The Arc

EXPANDING THE USE OF PROBLEM-SOLVING JUSTICE: Reflections on what works, what doesn’t and how to overcome challenges, the second workshop for the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Community Based Problem-Solving Criminal Justice Initiative, was held at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta on May 23 and 24, 2007. The workshop's learning goals were to identify successes and challenges of the initiative's demonstration sites, to explore ideas for overcoming challenges, and to build skills in seeking local resources. Keynote speakers were BJA Director Domingo Herraiz; Center for Court Innovation Director Greg Berman; Multnomah County, Oregon District Attorney Mike Schrunk; and President of the Atlanta City Council Lisa Borders. Julius Lang and Chris Watler, director and deputy director of technical assistance at the Center, spearheaded a faculty consisting of Aaron Arnold, director of the Center for Court Innovation’s upstate office; Steven Jansen, director of the Center for Community Prosecution at the National District Attorneys Association; Diana Karafin, senior research associate at the Center for Court Innovation; Michael Magnani, Director of the Division of Grants and Program Development for the New York State Unified Court System; Preeti Puri Menon, BJA’s Policy Advisor for Adjudication; Karen Moen of the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Children, Families and the Courts; and Phillip Rush, program officer at The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta. The workshop was an opportunity for team building as well as learning, with project leaders from the following ten grantee sites attending: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; San Diego Beach Area Community Court, California; the City of Atlanta Community Court Division, Georgia; the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Bronx Community Solutions, New York; the Athens County Substance Abusing/Mentally Ill Court, Ohio; Overland Park Community Court, Clackamas County, Oregon; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; Lynchburg Community Court, Virginia; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington. Here are some photos from the event: Teams not pictured: Pima County Juvenile Court Center, Arizona; the Fourth Circuit, South Carolina; and the Seattle Community Court, Washington  

In May 2007, Ireland’s National Crime Council published a report recommending the establishment of community courts in Ireland. The report, “Problem Solving Justice: The Case for Community Courts in Ireland,” includes 20 recommendations, including that a community court should be established in Dublin and that, if successful, the model should be extended to other areas of the country. According to Padraic White, Chairman of the National Crime Council, “community courts take a problem-solving approach to low-level offenders, using a range of health and social services while some defendants may be required to undertake community work in the neighbourhood to make some reparation for their offending in that neighbourhood.”   Judge Michael Reilly, the Council member who chaired the subgroup responsible for the report, said that the introduction of community courts—with their wide array of problem-solving options—would contribute to breaking the cycle of re-offending. The proposed community court for inner-city Dublin would deal with low-level offenses such as drunk and disorderly conduct, assault, criminal damage, graffiti and petty theft. It would link offenders with services meant to deal with the underlying issues that led to their crime, and allow offenders to pay back the neighborhood through community service. According to the report, the concept of community courts was first brought to the National Crime Council’s attention by Tom Coffey, the Chief Executive Officer of the Dublin City Business Association, after staff from the Center for Court Innovation made a presentation to the group. In September 2006 a delegation visited the Midtown Community Court, Red Hook Community Justice Center, and Philadelphia Community Court as part of a fact finding mission to the U.S. To read the report in full, click here.

In March 2007, the Scottish government announced its plans to open the country's first community justice centre and community court in Glasgow. The center, which is expected to be up and running in 2009, will be based on the Red Hook Community Justice Center and Midtown Community Court in New York and the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre in England, but be adapted to suit the needs of the Scottish criminal justice system and local community. The center aims to improve justice services, speed up court processes and strengthen the court's relationship with the local community. It will be led by a single judge who will regularly engage the community in discussions about local crime issues and how offenders can pay back the community swiftly and visibly through community service. Typical sentences will involve a package of measures designed to make offenders pay back the community for their crimes and tackle the underlying problems that led to their offending, with support such as access to housing, drug treatment, employment and mental health services. In one example, an offender might be required to perform community service as well as attend a drug rehabilitation course and receive help to address debt problems. "Smart options, not soft options," as Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson put it, "the kind of approaches which I have already seen delivering real results for people in New York." While some community courts only deal with cases once the accused has pled guilty, the Glasgow court will deal with as many local cases as possible whether the accused pleads guilty or not. Currently, local government leaders are working to identify suitable sites, consulting the community on the location as community involvement will be vital to its success. "Crime in Scotland is falling," says Jamieson. "However, we also know that persistent offenders—even where small in number—can drag a whole community down. The community justice centre, through its unique problem-solving approach, will help us take a further step towards tackling that."  

