COMMUNITY COURTS

AN EVOLVING MODEL

C OMMUNITY J USTICE S ERI

COMMUNITY COURTS

AN EVOLVING MODEL

Monograph
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by the Center for Court Innovation under g

96–DD–BX–0090,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice P

Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendatio

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

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.
COMMUNITY COURTS

AN EVOLVING MODEL

October 2000

NCJ 183452

Prepared by Eric Lee, Deputy Director 

Center for Court Innovation
The community court movement has come a long way since the fi

court opened in midtown Manhattan in 1993. The concepts pioneere

that court have taken root across the country. Nearly a dozen comm

courts are now open in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Ne

Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas. Another 13 communities plan to ope

courts in the near future.

Midtown Community Court has succeeded by asking a new set of 

tions about the role of the court in a community’s daily life: What can 

court do to solve neighborhood problems? What can courts bring to 

table beyond their coercive power and symbolic presence? And what 

can community residents, businesses, and service providers play in i

ing justice?

The community courts that were established after Midtown are ans

these questions in different ways. Most focus on one neighborhood, b

others are exploring ways to serve an entire city. Still others are expa

their scope beyond low-level criminal offenses to juvenile delinquenc

housing code violations. 

But these pioneering courts also seek a set of common, important 

All have implemented a new way of doing business that imposes imm

meaningful sanctions on offenders, truly engages the community, an

offenders address problems that are at the root of their criminal beha

The Bureau of Justice Assistance continues to support the efforts o

judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other local leaders who ar

using community courts to transform the way justice is administered 

their communities. 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

Nancy E. Gist

Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

II. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

Which Community Should Be Served and 

Where Should the Court Be Located? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

How Should the Court Link Offenders to Social

Services?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

What Kinds of Cases Are Appropriate for Community Courts

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

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

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

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

North/Northeast and Southeast Community Courts, 

Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

Hennepin County Community Court Calendar, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

West Palm Beach Community Court, 

West Palm Beach, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

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

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

Red Hook Community Justice Center, Brooklyn, New York. 

IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
vi

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

VI. For More Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

In recent years cities and towns

across the country have embarked

on an experiment to test the proposition that courts can play a role

in solving complex neighborhood

problems and building stronger

communities. Since the 1993 opening of New York City’s Midtown

Community Court, the nation’s first,

dozens of cities have begun planning community courts. Eleven

community courts are now operating in communities across the

nation, and six more will open by

the end of 2000. At their outset,

each court must address the following set of questions:

• Can courts assume a problemsolving role in the life of a community, bringing people together

and helping to craft solutions to

problems that communities face?

• How can courts address the

impact that chronic offending

has on a community?

• Can courts improve the quality

of life in a community?

• Can local voices—residents,

merchants, community groups—

engage in the administrat

justice?

To answer these questions

munity courts have develope

individual programs that diff

important ways. Although m

of these new courts focus on 

neighborhood, several jurisd

are exploring ways to serve 

entire city. Many community 

handle criminal cases only, b

others are experimenting wit

broader range of matters, in

juvenile delinquency and ho

code violations. Some comm

courts were initiated by cour

some have been champione

district attorney. 

These differences reflect a 

aspect of community courts

focus on neighborhoods and 

designed to respond to the p

lar concerns of individual co

ties. Moreover, community c

are shaped by the particular 

cal, economic, and social la

scapes in each community.

The Center for Court Innov

(CCI), with support from the 

of Justice Assistance (BJA)

provided technical assistanc

About the Author

Eric Lee is deputy director of the Center for Court Innovation. Research

ideas, and text were contributed by Courtney Bryan, Jimena Martinez, Bri

Regan, and Robert Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation.
2

to each community court and

documented the emergence of this

field. This monograph provides a 

snapshot of these early com

courts and explores emergin

issues in their development.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

In January 1998, the Midtown

Community Court was the only

community court in the United

States. By March 2000, nearly a

dozen had opened across the country in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,

Minnesota, New York, Oregon,

Tennessee, and Texas. New York

City and Portland, Oregon, each

host two community courts, and

organizers in both cities intend to

open a third court in 2000. Another

13 jurisdictions, in California,

Colorado, Delaware, Florida,

Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, New

York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and

Texas, plan to establish community

courts in the near future.

Community courts grow out of

frustration. Observers have noted

that justice has become remote

from communities and the people

who live in them. Community residents have reported feeling out of

touch with courts. They want courts

to address low-level crime that is

part of daily life. The Midtown

Community Court offered a model

for addressing these problems by

emphasizing the following:

• Locating the court in the community, close to where crimes

take place.

• Repaying a community damaged

by low-level crime by requiring

offenders to compensate 

neighborhoods through co

nity service.

• Using the leverage of the 

sentence offenders to com

social services that will he

them address problems s

drug addiction or involvem

prostitution.

