Community Courts: An Evolving Model

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 4COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODELreality of what they believed theycould accomplish given localresources and local support.The following sections examinethe questions that planners askedas they designed their communitycourts and how they resolved them.How Do You Plan aCommunity Court?Community courts are complexprojects that involve rethinkingcourt operations, raising substantialresources, and building partnershipswithin and without the justice system. Decisions about who shouldlead the planning of a communitycourt varied from state to state.Judges or local court administratorsled the planning effort in 4 of the11 operating courts. Planning foranother five courts was led by elected district attorneys. Notably, allfive of these courts run communityprosecution programs and the district attorneys’ interest in community courts was sparked by hearinghow dissatisfied their constituentswere with the justice system’s insufficient attention to quality-of-lifeproblems. The local mayor’s officeand a countywide criminal justicecommission initiated the community court effort in the remaining twocities.Many projects recognized earlythat a dedicated planner would beneeded to move the community4court from conception to implementation. This approach reflectsthe complexities of raising money,building community participation,developing sanctions, establishingpartnerships, and so forth. Six ofthe operating community courtswere staffed with a full-time coordinator during the planning period;the planning of three courts was ledby a staff person who dedicated amajority of his or her attention tothe project. To ensure that the partnerships necessary for successwere established early in the planning process, nine jurisdictions convened formal planning committees.The committees typically includedrepresentatives from the courts,district attorneys’ offices, policedepartments, social service agencies, and communities. Publicdefenders were included on five ofthe planning teams. In the projectsthat did not create planning committees, lead planners worked informally with other stakeholders.The scope of the communitycourt project, the readiness of localplayers to support the concept, andthe planners’ success in garneringfunds and in-kind support all affected the length of the planning process. Three jurisdictions openedcommunity courts within a year ofbeginning the planning process.Although the average planning period was 2 years, some jurisdictionsneeded 3 or more years to plan acommunity court.

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 5OverviewWhich Community ShouldBe Served and WhereShould the Court BeLocated?The Midtown Community Courtserves the central business districtof America’s largest city. One challenge faced by planners outsideNew York City was whether the concept of a community court isapplicable to smaller cities andother types of neighborhoods.The community court approachwas recognized as a promisingsolution to quality-of-life problemsby many different communities.Today, 6 of the 11 operating community courts serve inner-cityresidential neighborhoods facingserious problems, including highcrime rates, property abandonment,and conditions of disorder. Twocommunity courts serve downtownareas and tackle the low-level crimeand public disorder that can be barriers to social and economic revitalization of city centers. One courtis located in a suburban area withpockets facing problems similar tothose of its urban neighbors. Finally,two cities are testing the idea of acommunity court that serves anentire medium-size city. In one, thecity has been divided into 17 neighborhoods, each with a committeedesigned to promote a close working relationship between the community and the court.Another decision planners facedwas selecting an appropriate building in which to locate the communityBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCEcourt. The decision involved balancing community court goals suchas visibility and accessibility to thepublic with the need to find sufficient space for onsite partners.Expense and the logistical issues ofprocessing defendants also wereconsidered. The projects arrived ata variety of solutions. Three courtscurrently operate within centralizedcourthouses. One of these projectsplans to relocate to a dedicatedbuilding in the near future; the othertwo hold open the possibility ofrelocating to separate space in thefuture. Another project holds proceedings in the central court andconducts other community courtactivities such as community service, social services, and community meetings in the neighborhoodbeing served by the court.Seven courts are located in theneighborhoods they serve. Threeprojects have adapted existingspace in the community: two inneighborhood centers and one ina strip mall storefront. Four undertook significant renovations to create a space for their communitycourts.The decision about court locationis closely tied to a program’s focalpoint. All of the planners, and manycommunity members, describecommon goals such as establishingcommunity norms and creating anenvironment supporting revitalization efforts, but the focal point ofthe programs vary with neighborhoods and the problems confrontingindividual communities. Courts in5

