K008, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Of

Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or 

tions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

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, 

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juve

and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
DEVELOPING AN

EVALUATION PLAN FOR

COMMUNITY COURTS

ASSESSING THE HARTFORD

COMMUNITY COURT MODEL

July 2001

NCJ 185689

By John S. Goldkamp, Doris Weiland, and Cheryl Irons-Guynn

of the Crime and Justice Research Institute
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Midtown Community Court Prototype. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

II. Development of the Hartford Community Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 

III. Key Elements of the Hartford Community Court Model . . . . . . 

Target Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Target Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Target Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Court Processing Focus and Adaptations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Identifying, Screening, and Enrolling Participants. . . . . . . . . 

Dispositional Options and the Structure and Content 

of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Community Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Extent of Systemwide Support and Participation . . . . . . . . . 

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Assessing Implementation-Related Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 

Assessing the Early-Stage Impact of the Hartford Communit

Court: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 

VI. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

VII. Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

VIII. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

. toducto

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 not

Hartford, Connecticut.

The Hartford Community 

opened in 1998 and, as one 

first post-Midtown communi

courts, represents a test of t

transferability of the commu

court model to more “typica

American settings. This mon

describes Hartford’s adaptat

the model and outlines an e

tion plan for assessing its pr

and impact. The evaluation 

provides a means for measu

progress of the Hartford Com

Court in meeting its ambitio

objectives. It also offers a fra

work for evaluating adaptati

of the model that will have b

application as other jurisdict

recognize the need to assess 

newly formed community co

initiatives.

The Midtown Commu

Court Prototype

The nation’s first commun

court opened in midtown Ma

in October 1993 after 2 yea

planning. The Midtown Com

Court was the product of a c

ration among a large numbe

partners, including the Fund 

City of New York, the New Y

State Unified Court System, 

representatives of the busine

and residential communities 
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, qualityof-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 

graffiti, prostitution, littering, 

drinking, public urination, ex

noise, and a host of other “n

sance” offenses as potentiall

ous and by no means “victim

crimes because they have de

tal effects on the neighborho

business districts. Built on th

that these offenses, left unch

create negative perceptions 

attractiveness and safety of p

lar areas, as well as an impre

of tolerance for disorder that 

invite more serious crime, th

Midtown strategy targeted th

kinds of crimes.3

Some of the priorities iden

by the Manhattan prototype 

appealed to other jurisdiction

included the need for a tangi

response to communities aff

by crime, the need to restore 

credibility of the justice syste

among both the public and o

ers, the need to provide com

members with regular access 

the justice process, and the n

reduce the behaviors contrib

to these problems in targeted 

borhoods by providing acces

broad range of social service

both offenders and law-abidi

community residents. Assign

of community service as san

for cases processed by the c

nity court provided visible ev

of the court’s response to co

nity crime problems and dire

compensation to the commu

for some of the harm suffere

low-level crime. Community 

2
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

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

impact, and community mem

know that when they report 

offenses, action will be taken

justice system becomes mor

ble to offenders and law-abid

izens alike, as well as more v

accessible, and accountable 

citizens.

The Midtown strategy also 

tates access to a range of so

services to help offenders ad

problems that contribute to t

criminal behavior, including 

and/or alcohol addiction, me

ness or disability, homelessn

lack of basic education or jo

or, in the case of young offen

lack of parental supervision 

bined with a lack of positive 

and guidance. The Midtown 

provides onsite services such 

English as a Second Langua

general equivalency diploma 

es, basic health screening, A

HIV awareness programs, vo

and employment counseling

facilitated access to a netwo

drug, alcohol, and mental he

treatment providers. The ser

are also available to the surr

community.
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 drugrelated 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 Act4 to

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

. Deveopet ote at

Community Court

reduce the gang problem, H

then turned its attention to th

lenge of finding a way to add

quality-of-life issues that pla

the city’s neighborhoods.

In exploring different strate

Palmer learned of the comm

court approach piloted by th

town Community Court. The 

cept appeared to have poten

for addressing Hartford’s qua

life concerns and was propo

to Hartford State’s Attorney 

Thomas and other justice an

nicipal agency heads. In Oct

1996, a multiagency group i

ing Palmer, the city manage

chief of police, the state’s at

and the director of the Office 

Alternative Sanctions visited 

Midtown court and were enc

aged by what they learned. A 

ing group representing key c

justice agencies was assemb

begin planning for a commu

court in Hartford.

The community court con

represented a major challeng

the Connecticut judicial syst

which was fairly traditional in 

of its functions. One of the m

ficult initial tasks for the plan

was promoting the view that 

community court should be 

rate entity with distinct opera
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 reside

additional incentive to focus 

crime and safety issues. Inte

ingly, although 5 of the city’s 

homicides occurred in one n

borhood that year, its residen

ertheless argued that prostitu

drug dealing, and nuisance o

were the issues they wanted 

dressed by the city and the p

They, like residents of other 

borhoods, viewed the establi

of the community court as p

multipronged strategy to dea

these problems and make the

neighborhoods more livable.

Originally scheduled to op

early in 1998, the Hartford C

munity Court’s debut was de

because of the extensive ren

of the building selected as its 

tion. According to officials, t

tra planning time was put to 

use refining operational deta

completing work on the infor

system. When the court ope

November 10, 1998, it had a 

and effective operational pla

66
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:

• 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.

• 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.

y 

Community Court Model 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

• Target populations. Depe

on the highest priority pro

and the locations selected 

community court strategi

courts also differ in the sp

types of offenders and/or 

they will process.