• Bringing the court and th

munity closer by making 

courthouse accessible, es

ing a community advisory 

and publishing a quarterly

newsletter.

• Using the court as a gate

treatment and making so

vices available to offende

at the courthouse.

The Midtown model was th

oughly documented in an in

dent evaluation conducted b

National Center for State Co

and in publications prepared 

U.S. Department of Justice 

21 for a list of publications o

munity justice). With a well-

and carefully documented m

New York City, community c

planners elsewhere faced que

about whether the Midtown m

would meet the needs of thei

jurisdictions. Planners in othe

dictions have made significan

partures from the Midtown m

reflecting both the distinct ne

their communities and the p
4

reality of what they believed they

could accomplish given local

resources and local support.

The following sections examine

the questions that planners asked

as they designed their community

courts and how they resolved them.

How Do You Plan a

Community Court?

Community courts are complex

projects that involve rethinking

court operations, raising substantial

resources, and building partnerships

within and without the justice system. Decisions about who should

lead the planning of a community

court varied from state to state.

Judges or local court administrators

led the planning effort in 4 of the

11 operating courts. Planning for

another five courts was led by elected district attorneys. Notably, all

five of these courts run community

prosecution programs and the district attorneys’ interest in community courts was sparked by hearing

how dissatisfied their constituents

were with the justice system’s insufficient attention to quality-of-life

problems. The local mayor’s office

and a countywide criminal justice

commission initiated the community court effort in the remaining two

cities. 

Many projects recognized early

that a dedicated planner would be

needed to move the community

court from conception to im

mentation. This approach re

the complexities of raising m

building community particip

developing sanctions, establ

partnerships, and so forth. S

the operating community co

were staffed with a full-time 

nator during the planning pe

the planning of three courts 

by a staff person who dedica

majority of his or her attentio

the project. To ensure that th

nerships necessary for succe

were established early in the 

ning process, nine jurisdictio

vened formal planning comm

The committees typically inc

representatives from the cou

district attorneys’ offices, po

departments, social service 

cies, and communities. Publ

defenders were included on 

the planning teams. In the p

that did not create planning 

mittees, lead planners worke

mally with other stakeholder

The scope of the commun

court project, the readiness 

players to support the conce

the planners’ success in garn

funds and in-kind support al

ed the length of the planning 

cess. Three jurisdictions ope

community courts within a y

beginning the planning proc

Although the average planni

od was 2 years, some jurisd

needed 3 or more years to p

community court.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

Which Community Should

Be Served and Where

Should the Court Be

Located?

The Midtown Community Court

serves the central business district

of America’s largest city. One challenge faced by planners outside

New York City was whether the concept of a community court is

applicable to smaller cities and

other types of neighborhoods.

The community court approach

was recognized as a promising

solution to quality-of-life problems

by many different communities.

Today, 6 of the 11 operating community courts serve inner-city 

residential neighborhoods facing

serious problems, including high

crime rates, property abandonment,

and conditions of disorder. Two

community courts serve downtown

areas and tackle the low-level crime

and public disorder that can be barriers to social and economic revitalization of city centers. One court

is located in a suburban area with

pockets facing problems similar to

those of its urban neighbors. Finally,

two cities are testing the idea of a

community court that serves an

entire medium-size city. In one, the

city has been divided into 17 neighborhoods, each with a committee

designed to promote a close working relationship between the community and the court.

Another decision planners faced

was selecting an appropriate building in which to locate the community

court. The decision involved 

ancing community court goa

as visibility and accessibility 

public with the need to find s

cient space for onsite partne

Expense and the logistical is

processing defendants also w

considered. The projects arr

a variety of solutions. Three 

currently operate within cent

courthouses. One of these p

plans to relocate to a dedica

building in the near future; th

two hold open the possibility 

relocating to separate space 

future. Another project holds 

ceedings in the central court 

conducts other community c

activities such as community 

vice, social services, and co

ty meetings in the neighborh

being served by the court.

Seven courts are located i

neighborhoods they serve. T

projects have adapted existi

space in the community: two 

neighborhood centers and o

a strip mall storefront. Four 

took significant renovations 

ate a space for their commu

courts. 

The decision about court l

is closely tied to a program’s 

point. All of the planners, an

community members, descr

common goals such as estab

community norms and creat

environment supporting revi

tion efforts, but the focal poi

the programs vary with neig

hoods and the problems con

individual communities. Cou
6

residential neighborhoods are more

likely to address housing issues and

young offenders as well as low-level

criminal offenses, whereas those

in downtown areas prioritize issues

such as homelessness, illegal

camping, and disorderly conduct.

How Should the Court

Link Offenders to Social

Services?