In an effort to assess the impact of the Justice Center on defendant perceptions of fairness, the Center for Court Innovation conducted a survey of nearly 400 misdemeanor defendants, who had their cases handled at either the Justice Center or a traditional, centralized criminal court.

While South Africa is one of the most prosperous African countries, it also faces high crime rates. In response, the government has embarked on an ambitious, country-wide community justice program. Seventeen (soon to be 18) community courts are currently in operation around the country. Community policing strategies are being employed throughout the national police force. And, in 2006, the National Prosecuting Authority launched a community prosecution pilot program in each of the country’s nine provinces, in areas that together account for some of the highest crime levels in South Africa.       The nine sites were selected for their high crime rates or persistent levels of minor crime, as well as for their potential for social and economic development. If the model works at these diverse sites—two urban, six peri-urban (township), and one rural—it will work nearly anywhere in the country, justice officials believe. The approach is targeted and aggressive: prosecutors have been sent into each community to begin working on reducing and preventing local crime at the community level, and each site is being rigorously evaluated through data collection, questionnaires, workshop discussions, site observations, photographic documentation, and formal and informal interviews. “This is a very exciting initiative as we explore the role of the prosecutor in crime prevention and community justice,” says Shamila Batohi, Director of Public Prosecutions for KwaZulu-Natal province and the senior prosecutor responsible for coordinating the project. “We face enormous challenges in our beautiful country, but we are optimistic that the community prosecution initiative will help us move closer to the achievement of the National Prosecuting Authority’s vision: ‘Justice in our society so that people can live in freedom and security.’” According to researcher Richard Griggs of Independent Projects Trust, successes to date have been palpable. In Windsor East, for example—an urban area troubled by drug sales, organized crime, and transient populations—a joint operation between the community prosecutor and local police resulted in the arrests of 15 drug syndicate members. A number of illegal immigrants, whose presence in the community had led to a noticeable increase in criminal activity, have been arrested and deported. The arrests of dozens of other offenders have helped clean up Windsor: drug dealers who were previously visible have retreated from the streets, and it is no longer common for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants or for businesses to hire them. Community prosecution efforts have helped drive brothels out of the area, while negotiations with businesses and community members have brought the crime-ridden King’s Pub area, notorious for drug activity and wild behavior, under control. In another, very different example, community prosecutors have had some early success in the rural North West Kudumani, where cattle theft had been a significant problem. A major clamp-down on rustling in 2006 led to a significant reduction in cattle theft, which is now negligible in the area (previously up to 40 cases had been reported per day ). The community is no longer engaged in vigilantism, and proper facilities—including fenced grazing camps, branding, and veterinary services, all of which prevent cattle theft—are being developed. With the arrest of police members who were participating in livestock theft, police-community relations have improved. The community prosecution project is still being piloted and monitored. Any early findings discussed here are tentative observations pending the full evaluation that will be undertaken from mid-June 2007 and released by September. Due to these initial successes and the government’s commitment to reducing crime, justice officials are spreading the lessons learned from community prosecution. In February 2007, a two-day National Prosecuting Authority conference on Community Prosecution and Restorative Justice was held in Cape Town, with the audience consisting of the 250 most senior prosecutors in the country (with a spotlight on the nine community prosecutors). As results are gathered from around the country, researchers are examining a number of key questions, including what kind of models might fit any given location, and how community prosecution as it exists in South Africa, with its unique history and problems, can be defined in the present and shaped for the future. UPDATE: In March 2008, an extensive independent research report on the South African pilot sites was released. The report found that partnerships between community prosecutors, municipalities, local communities and police can significantly help reduce crime rates. To read more, click here.  