• Court processing focus a

adaptations. Community 

differ in structure to deal 

cases over which they ha

diction, whether as a spe

endar of the regular crim

court calendar, a special 

the criminal court located 

same courthouse, or a se

unit located closer to the 

ed geographic locations w

identity distinct from the 

court system. Different ar

ments for the processing 

position of community co

cases are related to the d

structural arrangements t

characterize community c

• Identifying, screening, an

enrolling participants. Co

nity courts differ in the w

obtain their caseloads, ra

from formal diversion and 

signment of all minor ma

from the larger caseload, 

cial arrangements with po

and other screening agen

How defendants are proc
into the court and are screened

for services and recommended

for particular sanctions also differ

across the country.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 c

sumed in the process.

• Extent of systemwide sup

and participation. Buildin

the collaborative model o

courts, community courts 

in the extent to which they 

sent a cooperative effort o

variety of agencies, includ

only the obvious criminal 

partners but also health, t

ment, and other governm

social service agencies. S

from allied agencies deter

the extent to which the co

nity court is integrated into 

justice system and the com

Hartford Community Cour

ners knew they needed to ad

Midtown model to meet the s

challenges of Hartford neighb

hoods. Like other community 

the Hartford model represent

working relationships among 

court, other criminal justice 

cies, social service agencies

the community. Other key in

ents of the Hartford model in

the interior architecture of th

(designed with the flow of co

business in mind), the availa

in-house social services, the 

ence of state and city social 

vices representatives onsite, 

of community service sancti

and the initial and ongoing c

tion to the community. One o

most compelling features of 

Hartford model—making it s

out from other versions of th

munity court—is its incorpor

of the concept of community 

8
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

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 m

size, with a population of abo

130,000 inhabitants, and an 

that the planners believed co

served by a single, centrally 

court. The citywide approach 

necessitated by the already s

organization and mobilization 

Hartford’s 17 neighborhoods 

CCP effort, started in 1995. 

focus on one or some of the 

borhoods would have appea

breach of trust with others an

raised serious political proble

the community court. In ado

this more inclusive approach

Hartford target area neverthe

incorporated a population ba

smaller than that of the Midt

court.

The decision to include all 

Hartford’s neighborhoods me

that the court must serve 17 

borhoods distinct from one a

in their racial, ethnic, and so

nomic composition. This cre

dynamic more complex than 

courts serving more homoge

target areas. As a matter of 

the community court leaders 

volved each neighborhood in 

planning from the start, in w

cials describe as a grassroot

and the neighborhoods have 

tained their active participati

This direct connection betwe

Hartford Community Court a

community leaders has ensu

responding to the concerns o

different neighborhoods is ce

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 cour

Hartford has accomplished t

through an inclusive process 

builds in a role for the comm

in a real and practical way, a

through careful design of the 

house space that creates an 

phere that is open and welco

and processes that are comp

sible, respectful, and accessi

Thus, although the scope of 

get area is ambitious and ch

ing for the court, the medium 

geographic layout, and make

the city appear to make such 

approach feasible.

Target Populations

The Hartford Community 

processes cases of defendan

wide range of nonviolent pub

sance complaints (ordinance 

tions) and misdemeanor offe

that are not eligible for other 

cialty courts. These cases in

public drinking, underage dr

disorderly conduct, excessiv

prostitution, solicitation, loite

trespassing, littering, illegal 

bling, larceny, and graffiti. A

ing to the court’s estimates, 

involvement is high among o

ers who commit the targeted

offenses. Statistics maintain

the court’s social services te

indicate that about 60 perce

the court’s caseload involve

including most theft cases a

percent of prostitution cases

have their cases heard in co

ty court, offenders must be 

16 years of age (the age at w

juveniles are treated as adul

10
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 o

types of cases it could hear a

sanctions it could impose, w

view toward creating a mode

Hartford that could be emula

in other locations in the state

Hartford City Council design

specific categories of ordinan

violations as community cou

ble.13 Except in instances in 

defendant chooses to go to t

in Superior Court, the comm

court’s jurisdiction in these t

of cases is not negotiable, as 

may be in many community 

such as Midtown where the p

cutor may determine which c

are eligible. 

The Hartford Community C

is primarily a plea court, alth

it heard up to 10 contested c

during its first 18 months, us

involving a municipal ordina

violation and always resultin

bench trial. Most defendants 

in court without a lawyer (wh

sometimes raises due proces

cerns and defendants occasi

alleging coercion), although 

public defender is on hand to 

vide legal counsel.

Offenders charged with co

nity-court-eligible offenses m

issued a summons or arreste

clerk’s office receives police 

and compiles other relevant 

mation for the court as soon 

arrest occurs. About 80 perc

issued summonses to appea

2 court business days. When 

summons is issued, the polic

an immediate check for outs
12

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 lockup 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 expungem

their arrest records. They are 

required to return to court fo

dismissal of their cases. This 

is a benefit for defendants an

tates movement of the casel

within the court. Drug cases

to first-time simple possessio

marijuana of less than 4 oun

not dismissed.

Regardless of their case ou

the court maintains a list of a

ticipants. With the exception 

cases, defendants rearrested 

gible charges are allowed to 

to community court as long 

is continuing need and oppo

for social intervention. The c

expects a certain amount of 

vism and views it as an oppo

for further intervention. The 

takes a harder stance on pur

criminal repeat offending and

repeated FTAs, often requirin

tional community service ho

and/or jail time for subseque

offenses. Defendants charge

simple possession of marijua

receive only one community 

disposition. Subsequent drug 

are referred to the regular co

Physical Setting 

Hartford planners believed 

the court needed to be a phy

separate entity and facility, d

to facilitate the court process

though the court uses a netw

community-based social ser

providers, planners believed 

as far as possible, a commun

court should provide social s

onsite and create an atmosp
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 maxim

flexibility (for use as a stand

courtroom if the need should 

arise).