All planners agreed that making

social services available to defendants who appear at community

court is important, but they have

made different decisions about

whether to locate these services

onsite. Of the 11 community courts

now operating, 6 provide services

such as drug treatment, counseling,

and assistance with entitlements

onsite, as well ongoing case management by project staff for defendants mandated to services such

as long-term treatment. Three sites

provide referral to services plus

ongoing case management; two

provide referral to social services

only.

Can Punishment and Help

Be Combined?

All of the nation’s community

courts are experimenting with the

broad use of both community service and social service sanctions.

Mandating defendants to social services is universally accepted as a

legitimate sentence to curb recidivism. However, for several, the integration of social service sanctions

has been gradual. Judges in some

jurisdictions have questioned 

appropriateness of using soc

vice as a sanction. How, ask

judge, could a service design

help an individual with perso

problems also serve as puni

ment? Community members 

others on the advisory board 

been emphatic about the ne

address underlying problems 

as drug addiction.

What Kinds of Cases 

Are Appropriate for

Community Courts?

Five of the community cou

are exploring ways to expan

mandates beyond hearing cr

cases. These experiments ra

from a judge in one courtroo

hearing criminal, civil, and fa

matters, to judges with crim

court calendars working clos

with the police and prosecut

matters such as housing cod

tions, to two judges sitting jo

at one court of which one he

criminal cases and the other

reviews environmental matte

Two jurisdictions are explori

ways to handle youthful offe

at community court.

What Role Should the

Community Play?

Although all the projects r

nized that community involv

was a critical goal, planners 

pled with how and when to i

the community, raising the q

tion: Who is the community? 

most court planners, the ans

6
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

included residents, social service

providers, beat cops, and local merchants. Community members participated in the planning of all of the

courts, but in different ways and to

differing degrees. 

Planners used a variety of tools to

establish community participation.

In every community, planners

attended neighborhood meetings

and conducted interviews with a

broad range of stakeholders. All

but two courts created a community

advisory panel during the planning

period, and most of the projects

held community meetings to determine priorities for the new court.

Five projects held focus group discussions to better understand community members’ concerns and

recommendations. In Portland,

Oregon, community members

were involved in shaping sanctioning options. In Brooklyn, New York,

community members chose the

building in which to locate the

court. 

Since opening, each court has

taken a different approach to

involving the community. Eight

courts have convened a community

advisory board that meets regularly

and a ninth is forming such a

board. Eight community courts

have mechanisms for soliciting

community involvement in making

community service assignments,

and four have committees that

devise ways to use community 

service to address hot spots and

other neighborhood problems. 

Two community courts conduct

door-to-door surveys to dete

public safety concerns and p

of neighborhood residents. T

courts distribute a newslette

give community members v

evidence that the court is ac

able to the community.

Are Community Cour

Creating System Chan

Community courts are cha

the way court systems cond

business within the court itse

more broadly, within the justi

tem. In the two cities where c

nity courts have been open th

longest, New York City and P

the lessons of community inv

ment in the administration o

have begun to spread to the 

the system. 

In Portland, the success of 

North/Northeast Community 

has convinced the district at

the courts, and other justice 

cies to open two other comm

courts that together will serv

neighborhood in Portland. In 

York City, the success of Mid

Community Court has led to 

development of two other co

nity courts, encouraged grea

of community service and so

service sanctions throughou

court system, introduced the 

“resource coordinator” (a lia

between the court and socia

vice agencies) to other cour

started the trend of problem

courts throughout the state, 

to the creation of a not-for-p
8

organization to be an engine for

ongoing court innovation.

In every jurisdiction, these initiatives have demonstrated new ways

of doing business. Planners of 10

of the projects have brought new

resources to the system to support

a community court—ranging from

state legislative and city council

appropriations, to federal grants, to

contributions from private foundations and corporations. Two downtown courts and two neighborhood

courts have secured private funding

for their projects.

At nine community courts, staff

are testing the use of technology to

provide more complete and accurate information to the judge and

other decisionmakers, to raise the

standard of accountability on courtordered sanctions, and to link the

numerous partners that must work

together for a community co

succeed. Six of the courts ha

installed information technol

the community court and th

ers have information system

development.

In planning community co

new players have been invol

Two of the courts now opera

and two opening in 2000 ha

involved not-for-profit organ

that coordinated planning an

implementation of the projec

The innovative involvement 

for-profit organizations in pro

implementation—such as th

cess in finding new funding s

the use of technology, the ex

mentation with multijurisdict

calendars, and the impact on 

courts—indicates the extent 

which community courts are 

moting significant change in 

operations.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

uy u

As the profiles in this section

illustrate, community courts vary

significantly. As varied as these projects are, the field of community

courts is conspicuously young—

the model is evolving as the experiences of these first courts deepen.