A prominent New York community group honored the Midtown Community Court for its enduring contributions to the neighborhood in the form of safer streets and improved quality of life. The Broadway Association, which has represented businesses in Times Square since 1911, presented its Golden Scroll Award to the Midtown Court’s presiding judge, Richard M. Weinberg, at a luncheon on Jan. 17. The award expresses appreciation for the court’s 13 years “fostering, promoting, and improving public safety and quality of life in New York City.” The award also credits the court’s partners, including the New York State Unified Court System, the Center for Court Innovation, and law enforcement, for helping the Midtown Court serve as a “model of problem-solving justice.”  New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye gave the keynote address. Chuck Scarborough, a local anchorman with NBC, served as master of ceremonies. The Midtown Community Court was established in 1993. The nation’s first community court, it has been credited with playing a pivotal role in the turn-around of Times Square, a neighborhood once plagued with drug dealing, prostitution, and rampant quality-of life crime. The court uses a combination of punishment and help to address problems that offenders bring to court. It also actively engages the community in developing solutions to safety issues. Independent evaluators have documented that the Midtown Community Court’s focus on low-level crime contributed to a significant drop in local street crime and improved attitudes toward justice. The success of the Midtown Court has led to the development of nearly three dozen community courts around the U.S. and replications in several countries around the world. The awards luncheon was held in the Marriot Marquis on Jan. 17.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman gives keynote address at Fordham Law School symposium. The following are the remarks of New York State Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman delivered at Fordham Law School on Oct. 13, 2006

The British government plans to expand upon the 13 community courts already established throughout England and Wales, according to a new report from the Ministry of Justice. By the end of 2009, the Ministry of Justice expects to have identified six additional areas where they will implement problem-solving techniques and study their benefits in an effort “to inform further roll-out,” the report says. The 13 courts already in existence were inspired by the model of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in New York, which, in turn, gave rise to the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre and the Salford Community Justice Initiative, both in England. Collectively, these projects have helped spark the British government’s interest in rethinking the relationship between courts and the community. “We … propose extending the use of problem-solving techniques in the courtroom, building on the lessons of the successful Community Justice pilots in Liverpool and Salford, to enable courts to target the causes of offending and therefore reduce the chances of reoffending in the future,” according to the report, which is entitled Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice. The British government’s community justice initiative is built around several primary aims, including: achieving stronger, community-focused partnerships; using community justice to solve neighborhood problems; increasing “the intensity and visibility” of community restitution programs so that offenders, in effect, “pay back” the neighborhood for their offending; and keeping the public better informed about case outcomes. “Too often the public don’t believe that their voice is heard, don’t believe wrongdoers face adequate consequences for the crimes they commit, don’t believe they are told enough about what happens in the system and, perhaps because of this, they don’t believe that crime has fallen when they are told so,” said Louise Casey, the British government’s neighborhood crime and justice advisor.

Community prosecution techniques are becoming "business as usual" around the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. In fact, this approach emphasizing neighborhood knowledge and creative, prevention-oriented approaches to public safety problems has become part of the way the majority of prosecutors do business, a study of 307 offices has found. And a closer look at the survey reveals even more common use of community prosecution techniques when the focus is on the three essential components of community prosecution - problem-solving, community engagement and partnerships: Problem SolvingNinety-five percent of large offices reported using tools other than criminal prosecution to address community problems, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in its 2005 National Survey of Prosecutors. Eighty percent of medium-sized offices, 72 percent of full-time small offices, and 43 percent of part-time offices also reported using alternative methods. Community EngagementOverall, more than half the offices surveyed engaged the community in identifying safety priorities, according to the survey. Ninety-five percent of large offices, 75 percent of medium offices, 51 percent of small offices, and 38 percent of small offices relied on the community to identify crime or problem areas.   PartnershipsAlmost 90 percent of the offices reported a formal or informal relationship with governmental agencies, 70 percent with community associations, and over half with private organizations, while about three-fifths of all offices met regularly with school and advocacy groups. Nearly half of the offices reported meeting regularly with youth service organizations and business groups. Virtually all the offices indicated a formal or informal relationship with law enforcement agencies. MethodQuestionnaires consisting of 48 questions were mailed to 310 elected prosecutors, and 307 completed the questionnaire.