The building provides 54,0

square feet of space. The up

level houses the bail commis

ers, community court, housin

court, public defender’s offic

human services. The lower le

houses judicial and administ

offices. The proximity of the 

lar” court across the street s

a visual reminder to offender

other alternatives. Not surpri

most defendants seem to pre

community court option. Alt

sharing the space with the ho

session required some desig

cessions in terms of traffic fl

the building, the layout neve

effectively mirrors and facilit

movement of defendants thro

the court process. The buildi

well appointed and the atmo

is orderly and pleasant, a vis

affirmation of the belief that 

community court should trea

“clients” and community me

who come to participate in t

process with dignity and resp

Identifying, Screening, 

Enrolling Participants

Hartford Community Court 

dants pass through a 5-step 

usually completed in 1 day, w

is described below and illustr

in figure 1. (An entire episod

community court involvemen

summons or arrest through d

missal takes 30 to 45 days, 
14

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 b

to review the cases on the do

and discusses with defendan

specifics of their cases, the r

ments of participation in the 

(i.e., a guilty or conditional g

plea and a community servic

tence), and whether or not th

willing to enter a plea in exc

for subsequent dismissal of t

case.

Appearance before the jud

The judge takes the bench a

10 a.m with defendants seat

the courtroom. The court ma

five dockets: an arraignment 

et, an 8 a.m. regular (or com

service) docket, a 10 a.m. re

docket, a disposition docket

a Prostitution Protocol docke

arraignment docket includes 

appearances for defendants 

have received summonses to

appear within 48 hours of th

arrest (the “A” list), or who h

been taken into custody (the 

list). The 8 a.m. regular dock

sists of defendants required t

appear at that time to carry 

their community service assi

ments. The 10 a.m. regular d

consists of defendants whose 

have been continued for any 

variety of reasons, including

an immediate need for socia

vices prior to court appearan

an attempt to resolve an issu

through mediation. Defendan

have been unsuccessful in m

tion are scheduled for a retu

to court on the regular docke

receive standard community 

sentences.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

Figure 1

Hartford Community Court Process

Arrest

Hartford police issu

summons to appea

within 48 hours

Bail Commissioner

Interview

Standard pretrial 

interview with adde

biopsychosocial 

component

Negotiations 

With Prosecutor

Guilty or 

Alford Plea

Appearance 

Before Judge A

Social Services

Dismissal

Mediation GA14 Superior 

Court Trial

Community

Service

Successful Neighborhood 

Sanction 

Committees

Yes No

A

Yes

No

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 

reached. Defendants who hav

ous issues involving stability 

ty to understand what is goin

are referred to social services

their hearings are continued. 

agreement has been reached

read into the record and the p

cutor presents a statement o
16

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 se

he is required to serve, the d

time that the service is to be 

formed, and that he should a

appropriately dressed to work

defendant is also informed th

charges will be dismissed wh

service has been completed 

satisfactory manner and give

date when this should happe

defendant is then told that he 

not appear in court to have h

charges dismissed.

Defendants who are bellige

disruptive during their interv

the prosecutor are heard late

schedule so they have an op

nity to calm down and obser

happens to other defendants 

similar cases. During one co

sion, a defendant charged w

ing his car stereo too loudly, 

violation of the local ordinan

on the docket. He had been 

loud in protesting his innoce

disparaging of the court and 

ceedings, and refusing to do 

munity service. His case was 

toward the end of the docket 

several similar cases had bee

and disposed of with a plea a

community service. The judg

told that this defendant want

trial, so he was given time to 

sult with the public defender

tigator. When he returned to 

the defendant elected to ente

Alford plea and do communi

vice, continuing to complain

although not as loudly as be

that it was unfair that the jud

believed the police officer’s v

of the facts instead of his.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 

requirements of service. In m

cases, work assignments are 

on the day the defendant app

for service.

Court operations are facilit

an integrated MIS that was d

for the court by Frank DeLuc

has been in use since the op

day.17 The system imports cl

data from the state bail com

application and adds the res

the human services interview

munity service notes, and ot

indicators of the defendant’s 

mance. The application has 

munity service job bank and 

track community service ass

ments and compliance.18 The 

and key court personnel hav

and access and the commun

provide online information o

ditions in their neighborhood

addition to tracking commun

vice outcomes, the applicatio

now being used to follow up 

social services referrals.

Dispositional Options 

the Structure and Con

of Services

The Hartford Community C

places a priority on providing 

services to defendants, or at 

trying to link them to service

can pursue after their comm

court experience. Unless refe

directly to drug or other heal

services or found ineligible o

terested in community court 

prefer to face trial on the cha

most defendants are sentenc
18

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 

form community service. Cre

arrive at their designated wo

at 9 a.m. and work until 11 a

They are returned to the cou

for lunch and group counseli

vided by the court, then trans

back to the work site. Project

usually completed by 2 p.m.

defendants are returned to c

Crew supervisors are from th

neighborhoods. All tools are 

plied by the court. Once a p

completed, a sign is put up a

for 4 days identifying the loc

a community court service s

warning passersby that if the

they may be on the next cre

Reports vary as to the effica

these signs—some residents 

that they keep litter down for 

days they are in place, while 

say that the litter merely acc

lates around them.