Midtown Community

Court, New York City

Launched in 1993, the Midtown

Community Court targets qualityof-life offenses such as prostitution,

illegal vending, graffiti, shoplifting,

fare beating, and vandalism in midtown Manhattan. Often in such

cases judges are forced to choose

between a few days of jail time and

no sentence at all—results that fail

to impress the victim, the community, or the defendant that these

offenses are taken seriously. In 

contrast, the Midtown Community

Court sentences low-level offenders

to pay back the neighborhood

through community service while

offering them help with problems

(addiction, mental illness, lack of

job skills) that underlie their criminal behavior. Residents, businesses,

and social service agencies collaborate with the court by supervising

community service projects and

by providing onsite social services,

including drug treatment, health

care, and job training.

Social services are available onsite

at the Midtown Court, providing the

judge a range of services to 

in a mandate, such as onsite 

treatment, a health educatio

for prostitutes and “johns,” o

one counseling for young of

and mentally ill persons, and

employment training. For de

dants with a long criminal re

and a history of substance a

the court offers an alternativ

incarceration program that s

tences defendants to long-te

drug treatment. Many defen

return to court voluntarily to 

advantage of services offere

court, including English as a 

language and General Educ

Development (GED) classes

The court uses an award-w

computer application to craf

vidualized sanctions for each

offender and monitor compl

The system also provides po

officers with regular feedbac

the outcomes of their arrests

Community involvement i

sive at the Midtown Commu

Court. The community advis

board, which reviews court o

tions and results, meets qua

the community conditions p

which keeps the court abrea

local problems and emergin

spots, meets monthly. Comm

members participate in imp

panels, meeting face-to-face 

offenders to discuss how the

behavior harmed the comm
10

The court also publishes a newsletter to keep stakeholders informed

about its work. 

The court seeks to solve community problems through a partnership

with the police known as the Street

Outreach Services program. To

address problems before they result

in an arrest, social workers from

the court join police officers on the

beat. Together, they engage the

homeless and other street people

and encourage them to come to the

court voluntarily for social services.

North/Northeast and

Southeast Community

Courts, Portland, Oregon

Community court planners in

Portland sought to build on the 

success of the Neighborhood

District Attorney program and had

two objectives: address public safety problems as close as possible

to where they occur and further

involve community members in

determining priorities for the justice

system.

Community participation in planning Portland’s community courts

took the form of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The committees

(one for each court) gave planners

a sense of which problems were

most important to the community.

They shared ideas on every aspect

of the project—helping form sentencing guidelines, suggesting 

community service projects, and

determining what the courtroom

would look like. In addition to the

advisory committees, Portla

planners convened focus gro

to further document commu

priorities. 

Planning for the North/No

Community Court began wh

area was designated a Weed 

Seed site in 1996. The North

Northeast Community Court 

a 15-neighborhood area of P

commonly known as Albina

community of mostly single-

owner-occupied homes that 

highest crime, high school d

and unemployment rates in 

Modeled after the North/No

Community Court, the South

Community Court addresses 

of-life crime in Portland’s Bre

Darlington and Lents commu

The Southeast Community C

serves a diverse population 

than 285,000 residents. The 

has a large population of im

grants from Eastern Europe 

Asia. 

When Portland’s communi

courts began operating, case

deferred to them following a 

dant’s initial appearance at t

downtown court. In June 20

both courts began arraigning 

sent directly by the police, in

misdemeanors and person-to

matters such as assault of a 

safety officer, child neglect, 

ment, and stalking. The cou

operate a full day every othe

and will expand soon to a fu

every week. 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

In addition, the two courts will

soon begin hearing housing violations involving chronic offenders.

The city’s Office of Planning,

Development, and Review, which

has traditionally handled housing

violations, will institute a system in

which housing code violators will

accrue points for the number of 

violations they receive. Once violators reach a determined number

of points, they will be considered

chronic violators. Their cases will

be referred to the neighborhood district attorney, who can then prosecute the case at the appropriate

community court.

Brentwood-Darlington, home of

the Southeast Community Court,

has the highest concentration of

probationers and parolees in the

city. A probation officer who sits on

the Citizen Advisory Committee

reviews the court docket prior to

each community court session and

checks defendants for probation

status. Soon, a neighborhood probation office also will be located at

the Southeast Community Court.

At both community courts, staff

from social service agencies are

available onsite to refer offenders

for services. The North/Northeast

court offers a mentor program,

through which more than 50 defendants have developed life plans and

long-term goals. A public defender

is present at each court session to

answer questions and give legal

advice.

By the end of 2000, Portla

plans to open a third commu

court that will serve the city

side and downtown commun

When the Westside Commun

Court opens, all noncustodia

demeanor cases in Portland 

arraigned at a community co

Hartford Community

Court, Hartford,

Connecticut

The Hartford Community 

has its roots in the federally 

Comprehensive Communitie

nership program that sought 

improve coordination among 

nal justice agencies and Har

communities. The program i

focused on community polic

antigang initiatives, but com

participants wanted somethi

be done about low-level crim

well. Planning for the comm

court began in 1996 and inc

enacting state legislation to 

date alternative sentences fo

nance violations.