  As problem-solving innovation becomes more integrated into the way courts do business, law schools are beginning to offer courses examining problem-solving principles and practices. The Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, among others, have urged law schools to include the principles and methods of problem-solving courts in their curricula. In a parallel development, Harvard Law School recently reformed its first-year curriculum to include a new course, “Problems and Theories,” that will focus on teaching students basic problem-solving skills. A recent article in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy entitled "Lawyering and Learning in Problem-Solving Courts" makes the case for greater engagement between law school clinics and problem-solving courts.  Given the recent interest in problem solving and academia, this article seeks to provide a short overview of current law school classes that touch on topics of problem-solving justice. Courses and clinics are organized into five basic categories: problem-solving courts, community prosecution, restorative justice, problem-solving lawyering, and therapeutic jurisprudence. The list was compiled with the help of Michael Cobden, based on interviews and web searches. It is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. Rather, it seeks to provide a snapshot of a rapidly developing field by highlighting courses from law schools around the country. Note that this overview is limited to law school classes and does not include courses on problem solving at graduate schools in other disciplines (e.g., criminology, public policy, social work). Problem-Solving Courts In recent years, proponents of problem-solving courts have sought to introduce drug courts, community courts, and other new approaches to justice into law schools. Often this takes the form of a single guest lecture as part of a larger course on a related topic. In addition to these ad-hoc efforts, several more law schools have recently piloted full-semester classes devoted to problem-solving justice. Fordham University School of Law Course: Problem Solving Justice: Courts as Agents of Social Change Professors: Patricia Henry, Susan Knipps, Valerie Raine Fordham has piloted a syllabus created by the Center for Court Innovation with the help of a panel of academic advisors. The course begins with a look at the conventional approach to case processing and offers a history of problem-solving courts, focusing on drug courts, community courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts. Guest speakers and site visits are a part of the course. Brooklyn Law School Course: Problem-Solving Justice Professor: Anne J. Swern This course, taught by an adjunct lecturer from the Brooklyn D.A.’s office, covers the history of the problem-solving court movement and addresses the role these new courts play within the larger justice system. Concerns about how courts should treat issues like drug addiction are introduced and discussed. Visits to both traditional and innovative courts are part of the course. State University of New York: Buffalo Course: A Critical Look at Therapeutic Courts: Drug Treatment, Domestic Violence, Mental Health and Gambling Courts Professors: Mark Violante, Mark Farrell This course is taught by two judges and involves extensive site visits. During visits to court, students attend case conferences and “shadow” court staff including district attorneys, defense attorneys, and judges. Students are required to write a 20-page paper about any aspect of a problem-solving court they have learned about during the semester. Columbia University  Program Title: Center on Crime, Community and Law Course: Pro-seminar on Problem-solving Courts Professors: Jeffrey Fagan, Michael Dorf This Columbia pro-seminar changes subject each year. The 2003 pro-seminar focused on community justice centers and community prosecution. The course began with readings on the theoretical basis for the courts before moving on to empirical research. This pro-seminar culminated in a research paper which was defended by each student author in a final symposium. William and Mary School of Law Course: Problem-Solving Courts Professor: Gregory Baker According to Professor Gregory Baker, there are plans to create a new course which would supplement the developing Therapeutic Jurisprudence Program (see below).  Community Prosecution Community prosecution—a new approach to law enforcement that emphasizes neighborhood knowledge and creative, non-prosecutorial approaches to public safety problems—is being taught in a couple of law school clinics. Brooklyn Law School  Course: Prosecutors Clinic Professor: Lisa Smith and Anne J. Swern In the Brooklyn program, third-year students work alongside community prosecutors from the Kings County D.A.’s office in a clinical setting. Students are encouraged to become familiar with the community itself as they learn about specific neighborhood problems. University of Maryland School of Law Course: Community Justice Clinic, Community Law in Action Clinic Professor: Brenda Bratton Blom, Terry Hickey The Community Justice Clinic has five components in which students may participate: community prosecution, community justice council, school conflict resolution, youth advocacy/law/leadership and business development. The community prosecution component allows students to design, operate and evaluate a community prosecution project with help from faculty and the Baltimore City State’s Attorney's Office. The community justice council is a group which consists of community leaders, law enforcement, prosecutors, defenders, law students and clergy who create and evaluate offender rehabilitation programs. New York University School of Law Course: Criminal and Community Defense Clinic Professors: Kim Taylor-Thompson and Anthony Thompson The Criminal and Community Defense Clinic offers students to explore the variety of ways that defender offices can be more grounded in the communities from which their clients