There are currently approx

180 community service proje

in the court computer for the 

neighborhoods that make up 

city of Hartford; with few exc

tions, these are court-run pro

Below is a breakdown of the 

of community service sites by 

neighborhood:

• Northeast—54

• Frog Hollow—42

• Asylum Hill—40

• Barry Square—40

• Clay Arsenal—40

• Behind the Rocks—39

• Upper Albany—36

• Downtown—25

• Sheldon/Charter Oak—20
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

• South Green—16

• North Meadows—14

• South End—14

• Blue Hills—13

• Parkville—7

• West End—6

• South Meadows—5

• 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 b

in question will not be tolera

Anecdotal information on 

munity service suggests a po

response by both participant

community residents. Neighb

residents are so appreciative 

they will sometimes join the 

effort. Some participants, pa

larly young adults, talk abou

ing themselves doing things 

others that they have never e

done for themselves or their 

lies. Many derive a degree of 

faction and some actually fe

they are doing volunteer wor

standing work assignment, d

ing food to the homeless and 

needy for Food Share, a loca

bank, was reported as bringi

ticipants particular satisfactio

Despite the good feelings, ho

the consensus of the Sanctio

Committee is that for most p

pants, public service in a bri

blue vest emblazoned with th

logo is a humiliation they are 

eager to experience again an

deterrent to repeating the sa

acts.

The Prostitution Protoco

Defendants arrested for pr

tion and without extensive cr

histories or prior FTAs may b

ble for the Prostitution Protoc

program of intensive counse

and education designed to sh

women involved in prostituti

alternatives exist. Women wh

ticipate in the program atten
20

series of five weekly training sessions covering topics such as physical and emotional care, stress

reduction and avoidance, selfesteem, 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 th

agencies to reach persons at 

risk for STDs. It is based on 

in other cities that has shown

that screening in nonclinical, 

community-based settings is 

effective STD prevention stra

The primary target populatio

the program are persons cha

with solicitation, prostitutes w

have not already been incarc

and tested by the corrections

department, and defendants 

charges of other sexually rel

crimes or fact patterns. A se

target population who may b

untarily referred for testing in

defendants exhibiting pattern

substance abuse problems, e

cially men and women unde

defendants who may be con

at risk because of the fact pa

of their cases; and defendant

ommended for testing by the

Hartford Community Court s

services staff. Defendants wh

positive for STDs receive tre

from the City of Hartford Hea

Department. The court hope

expand the program and ma

integral part of the Prostitutio

Protocol as well as of an edu

program for defendants char

with solicitation of prostitutes

The first group of defendan

sent for testing on June 29, 

followed by a second group 

20, and after that on alternat

Thursdays. Defendants are t

ported directly from court to 

health department for testing

given transit fare to return ho
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 Participation

is 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 ju

impose a regular community 

sanction on the disputing pa

According to the court’s stat

about 365 cases a year go th

this process, with a success 

approximately 65 percent.21

Essays

The essay, a sanction devi

the court with Hartford’s stud

population in mind, is assign

marily to students charged w

underage drinking and public 

der. Students from local colle

universities, and high school

often required to write essay

their behavior and sometime

of apology to neighborhoods 

viduals affected by their acti

Followup by the court may i

contact with parents and/or 

officials advising them of the 

tion and the reasons for it. T

sanction has yielded some th

ful essays, recently compiled 

analyzed for the court.22 Abo

two-thirds of the 132 essays 

lyzed were by students of on

university, 9 percent were by 

dents of a local college, and 

cent were by other students 

Hartford citizens. Topic areas 

fied included remorse, lesson

learned from the experience, 

fairness of the punishment, a

the quality of the program. O

university and college group

half to two-thirds expressed r

in their essays, and the majo

and 83 percent, respectively) 

that the experience had taug

a valuable lesson. Few expre
22

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 provide

onsite—the City of Hartford H

Services Department, the St

partment of Social Services, 

State Department of Mental 

and Addiction Services (DMH

are the same agencies that s

clients from large downtown 

but in the community court s

they are able to deliver these 

vices more efficiently, in a m

sonal, client-friendly environm

According to agency represen

the constellation of agencies 

court has been a significant 

For example, the State Depa

of Social Services is usually 

to arrange immediate activat

entitlements for its communi

clients, which in turn may en

DMHAS to access a wider ra

treatment resources and arra

clients to be placed in treatm

directly from court. The arra

ment also provides continuit

the client and avoids duplica

efforts by the agencies. Defe

who are already clients of th

social services system are ref

a state social services represe

Although a wide range of s

is available to defendants, th

has avoided imposing so ma

social services conditions tha

would make a defendant pro

failure. The belief is that the 

contact with the system that 

gle community court arrest p

is not sufficient to affect a m

change in a defendant’s life. 

theless, any social services t
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 da

to identify any defendants wh

had prior contacts related to 

health or substance abuse is

DMHAS staff interview all de

dants found in the DMHAS s

as well as any referred by th

staff, family members, or co

ty agencies to determine cur

treatment needs and arrange 

services. The unit conducts w

substance abuse education c

in English and Spanish for d

dants arrested on alcohol- or 

related charges.24 Approxima

percent of court defendants 

mental health services. Often

fendants with obvious or seri

issues are not required to pe

community service and are s

directly to social services.

The social services represe

tives who are placed in the c

nity court find that they are a

be more responsive to their c

than they might be at the ma

office, partly as a function of 

Defendants are treated with 

respect than they encounter 

impersonal environment of th

office. They are assisted in a

ing services that they may h

needed and been unable to g

their own. Often, these are in

als who have fallen through t

cracks of the social services 

tem, such as the homeless a

mentally ill who may not kno

they need help or where to g

The intent of the court is to k

these individuals out of jail b

ting them the assistance they 
24

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 

local newspaper, the Hartford

Courant, from late 1996 onw

shows the community court 

standing item on the agenda

most neighborhood associati

Neighborhood residents were 

in their anticipation of the co

the impact it would have on 

neighborhoods. They were e

vocal in expressing their con

over delays in the opening o

court.