The Hartford Community 

is testing the idea of a comm

court that serves the entire c

ensure that the court is resp

to local concerns, the court 

closely with problem-solving

committees in the city’s 17 n

borhoods. The problem-solv

committees articulate priorit

each neighborhood and send 

resentative to the court’s adv

board. The court sends comm

service crews to every neighb
12

and, when possible, assigns offenders to perform community service

in the neighborhood in which they

were arrested.

A member of the bail commissioner’s office screens defendants

for arraignment. This interview

serves as a criminal background

check and is the first line of inquiry

for social services screening. 

After speaking with the state’s

attorney in court, if the defendant

accepts a plea agreement, Judge

Raymond Norko issues a sentence

that includes community service

and/or social service mandates.

Upon completion of the service,

the defendant’s case is dismissed

30 days later without the defendant

having to appear in court. If the

defendant refuses the plea offer,

the case stays in the court to prevent “forum shopping.” The judge

hears bench trials at the community

court; cases that are eligible for jury

trials are transferred to superior

court.

Each defendant is required to

meet with the court’s social service

team, which includes staff from

the city’s Department of Human

Services, the state’s Department of

Social Services and Department of

Mental Health and Addiction, and

the Capitol Region Mental Health

Center. The interview covers issues

such as substance abuse treatment,

education services, health care, and

housing options. Defendants are

then linked with necessary social

services. 

The Hartford Community 

regularly employs mediation 

resolving criminal cases. Me

is voluntary, requiring the wi

participation of both the vict

the offender. If an agreemen

reached between the parties 

restitution is required, the ju

make the mediation agreem

of the court’s order and cont

the case until the restitution 

other terms of the agreemen

fulfilled.

Hennepin County

Community Court

Calendar, Minneapoli

Minnesota

The Hennepin County Com

Court Calendar serves two d

neighborhoods and 100,000 

dents in South Minneapolis u

downtown courtroom locate

Hennepin County Governme

Center. Planners targeted So

Minneapolis, including the P

and Powderhorn neighborho

because the area had signifi

crime problems and a highly 

nized community leadership

because it is home to two m

corporations, Honeywell and 

Although the court is not l

in the neighborhood it serve

building ties to the neighborh

by coordinating social servic

and community service prog

through a community-based 

ner. Administered by a colla

of county social service dep

ments known as the Hennep
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

Powderhorn Partners, offenders

appear at the Hennepin/Powderhorn

Center to fulfill their community service or social service sanctions and

take advantage of a broad range of

services on a voluntary basis. A

probation officer in the courtroom

acts as a resource coordinator for

the judge, making recommendations for social service sanctions

and linking the defendant to the

appropriate social service provider.

Staff at the Hennepin/Powderhorn

Center monitor compliance and

report the results to the court-based

probation officer.

“We located the court downtown

and located everything else in the

catchment area—social services,

community service, all of our community meetings,” said Judge

Richard Hopper.

The court tackles a multijurisdictional calendar including felony and

misdemeanor property offenses

from the Third Police Precinct in

South Minneapolis and nuisance

abatement cases from the entire

city. The Community Court Calendar handles cases of varying levels of severity. The judge and court

planners devised a broad range of

community service and social service sanctions that are appropriate

for misdemeanor and felony

charges. Applying sanctions in

these different cases involves a

careful assessment of the risk

involved in returning an offender

to the community. Moreover, the

judge reports that working with

chronic offenders, whose behaviors

are harder to change with sh

term social service intervent

is more difficult than workin

first-time offenders. Nonethe

the broad range of cases ref

the priorities of the South Mi

apolis community, which lea

city in arrests for quality-of-

crimes, including drug sales

tution, and gang-related offe

In addition to these crimin

ters, the court hears civil nu

actions that typically involve 

erties that are used for crimi

activities such as prostitution 

drug dealing. The court uses 

tional sanctions as well as m

tion with community membe

remedies and ensures a high 

of scrutiny. If the property ow

fails to comply with the cour

order, the property can be b

up.

Hempstead Communi

Court, Hempstead,

New York

Although the first commun

courts appeared in urban are

many suburban communitie

similar challenges. On subur

Long Island, Hempstead and 

rounding towns are testing th

munity court model to addre

quality-of-life problems such 

prostitution, drug use and lo

sales, public drinking, vanda

and graffiti.

The Hempstead Communi

Court initially handled qualit

offenses committed within th
14

village of Hempstead. Recently, it

expanded its catchment area to the

four neighboring communities of

New Cassel/Westbury, Freeport

Village, Uniondale, and Roosevelt.