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 6COMMUNITY COURTS: AN EVOLVING MODELresidential neighborhoods are morelikely to address housing issues andyoung offenders as well as low-levelcriminal offenses, whereas thosein downtown areas prioritize issuessuch as homelessness, illegalcamping, and disorderly conduct.How Should the CourtLink Offenders to SocialServices?All planners agreed that makingsocial services available to defendants who appear at communitycourt is important, but they havemade different decisions aboutwhether to locate these servicesonsite. Of the 11 community courtsnow operating, 6 provide servicessuch as drug treatment, counseling,and assistance with entitlementsonsite, as well ongoing case management by project staff for defendants mandated to services suchas long-term treatment. Three sitesprovide referral to services plusongoing case management; twoprovide referral to social servicesonly.Can Punishment and HelpBe Combined?All of the nation’s communitycourts are experimenting with thebroad use of both community service and social service sanctions.Mandating defendants to social services is universally accepted as alegitimate sentence to curb recidivism. However, for several, the integration of social service sanctionshas been gradual. Judges in some6jurisdictions have questioned theappropriateness of using social service as a sanction. How, asked onejudge, could a service designed tohelp an individual with personalproblems also serve as punishment? Community members andothers on the advisory board havebeen emphatic about the need toaddress underlying problems suchas drug addiction.What Kinds of CasesAre Appropriate forCommunity Courts?Five of the community courtsare exploring ways to expand theirmandates beyond hearing criminalcases. These experiments rangefrom a judge in one courtroomhearing criminal, civil, and familymatters, to judges with criminalcourt calendars working closelywith the police and prosecutors onmatters such as housing code violations, to two judges sitting jointlyat one court of which one hearscriminal cases and the otherreviews environmental matters.Two jurisdictions are exploringways to handle youthful offendersat community court.What Role Should theCommunity Play?Although all the projects recognized that community involvementwas a critical goal, planners grappled with how and when to involvethe community, raising the question: Who is the community? Formost court planners, the answer

2-Main Body 10/11/00 4:03 PM Page 7Overviewincluded residents, social serviceproviders, beat cops, and local merchants. Community members participated in the planning of all of thecourts, but in different ways and todiffering degrees.Planners used a variety of tools toestablish community participation.In every community, plannersattended neighborhood meetingsand conducted interviews with abroad range of stakeholders. Allbut two courts created a communityadvisory panel during the planningperiod, and most of the projectsheld community meetings to determine priorities for the new court.Five projects held focus group discussions to better understand community members’ concerns andrecommendations. In Portland,Oregon, community memberswere involved in shaping sanctioning options. In Brooklyn, New York,community members chose thebuilding in which to locate thecourt.Since opening, each court hastaken a different approach toinvolving the community. Eightcourts have convened a communityadvisory board that meets regularlyand a ninth is forming such aboard. Eight community courtshave mechanisms for solicitingcommunity involvement in makingcommunity service assignments,and four have committees thatdevise ways to use communityservice to address hot spots andother neighborhood problems.Two community courts conductBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCEdoor-to-door surveys to determinepublic safety concerns and prioritiesof neighborhood residents. Threecourts distribute a newsletter togive community members visibleevidence that the court is accountable to the community.Are Community CourtsCreating System Change?Community courts are changingthe way court systems conductbusiness within the court itself and,more broadly, within the justice system. In the two cities where community courts have been open thelongest, New York City and Portland,the lessons of community involvement in the administration of justicehave begun to spread to the rest ofthe system.In Portland, the success of theNorth/Northeast Community Courthas convinced the district attorney,the courts, and other justice agencies to open two other communitycourts that together will serve everyneighborhood in Portland. In NewYork City, the succe

Many community courts handle criminal cases only, but others are experimenting with a broader range of matters, including juvenile delinquency and housing code violations. Some community courts were initiated by courts, and some have been championed by a district attorney. These differences reflect a central aspect of community courts: they focus on neighborhoods and are designed to respond to .