Beyond the planning and i

mentation stages, neighborh

groups and residents have co

ued to be included in the fun

of the court. Formally, comm

involvement still involves CC

Community court representa

go to CCP meetings and CCP 

munity organization member

go to community court. Alth

the community organizations 

they cannot directly address 

more serious crimes such as 

cides, they now feel they can 

an immediate impact on qua

of-life matters.

Community residents are s

supporters of the court. They 

most directly affected by the 

the community court addres

they feel empowered becaus

have played a role in the stru

of the court. They have been 

which types of crime problem

most important to them, whic

of town have the most pressi

issues, what types of commu

services are needed, and wh
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 ci

ager, the city council, the De

ment of Information Services

the Department of Human S

From the Connecticut judicial 

the Office of Alternative Sanc

was involved from the early 

ning stages onward, as was t

Commission, whose two rep

tives in the courthouse are th

important first step in the co

process.

The willingness of the judg

assume a role that involves s

work as much as it does adm

ing justice is critical to the o

of a community court, as is 

ingness to be constantly und

lic scrutiny. Judge Norko, ap

early during the planning sta

accepted both aspects of the 

and immediately became de

immersed in the community

planning process.

Hartford’s Chief State’s Att

Jim Thomas was initially ske

but following a visit to the M

court, he became an enthusi

supporter of the community 

concept. He was a key playe

planning and his full “buy in” 

dent from the completely no

sarial role that the state’s pro

plays in the court process. G

Kaas, the assistant state’s at

who has served as prosecuto

the court opened, derives sa

tion from the nontraditional r

plays in the courtroom, “. . . 

much enforcing state statute

city ordinances as . . . seekin

compliance with contempora
26

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 cas

the court. 

A great deal of turmoil wit

the Hartford Police Departme

in recent months contributed 

reduced enforcement of qua

life crimes. The police chief 

several top administrators re

and permanent leadership ha

emerged to give the departm

direction. Additionally, an ind

dent evaluation of the Hartfo

Police Department covering 

aspect of its organization and 

tions engendered a great dea

controversy. One consequen

these difficulties was a reduc

community policing. For the 

part, the department reverte

a reactive, 911-driven opera

organized primarily to respon

service calls. 

These problems led to a re

in the numbers of police offic

serving the department as w

low morale. Although the red

in arrests produced a lower c

caseload in the system overa

impact was particularly felt b

community court. Without of

on the streets making arrests 

the types of low-level crimes 

ordinance violations that ente

community court, the numbe

community court cases were 

threatening the viability of th

vation. During the court’s 15

16th months of operation, th

reduction in cases became a

ingly apparent. 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 qualityof-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 carryin

or drugs because they fear b

caught with these when arres

on a minor matter such as lo

The officers also believe the 

munity service sanction is a 

deterrent for the types of offe

targeted by the court. They h

noted a particularly positive 

on open prostitution in some 

neighborhoods.

In May 2000, as part of a 

of-life enforcement action su

by a BJA Local Law Enforce

Block Grant and conducted b

Community Response Divisio

police officials met with the c

nity court team and commun

resentatives to identify qualit

problems and high-priority ta

areas or “hotspots” in each n

borhood. Those priority area

been reviewed periodically s

then and have been the focu

enforcement activity. During 

time, the community court h

a steady growth in the numb

cases it receives, leveling off 

expected peak levels, particu

the area of crimes identified 

dents and the court as vital f

enforcement: public drinking 

excessive noise.28
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

V. peetatoad Out

Goals in the Early-Stage Eval

of the Hartford Community 

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 

with the individual participan

offender, those having implic

for the larger court and/or la

justice system, and those inv

the community. So, for exam

the evaluation can ask how 

community court has identif

didates from its self-defined 

population and how effective

court process has screened 

pants for need and linked th

relevant services. The evalua

can also ask how well the co

has disposed of individual ca

in a way reflecting the aims 

the community court model

plementation-level questions 

focus on the volume of case

ing, case dispositions, referr

services, and the use of com

service in the context of reso

expended.

The community court app

was argued to have positive 

on the larger court and justic

tem. Thus, the evaluation wi

assess the extent to which p

mechanisms were actually p

place and the anticipated im

was achieved, for example, 

ing the extent to which case

actually transferred from tra

processing to the communit
Table 1

Measuring Community Court Objectives at the Implementation and Outcom

Stages by Type

Objective

Stage Individual/Offender Courts/Justice Commu

Implementation

30

Identify/enroll 

participants. 

Begin/modify new

process. 

Organize necessary

services. 

Deliver services to

participants. 

Dispose of cases.

Start community 

service. 

Monitor services

delivered. 

Monitor performance

of participants.

Deploy resources. 

Cooperation among

agencies. 

Enhance working

relationships.

Implement new service delivery system.

New problem-oriented

method. 

Accountability mechanism/information.

Enrolling caseload/

impact on larger 

system. 

Dispositions. 

Different sanctions.

Resources deployed.

Implement c

nity role. 

Improve com

access. 

Identify com

priorities. 

Services affe

community/

neighborhoo

Outcome Numbers enrolled.

Dispositions assigned.

Results of 

dispositions. 

Delivery of services.

Impact of services.

Performance in

court/supervision.

Followup of participants post-court.

Results per resources

used. 

Changes in expectations about offending. 

New working 

relationships.

Improved service

delivery. 

Improved arrests/

processing. 

Flow of cases/

volume. 

Impact on larger

courts/decreased 

volume. 

Impact of 

dispositions. 

Accountability

results. 

Impact on resources.

Different com

role. 

Community 

achieved. 

Results in ide

community p

Community 

satisfaction. 