The first year of operations has

been a learning period. The court

has been hearing cases adjourned

following arraignment from the traditional court, including prostitution,

drug possession, and disorderly

conduct cases. The judge imposes

sentences of community service or

crafts a social service mandate,

typically involving drug or alcohol

treatment. Planners are reviewing

which crimes are best prosecuted

in the court, which treatment programs and services are most effective in addressing defendants’

underlying problems, and which

types of community service are

appropriate for suburban areas.

Planners also are exploring ways to

work collaboratively with Nassau

County’s many village courts.

A grant from BJA’s Byrne Program was recently secured by the

Nassau County Department of Drug

and Alcohol Services to help expand the court’s programs and

coordinate its work with the local

village courts. Planners hope to

extend the availability of services to

address the special problems faced

by prostitutes and substance-abusing

youth. The court is in session 3

days a week and plans to continue

to expand to other areas of the

county.

West Palm Beach

Community Court, W

Palm Beach, Florida

The West Palm Beach Com

nity Court serves the West P

Beach Weed and Seed area, 

dential neighborhood on the 

skirts of downtown strugglin

a high crime rate. Although 

Palm Beach is less than 1 m

Palm Beach, one of the mos

ent cities in the country, 41 

of the neighborhood’s 5,360 

dents live in poverty and the 

ployment rate stands at 20 p

The physical characteristics 

community are striking: dete

ed houses and businesses, v

lots with discarded mattresse

piles of trash, and litter strew

throughout the streets, sidew

yards, and parks. No new bu

es have opened in the area, 

new houses have been built 

recent years. 

Police were frustrated with 

epidemic of quality-of-life of

in the area and the limited c

quences imposed following a

arrest. Seeking a community

approach, the Palm Beach C

Criminal Justice Commissio

chief of police, and the local 

cutor began planning a com

court. 

The West Palm Beach Com

nity Court handles nonviolen

misdemeanors. Defendants a

scheduled to appear before J

Barry M. Cohen 4 to 10 day

receiving a police citation. C
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

defendants pleading guilty stay in

community court; cases headed to

trial are adjourned to the downtown

court.

Court planners surveyed area 

residents and created a community

advisory panel to set priorities for

community service. “We found

that the community wanted to get

cleaned up first—that trash and 

litter were by the far the top concern—so we focused on that,” said

Tom Becht, coordinator of the

court.

The community court offers

social services onsite, including

employment counseling, education

programs, and case management.

Because so many of its clients are

indigent, the court provides transportation services to and from job

interviews and social service

appointments for defendants and

resident nonoffenders alike.

The court coordinates closely

with community policing efforts.

Local police allocated Local Law

Enforcement Block Grants funds to

increase bike patrol officers in the

court’s catchment area. These 

community-focused officers often

bring residents in need of services

to the court, sometimes as an alternative to arresting them. 

The court is also developing a

community service project in partnership with the police department

that enforces the housing code.

Soon, community service crews

from the court will be available to

restore and repair the prope

property owners who are no

compliance with the housing 

Downtown Austin

Community Court,

Austin, Texas

In 1997, Travis County Dis

Attorney Ronnie Earle called 

creation of a community cou

help clean up downtown Aus

With a high concentration of 

rants, nightclubs, and bars, t

7-square-mile area was a m

for disorder, public drinking, 

age drinking, and homelessn

Demonstrating that the tra

municipal court was in many 

a revolving door, a survey co

ed by court planners found t

percent of those arrested for 

derly conduct had been arre

before. The planners also fou

that more than 56 percent o

committing quality-of-life off

reported suffering from chem

dependency. Community co

planners sought to do somet

different: use community ser

a sanction for low-level offen

respond to repeat offenses w

graduated sanctions, and us

social services sanctions to 

underlying problems such as 

addiction.

Mayor Kirk Watson and Au

well-organized business com

rallied around the idea of a c

nity court, and the project g

support from community res

service providers, and the ci
16

council. Supporters believed that

the court would help enforce standards of behavior and ensure that

the downtown area remained safe,

clean, and inviting. They also

thought the court would promote

confidence in the justice system.

Since opening, the court has

operated in a room in the Austin

Municipal Court complex, with staff

setting up offices in the gallery of

the court. The court has adjudicated more than 4,000 cases in its first

7 months.

Judge Elisabeth Earle says the

goals of the court are to stop the

revolving door for low-level offenders and to resolve cases quickly. A

sentence of “time served” is never a

punishment option. Sentences in

most cases are carried out immediately and warrants are served within

hours, not days, of their issuance. 

The judge can craft a sentence

using a variety of tools. She can

require the defendant to pay back

the neighborhood by performing

community service. Also, working

with the resource coordinator, she

can craft rehabilitative plans that

include a range of social services

such as acupuncture detoxification,

peer counseling, day and residential

treatment for substance abuse, and

mental health counseling. The community court helps offenders reenter the work force in collaboration

with partnering agencies. Social

services are coordinated by courtbased social workers.

Frayser Community C

Memphis, Tennessee

The Frayser Community C

catchment area, the West Fr

neighborhood of Memphis, w

once home to two large man

turing plants and an active b

collar work force. When thes

plants closed in the mid-198

many workers left and the n

borhood declined. Housing p

dropped, small businesses c

and the unemployment rate 

The area became a magnet 

gangs and drugs. 

Leaders of the Memphis c

nity formed the Memphis/Sh

County Crime Commission, 

recommended creating a co

ty court as a way to integrat

enforcement practices of the 

phis Police Department’s co

ty policing initiatives, comm

prosecution, and the court. T

multijurisdictional communit

which opened in February 2

operates out of a storefront i

local shopping mall, and the 

judges handle both criminal

misdemeanors and environm

ordinance violations.

Misdemeanor cases in the 

catchment area, such as low

drug possession, disorderly 

duct, reckless driving, crimin

pass, public intoxication, an

alcohol-related violations, ar

referred to community court

The court also has jurisdic

over city and county ordinan
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

violations, reflecting community

residents’ concerns about neglected

and abandoned property. Eight

police officers assigned to the

Todd’s Creek CO–ACT Unit (a subprecinct within the catchment area)

look for code violations, especially

those involving properties with

junk cars, tires, and other debris.

Usually, the judge orders the property cleaned up by a certain date.

If violators fail to comply with the

order, the judge may apply “injunctive relief,” including jail sentences

and fines. If owners clean up the

property and sign a court order

stating that they agree to remain in

compliance, charges are dismissed.

To date, approximately 100 derelict

and neglected properties have been

cleaned up, according to Prosecutor

Bart Dickinson.

Dickinson, who prosecutes both

misdemeanors and code violations,

reports that the juvenile court delinquency cases from the area are

processed in conjunction with juvenile court, and eviction actions are

adjudicated under the district attorney’s Drug Dealer Eviction Program.

Chris Kirby of Shelby County

Pretrial Services coordinates all

community service projects at the

court and serves as a liaison with

service providers.

Atlanta Community Court,

Atlanta, Georgia 

The Atlanta business community,

worried that quality-of-life crimes

were scaring away shoppers and

tourists, pushed for the crea

the Atlanta Community Cou

city’s Criminal Justice Coord

Council, composed of crimin

tice leaders, elected officials

government agencies, worke

the downtown improvement 

Central Atlanta Progress, to 

the Atlanta Community Cou

separate calendar that opera

within Municipal Court Judg

Riley’s general session.

Although the court serves 

entire city, which has a popu

of approximately 440,000, J

Riley is working to make jus

more visible and more releva

Atlanta’s neighborhoods thro

the use of community servic

judge keeps abreast of comm

concerns and neighborhood 

spots by attending commun

meetings and building relatio

with community members. T

deployment of community c

defendants performing comm

service to neighborhoods su

from quality-of-life crime str

ens the link between the cou

Atlanta’s neighborhoods. 

Defendants are eligible for 

munity court if they have be

arrested or received a summ

a selected misdemeanor or v

in the city of Atlanta. Prior to

arraignment, staff from the c

tions department assess a d

dant’s social service needs a

make a sentencing recomme

tion to the judge. The court 

mandated long-term drug tre
18

to address a defendant’s underlying

substance abuse issues. 

The court is working with the

Pardon and Parole Board to create

reparative boards in the neighborhoods of Mechanicsville, a Weed

and Seed site, and Old Fourth

Ward, an Empowerment Zone.

Judge Riley refers defendants who

live in those neighborhoods to the

boards as a sanction.

Red Hook Community

Justice Center,

Brooklyn, New York

Operating in the heart of a lowincome Brooklyn neighborhood,

the Red Hook Community Justice

Center has allowed judges to transform their responses to the people

who appear before the court. At

Red Hook, a single judge hears

neighborhood cases that ordinarily

are heard in three different courts—

civil, family, and criminal. This

model did not emerge by accident.

Justice center planners felt that the

problems faced by families and

individuals do not conform to jurisdictional boundaries. By having a

single judge handle matters traditionally heard by different decisionmakers at different locations, the

justice center offers a swift and

coordinated judicial response. 