Community 

service deliv

Neighborhoo

impacts. 

Changes in 

expectations 

courts/justic

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 p

identification and problem so

Given the centrality of “comm

in the community court mod

measuring the extent to whic

new working relationship wit

community has been put into 

tion and identifying the issue

problems associated with tha
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

process are critical implementation

subjects. 

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 as

ment of community service.

The extent to which the co

nity court enrolls its populati

might be considered an impo

implementation question. Th

of dispositions in those cases

vices delivered, and commun

vice assigned might be viewe

outcomes delivered by the co

At the individual level, outco

include whether or not arrest

attended court, the sentence

their cases, the services emp

the results of participation in 

vices, the requirements of th

tences fulfilled, and whether 

individuals reoffended. These 

comes could also be evaluat

the context of resources exp

Outcomes or impacts relat

the larger court and justice s

might be related to the numb

cases redirected from the tra

court caseload to the commu

court; the different dispositio

employed; the rates of comp

with fines, community servic

other sanctions; and the trea

provided and completed in v

physical and behavioral heal

that would not normally have 

the case. System impacts of 

tance might be effects on oth

agencies in the justice system

such as the role of the police

in the health or other social s

systems to determine whethe

cedures and outcomes have 

improved by the community 

approach.
32

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 

the jurisdiction of the court. 

evaluation will seek to meas

these kinds of tangible impa

posited by the community c

model.

Finally, the community co

model has another importan

community-level objective th

much harder to measure, na

greater access to and satisfa

with court and justice proces

the community. Improved ac

the courts, receptiveness by 

personnel, and user satisfact

with the community court ex

ence are all difficult outcome

measure. However, perhaps 

most challenging outcomes 

changed attitudes of commu

toward the justice system an

perceptions about the quality 

in their neighborhoods. 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

V. vauatoDesg: 

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 ImplementationRelated 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 implementationstage objectives can provide useful

feedback for making adjustments

to improve performance. 

Table 2 organizes the prop

data collection plan for the e

stage evaluation of the Hartf

Community Court according 

implementation and outcom

evaluation questions. The fir

tion (table 2a) suggests sev

ferent data collection approa

designed to measure progre

court has made in implemen

strategy.

1. Descriptive History of 

Hartford Community Co

An important early evalua

task will be to compile a his

the planning, development, 

implementation of the Hartfo

Community Court. This task 

involve assembling available 

mentation, grant application

meeting minutes, and other 

materials, as well as conduc

interviews with relevant acto

the process. The aim of this 

scriptive task is to create a r

of the kinds of issues addres

the ways in which the Midto

model was adapted to meet 

needs of the Hartford setting

Obstacles to implementation 

particular interest as are sol

to difficult problems that the 

mentation process encounte
IMPLEMENTATION ORIENTED

Evaluation Focus Data/Sample Source Research Pu

34

Table 2a

Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court: Summary of Proposed Samp

and Data Collection Strategies: Implementation

Court, related 

agencies.

Interview/

documents.

Overview of th

development a

implementatio

the communit

Emphasis on 

pal goals, issu

obstacles enco

tered, solution

Summary of H

model.

1. History: planning/implementation of community

court, including role

of community.

Hartford Police

Department.

Aggregate arrest/

call for service/

summons/citation

data showing trends

for targeted types 

of offenses, by

neighborhood/

location.

Provide backg

showing exten

which targeted 

es were dealt 

police before 

during commu

court, by neig

hood locations

Identify any ch

in police pract

by neighborho

2. Context: arrest

patterns before

and during community court 

operation.

Judicial system

data.

Aggregate court

caseload data for

targeted types of

cases before and

during first 2 years

of community court.

Matters received 

and disposed.

Aggregate ana

examining cas

volume, dispo

of types of cas

geted by com

court before a

ing operation.

Determine ext

which court ch

processing of 

cases.

Assess transfe

creation of cas

3. Volume/flow of

target cases into

court system

before and during

community court

operation. 

Police, judicial 

system.

Police and court system aggregate data.Measure the e

which the com

court engaged 

geted populat

4. Extent to which

community court

reached its target

population.
IMPLEMENTATION ORIENTED

Evaluation Focus Data/Sample Source Research Pu

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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. Theore

the community court strateg

pursued to respond to crime

problems affecting Hartford’s 

borhoods. Thus, the evaluati

will need to collect location-s

arrest, summons, and call-fo

service data reflecting the tw

ods of time to place court ef

Community court

records.

All community court

cases/aggregate.

More specific f

analysis of cas

processed in fi

years from arr

disposition. 

Illustrate opera

court, pinpoint 

issues.

Volume, types 

cases, disposit

(aggregate).

5. Flow/process

analysis of cases

entering community court for disposition.

Table 2a (continued)

Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court: Summary of Proposed Samp

and Data Collection Strategies: Implementation

Court, treatment,

other service and

justice agencies. 

Aggregate community court and related agency data

showing needs,

referrals, use of 

services.

Types of need

fied in commu

court processi

number of refe

made, service

and implicatio

Estimates of c

services emplo

6. Services delivered during first 2

years.

7. Analysis of

community court

workload.

Daily activities of

entire community

court operation

(beyond case disposition).

Daily courtroom

docket/dispositions.

Community court

data.

Description of 

ness done”

on a daily bas

time for 

a) entire opera

over time;

b) courtroom 

workday (kind

of matters hea

positions) ove
36

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 

way into the judicial system. 

second category of the unta

nuisance-offense caseload is 

cult to measure and may be

addressed in 2 above throug

neighborhood-specific analy

calls for service, arrests, and

summonses. 