The Red Hook judge has an array

of sanctions and services available,

including community restitution

projects, onsite job training, drug

treatment, and health counseling—

all of which are rigorously monitored

to ensure accountability and 

encourage individual respon

Court staff supervise offende

forming community service, 

state-of-the-art technology h

the judge monitor complianc

In addition, the courthouse 

hub of programs that engage 

residents in “doing justice.” 

programs include mediation

munity service projects that 

local volunteers to work repa

conditions of disorder, and a 

court where teenagers resolv

actual cases involving their p

Through these initiatives, Re

Hook seeks to engage the co

nity in aggressive crime prev

Planners see this strategy wo

in two ways: by solving loca

lems before they become a c

problem and by helping knit 

er the fabric of the neighborh

By using its coercive powe

link defendants to drug treat

and by providing onsite serv

like domestic violence couns

health care, and job training

Hook seeks to strengthen fa

and help individuals avoid fu

involvement with the court s

Services are not limited to c

users but are available to an

the community who needs h

The Red Hook Community

Justice Center is housed in a 

parochial high school, a site 

ed by community members. 

York City financed the cost o

vating the long-vacant build
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

Community court planners across

the country are motivated by different concerns. In Portland, the community court program was a natural

outgrowth of the neighborhood prosecutor program. Having succeeded

in bringing the justice system closer

to the problem, Multnomah County

District Attorney Michael Shrunk

concluded that the best extension

of this effort involved the courts. 

Portland is pursuing a model in

which community prosecution and

community courts will serve the

entire city. In this model, neighborhood district attorneys and community courts will focus on the

low-level matters that shape the

quality of life of all city residents.

In West Palm Beach, Florida,

the initiative for a community court

grew out of justice system practitioners’ frustration with the traditional model. Looking for new

approaches, the local crime commission embraced the community

court concept as a way to fo

their efforts in a neighborhoo

chronic public safety concer

In Hartford, Connecticut, t

community court emerged f

process designed to solicit g

community involvement in s

law enforcement priorities. L

enforcement and the courts 

focused on major crimes for 

years, and community mem

wanted to focus attention on 

serious, and far more freque

quality-of-life crimes.

These differences in focus 

light that while our nation’s f

generation of community co

seek common goals—impos

immediate, meaningful sanc

offenders and forming genui

problem-solving partnership

the neighborhoods they serv

are most effective when resp

to the unique concerns of in

communities.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

uuy 

Publications discussing innovative

community justice initiatives, including those listed below, are available from the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).

Call 1–800–851–3420 or e-mail

NCJRS at askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Many

NCJRS publications also may be

viewed online at the Justice

Information Center World Wide Web

site at www.ncjrs.org.

Beyond Community Policing:

Community Justice. Issue Paper.

Washington, DC: National Institute

of Justice. 1997. NCJ 165529.

“Community Courts: Prospects and

Limits.” National Institute of Justice

Journal. August 1996. NCJ

175939.

Improving State and Local Criminal

Justice Systems: A Report on How

Public Defenders, Prosecutors, and

Other Criminal Justice System

Practitioners Are Collaborating

Across the Country. Monograph.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Assistance. 1998. NCJ 173391. 

In New York City, a “Community

Court” and a New Legal Culture:

Program Description. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Justice.

1996. NCJ 158613.

Innovative Court Programs: 

From State and Local Progra

Workshops. Washington, DC

Justice Research and Statist

Association (JRSA). 1995.

Available from JRSA by call

202–842–9330. 

Key Elements of Successful

Adjudication Partnerships. B

Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Assistance. 1999. NCJ 1739

Opening the Courts to the

Community: Volunteers in

Wisconsin’s Courts. Bulletin

Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Assistance. 2000. NCJ 1789

Overcoming Obstacles to Co

munity Courts: A Summary 

Workshop Proceedings. Mon

Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Assistance. 1998. NCJ 1734

Responding to the Commun

Principles for Planning and C

a Community Court. Bulletin

Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Assistance. 1997. NCJ 1668
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 

The Center for Court Innovation

functions as the New York State

Unified Court System’s independent

research and development arm,

creating demonstration projects that

test new approaches to problems

like addiction, family dysfunction,

juvenile delinquency, and domestic

violence.

CCI’s community justice projects

include the Midtown Community

Court, the Red Hook Community

Justice Center, and the Harlem

Community Justice Center. With the

support of the U.S. Department of

Justice, CCI encourages courts

across the country to solve problems locally and to build stronger

links with communities. CCI also

provides hands-on assistance to

jurisdictions that are exploring topics of court and justice system

reform, including community justice

and drug court technology.

For more information about community court initiatives, contact: 

Center for Court Innovation

Bridget Regan

520 Eighth Avenue

18th Floor

New York, NY 10018

212–397–3050

E-mail: info@courtinnovation.org.

World Wide Web: 

www.courtinnovation.org

For more information abo

programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistan

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–514–6278

World Wide Web:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistan

Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs

Clearinghouse staff are av

Monday through Friday, 8:3

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

on training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 110

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 World Wide Web 

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] 
PRESORTED S

POSTAGE & F

DOJ/BJ

PERMIT NO

U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs Office of Justice ProgramsBureau of Justice Assistance Bureau of Justice AssistanceWashington, DC 20531 Washington, DC 20531Official Business Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 Penalty for Private Use $300