The first category, nuisanc

entering the judicial system 

showing less than effective r

should be measurable. With 

cooperation of the judicial sy

researchers will need to obta

aggregate data showing the 

cessing of these matters in t

courts prior to the establishm

the community court. These 

will, on an aggregate level, p

a baseline of the state of affa

prior to the innovation. Thes

data for the period of the co

operation should reflect a nu

of changes, such as reductio

numbers, as jurisdiction was 

ferred to the community cou

These analyses will require c

erized aggregate data from t

judicial system reflecting the 

cessing and disposition of nu

cases. They will provide a fr

reference against which com

court processing of cases ca

compared. Thus, not only ca

determine whether the shift o

diction from the larger court 

has occurred, but also contr

disposition of the normal cou

tem cases with community c

dispositions, again on an ag
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 neighborho

neighborhood results, assum

data include location inform

5. Flow Analysis of the

Hartford Community Co

Process

Having placed the Hartford

Community Court in context 

neighborhood crime problem

police practices, and of the l

court caseload) in the data c

tion and analyses tasks 1 to 4 

the evaluation should next e

the cases entering the comm

court throughout its operatio

their dispositions. The focus 

analysis—which can be carr

with aggregate and individua

level data—is to consider the 

and volume of cases reachin

court and the manner in whi

are processed to conclusion

sense, the data for this task 

cases from the first day of th

court’s operation forward) w

employed to map the court’s

process and identify issues r

by the findings. Thus, flow a

will follow cases from arrest 

event that occurs in the com

court. On an aggregate leve

analysis will determine the n

and kinds of dispositions ass

with all cases entering the co

needs identified, services pro

and any other outcomes ava

court data.
38

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 

the community court do on 

average day?” This analysis 

to describe the average com

court day in the aggregate o

time in two ways: by looking 

activities on a typical day an

studying the court’s daily do

over time. Thus, this task re

aggregate data listing all eve

transactions reflecting “busin

done” that are recorded in th

nization on a given day as w

all dockets of the courtroom 

ing numbers and types of m

set and their dispositions. Th

two measures of daily workl

community court organizatio

community court courtroom

be tracked over time. Analys

focus on changes in the sub

of these workload measures 

time, which will reflect chang

the target population and in 

the court operates. The anal

may reveal, for example, gre

numbers of cases involving h

less or mentally ill persons, 

may raise issues for the cou

how to meet the new challen

Analysis of matters organize

neighborhood may show cha

raise issues reflecting chang

conditions in particular area

may provide useful informat

attending to the distinct need

the different neighborhoods. 

changes can then be discuss

light of the court’s original a

any resource implications. 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 supp

hypothesis that the commun

court leads to improvements 

agreed-upon areas. With the 

tion already in operation for 

the evaluation approach mus

back over the initial period o

tion and construct an after-th

comparison that permits fair 

sis of the impact of the comm

court in light of what would h

occurred without it. 

Although we would recom

an experimental design as b

most informative way to form 

necessary comparison, the r

spective nature of this evalu

precludes such an approach 

Hartford setting. Constructio

appropriate comparison grou

made more difficult because 

implementation of the court, 

cording to its design, may h

caused most of the targeted 

(arrests or summonses) to g

through the community cour

ing no target category cases 

to serve as a natural compa

group. The evaluation plan w

then, necessarily be required 

address questions of impact 

other comparative strategies

as contrasting the approach 

get offenses before and durin

the operation of the Hartford

Community Court, that will b

less rigorous but still informa

The choice of a final compa

framework will be made in c

tation with the Hartford Com

Court leaders (table 2b.)
40

8. Analysis of participant outcomes

over 2 years.

Random samples of

participants entering

court representing

different periods.

Community

court data, criminal history data,

social services

data.

Selective interviews, focus

groups with

participants.

More indepth 

tion of individ

entering and p

through comm

court, court 

dispositions.

Community s

performance.

Reoffending d

short followup

Social service

if available.

Prediction of 

outcomes.

Participant fee

through exit s

interviews, or 

groups.

Table 2b

Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court: Summary of Proposed Samp

and Data Collection Strategies: Outcomes

9. Analysis of participants outcomes

based on neighborhoods of arrest and 

residence.

Same as above. Same as above. Analysis of pa

pant data from 

perspective of 

borhoods.

Arrests of resi

locations of re

versus arrest.

Dispositions/c

nity service co

ed by neighbo

10. Analysis of

community service

delivery and

impact on 

neighborhoods.

Community court

data for all community service given,

type of work, numbers of persons, by

location/neighborhoods.

From community

court, supplemented by observation of sites,

photos of work

done. 

Looking at vo

use, location, 

nature of com

service produ

from the persp

of neighborho

context of crim

trends and co

ty court arrest

11. Perception of

community court

within neighborhoods served.

Survey (a costly

option) or focus

groups.

Neighborhood 

residents or 

organizations.

Focus groups 

senting neighb

hoods served 

at perceptions 

community co

and its utility 

impact.

OUTCOME ORIENTED

Evaluation Focus Data/Sample Source Research Pu
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

8. Analysis of Participant

Outcomes During the First

2 Years of Court Operation

Most of the evaluation tasks outlined so far have involved collection 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 indepth 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

stance abuse and health hist

and charged offenses. In add

data collection will track the 

for services identified in the i

process, the disposition of th

the performance of commun

vice or any other sanction as

and whether referrals to treat

services of any sort were ma

followed through by the part

The 6-month followup wou

chart whether persons were 

arrested and the location of 

rearrest, whether they return

community court, and wheth

used services to which they 

been referred. The followup 

track any other changes in s

relevant to the original comm

court matter and assessmen

needs. Data collection would

require access to criminal hi

community court screening, 

disposition, and, to the exten

sible, records of relevant ser

providing agencies. (All data 

be treated confidentially acc

to protocols acceptable to a

ticipating agencies and usua

research practice, so that no 

vidual could be identified in 

data.)

Assuming we have identifi

appropriate comparison grou

which to contrast the comm

court participants, analysis w

look in depth at the backgro

and problems of persons pro

by the court, examine how t

their cases were treated, and 

scribe their experiences duri
42

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 servic

the court (bearing in mind th

defendants do not necessari

mit their offenses in the neig

hoods where they reside). To 

extent that these individuals 

services that may improve t

lives and social functioning, 

court can have an impact on 

borhoods. Finally, the resear

look at the geographic distri

of community service projec

measure of the court’s impa

neighborhoods.

10. Analysis of Commun

Service Delivery to

Neighborhoods 

The use of community ser

should be an important focu

Hartford Community Court b

of the impact it can have on 

offenders and neighborhood

aggregate community court 

described above under evalu

tasks 5 and 6 can be used to 

the distribution of communit

vice. Community court reco

be used to show the kinds a

tribution of community servi

time and how neighborhood 

have been taken into consid

These analyses can be exam

more depth using the individ

data sets described in task 8

addition, observation of work 

in the neighborhoods, as we

photographic documentation

add depth to the analysis an

assessment of the use of com

nity service by the court.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 res

attitude survey data, it may 

informative to conduct focus 

in the principal neighborhoo

tap the feedback and opinio

residents in a less costly way

fact, this may be one of the 

ways to gather timely feedba

residents’ perceptions of the 

and its impact on specific lo
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

V. Cocuso

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 

purposes of discussion and c

ment. Clearly, a number of q

tions concerning emphasis, 

and data can only be answe

those most involved with the 

tion of the court.

Although the evaluation p

lined in this paper was speci

designed for the Hartford Co

munity Court, it was develop

the broader purpose of prov

model for the evaluation of c

nity court programs that will 

applicable to such initiatives 

nationwide.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

V. 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 S

Richard Curtis, David Rottman

Brian Ostrom, Dispensing Jus

Locally: The Implementation a

Effects of the Midtown Comm

Court, New York: Gordon and 

Publishing Group (2000); Dor

Weiland, John S. Goldkamp, a

Mark Collins, Facilitating Inno

in Community Justice: The Ro

Center for Court Innovation in 

Community Court Movement, 

and Justice Research Institute 

3. James Q. Wilson and Geor

Kelling, “Broken Windows,” T

Atlantic Monthly (March):29–

(1982).

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

1970).

5. Hartford Courant, “Commu

Court Passes Senate: Hartford 

Establish First of Its Kind in th

State,” p. A6, June 1, 1997, s

edition.

6. Hartford Courant, “City Cou

Favors Establishment of Com

Court,” p. B1, October 15, 19

edition 7 Hartford North Final

7. John S. Goldkamp, presen

Practitioners Institute: Commu

Court Coordinators Report on 

State of the Art, Austin, Texas

February 29, 2000.

8. Hartford Courant, “Opening 

for State’s First Community C
48

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 w

the court facility that both Rae 

Palmer and Judge Norko men

was the inadequacy of the loc

space for the numbers of in-cu

defendants that the court rece

15. According to Chief Court A

istrator Aaron Ment (Hartford 

“All Community Court Needs 

a Home,” p. B1, November 19

edition 7 Hartford North Final

16. Hartford Courant, “Jury S

on Court’s Opening: Delays A

Neighborhood Activists,” p. B

13, 1998, edition 7 Hartford N

Final.

17. The MIS is a Microsoft Acc

based system. The innovation 

the designer Second Place in t

Microsoft Windows World Ope

1999) in the Justice/Public Sa

category. Variations of this pro

are being implemented in the 

bury Community Court in Con

and in other courts across the 

States.

18. Hartford Community Cour

Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998

19. Chris Pleasanton provided 

the www.courtbuilders.org lists

July 5, 2000. The testing is pe

by and governed under C.G.S

54–102a, which allows the co

mandate STD and/or HIV testi

defendants charged with sexu

related offenses. The court ha
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 2

enforcement by the Communi

Response Division citywide re

in 120 arrests/summons for a

violations, 145 for loitering/br

peace, 96 for excessive noise, 

10 for disorderly conduct/pros

29. Although court officials vi

reduction of recidivism as an 

tant goal, in the short term de

with serious behavioral, health

social problems are expected 

multiple contacts with the cou

before interventions affect the

and behavior. The court views 

tain degree of recidivism unde

circumstances as affording ad

opportunities to provide neede

services. Recidivism can serve 

useful measure of impact if an

thoughtfully and controlling fo

ous factors having to do with 

dant characteristics. We might 

to see a reduction in rearrests 

viduals committing offenses th

not know were illegal and for w

single episode of community s

can be a deterrent. We might 

impact of community court in 

of reduction in return visits an

haps longer times to rearrest f

ously troubled individuals who 

repeated social services interv

And we might be able to ident

viduals whose primary problem 

habitual criminal behavior and 

whom the benefits of the com

court experience may be lost.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

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 

grants and programs, contac

Bureau of Justice Assistanc

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 Assistanc

Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.or

Clearinghouse staff are av

Monday through Friday, 8:30 

to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask 

placed on the BJA mailing l

U.S. Department of Justice 

Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307

Response Center staff are 

able Monday through Friday

to 5 p.m. eastern time.
Bureau of Justice Assistan

Information

General Information

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 

1–800–688–4252 

Monday through Friday 

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general i

tion or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and info

about training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportuniti

requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program inform

with state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Informati

cialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribu

participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activ

The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page 

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo

[your name]