come and to which they return. Students work with defenders at the Neighborhood Defenders Service of Harlem and also with community advocacy groups in addressing broader issues that affect communities of individuals charged with crime. Restorative Justice Several law schools have restorative justice programs or courses that focus on efforts to promote alternative approaches to disputes that bring together victims and offenders. What follows are selected examples. University of Wisconsin Law School  Program Title: Frank J. Remington Center Course: Restorative Justice Project Professors: Leslie Shear, Pete DeWind This clinical program is open to 12 second and third-year law students and is divided into two parts: Family Law Project and Restorative Justice Project. The Restorative Justice Project facilitates meetings between incarcerated felons and victims. The project seeks to teach students a non-adversarial approach to criminal justice issues. Marquette University Law School  Course Titles: Restorative Justice; Restorative Justice Initiative Clinic Professors: Janine Geske The course teaches restorative justice in both American and international settings, including victim/offender and victim/family conferencing, victim impact panels and Native American Circles. The course also explores constitutional problems related to restorative justice. Pepperdine University School of Law  Course: Restorative Justice Professor: Daniel Van Ness  This course explores the restorative justice movement, a systematic approach to criminal justice that emphasizes repairing harm caused or revealed by criminal behavior. Restorative justice incorporates aspects of alternative dispute resolution and civil law into criminal matters in furtherance of its overarching goals of healing and reconciliation. The course considers where the movement originated, how it has developed in the past twenty years, the opportunities and challenges it confronts, and specific ways in which it can be woven into and implemented as part of the criminal process. Georgetown Law Course: Restorative Justice In International Human Rights: A New Paradigm Professor: Lynn Fraser This is an LL.M. seminar offered on international human rights and restorative justice that teaches the basics of the restorative justice theory before applying it to the international issues. New York University School of Law Course: Retribution in Criminal Law Theory & Practice Seminar Professor: James Frederick Gilligan and David A.J. Richards This course discusses the role retribution should play in criminal justice. Topics discussed will include the philosophy of retributive justice and social justice in a democracy, the psychology of violence (rooted in patriarchal emotions of humiliation and shame, suppressing the moral emotion of guilt), the historical roots of American retributivism (including mass incarceration and the death penalty), and alternatives to retributive justice (including therapeutic and restorative justice). The seminar includes in its pedagogy experiments in freeing creative voice through weekly writing and theatre exercises and includes a close study of philosophy, history, psychoanalysis, novels, and plays. Problem-Solving Lawyering and Alternative Dispute Resolution In October 2006, the Harvard Law School revised its first-year curriculum to include a new course, “Problem Solving Workshop,” that will engage students in working on complex, multi-faceted problems involving diverse areas of law. Other schools that offer at least a course or two which teach general problem-solving lawyer skills include Stanford, UCLA and New York Law School. California Western University has taken the idea further by creating an entire curriculum and concentration called “Creative Problem-Solving.” The curriculum has three core courses: Problem-solving & Preventive Law; Cross-cultural Problem Identification and Problem Solving Skills & Theory. Georgetown Law School has a special program on “Conflict Resolution and Legal Problem Solving” led by Carrie Minkel Meadow that focuses on mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Like Georgetown, many law schools have classes in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Indeed, the Association of American Law Schools, the principal association of law professors, has a special section devoted to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Florida Coastal School of Law Course: Comprehensive Law Practice Professor: Susan Daicoff This course is limited to 30 students and has been offered during spring semesters since 2000. The official description says that the course is evenly divided between theory and skill development. Most of the course covers mediation and general lawyer skills from the perspective of law as a healing profession. One week is devoted to problem-solving courts. University of Baltimore School of Law  Course: Center for Families, Children and the Courts’ Student Fellows Program Professor: Barbara A. Babb The fellowship program has a limited enrollment of six students. The program consists of weekly two-hour seminars and weekly one-hour supervisory meetings. About eight or nine class sessions (out of sixteen) are devoted to problem-solving courts, teen courts, drug courts and family courts. Students participate in research projects for the Center. Therapeutic Jurisprudence Proponents of therapeutic jurisprudence, most notably Professors Bruce Winick and David Wexler, argue that therapeutic jurisprudence—the study of the therapeutic (and anti-therapeutic) impacts of legal decisions and actions—can apply to all areas of legal practice. Many of the courses listed below have posted syllabi on the website for the International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence maintained by the University of Arizona. William and Mary School of Law  Course Title: Therapeutic Jurisprudence Professor: Gregory Baker Students spend most of their time working in either a drug court or mental health court. This work commonly involves being a “therapeutic court law clerk,” researching constitutional and other legal issues and writing legal memoranda for the judge. There is also a community service component that requires students to provide some non-legal service to either the court or to the local community. University of Miami School of Law  Course Titles: New Directions in Lawyering: Interviewing, Counseling, & Attorney/Client Relational Skills; Therapeutic Jurisprudence Seminar; Therapeutic Courts Externship Professors: Bruce Winick, Bernard P. Perlmutter, Jennifer Zawid The first course focuses is on preventive lawyering, holistic representation and civil matters. Students are assigned a variety of readings including articles profiling attorneys who utilize therapeutic methods in their practice. Traditional cases are re-examined with an eye towards how they might have been handled differently from a preventive or holistic perspective. Students engage in mock interviews and role-playing exercises, some of which are based on real case files and some of which are scripted. Outside speakers from other departments in the University of Miami inform the class of other disciplines and how they might contribute to the understanding of the client’s perspective. In the final phase of this course, students conduct supervised interviews of clients who are in the custody of a juvenile detention facility and prepare memoranda which are shared with the public defender’s office. The second course focuses on studying and attempting to reform substantive legal rules and legal procedures. Students will prepare a 30-40 page paper on a therapeutic jurisprudence topic or theme and will have the opportunity to participate in research or law reform activities conducted by the Therapeutic Jurisprudence Center. University of Puerto Rico Courses: Therapeutic Jurisprudence; Therapeutic Jurisprudence and New Directions in Criminal Lawyering; Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Therapeutic Jurisprudence; and Sentencing and Corrections from a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective Professor: David Wexler Professor Wexler is a Professor of Law at the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan, Puerto Rico, a Distinguished Research Professor of Law at the James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Arizona, and the Director of the International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Touro Law Center  Course: Selected Topics in Professional Responsibility: Lawyering as a Happy, Healthy, Healing and Ethical Profession Professor: Marjorie A. Silver According to the course description, this course is geared toward students who are already experiencing disillusionment about their chosen profession. The course addresses the emotional and mental strain on lawyers as much as on litigants. Problem-solving courts and restorative justice are presented as areas of practice that might avoid the ethical and emotional difficulties of working in a traditional legal career. New York Law School Course: Therapeutic Jurisprudence  Professor: Deborah Dorfman This course focuses on mentally disabled individuals who are litigants or are the subject of litigation. It is a predominantly on-line course, requiring students to participate in a weekly chat room, discussion board, and two, day-long weekend live seminars at New York Law School. University of Connecticut Law School  Course: Therapeutic Jurisprudence Professor: Robert G. Madden This is a seminar covering a wide range of theory and skill development. One class session is titled “Specialized Courts: Applied Therapeutic Jurisprudence.” Three other sessions deal with Domestic Violence, Juvenile Justice, Drug Courts and Criminal Courts. Mercer University School of Law  Course: Therapeutic Jurisprudence Professor: Bonnie Cole  The course covers the psychology of law and the psychological well-being of practitioners. Other topics include comprehensive law, holistic lawyering and collaborative law.

For courts with limited resources that are interested in problem-solving, Buffalo (N.Y.) City Court offers an intriguing model. With no extra funds, in 1995 the court began to identify defendants’ social problems and link them to needed services. Today, Buffalo’s innovative C.O.U.R.T.S. (Court Outreach Unit: Referral and Treatment Services) program links together more than 130 community-based providers and makes more than 6,000 referrals a year.   The program, a collaborative effort of Buffalo City Court and the City of Buffalo, provides judges with an on-site court-based screening and referral service. “We’re basically a treatment and communication broker for the court. And you name it, we got it. We basically can meet any need of a person who comes through the doors,” Director Hank Pirowski says. The program links individuals coming through the justice system with a full range of social services, including drug treatment, mental health treatment, medical care, anger management, family counseling, youth counseling, domestic violence and battering programming, vocational/educational services, and housing. The idea for the program came about in 1994, when the Hon. Thomas Amodeo became chief judge for the Buffalo City Court. Frustrated by the haphazard way defendants were being placed into treatment, the lack of a centralized tracking system for the court, and increased recidivism rates driven in part by the crack epidemic, he started talking to court staff and city officials about new ways of doing business. According to Amodeo, the court had two major problems: first, reports weren’t coming back to the judge, and second, the court needed a regimented screening system to ensure that everyone who needed treatment received it. Treatment provider Hank Pirowski spearheaded a study of how the court could best link clients to services. “That’s when we came up with this idea, to get all our partnering agencies involved,” Pirowski says. The court then called together a meeting with over 60 area providers to get them on board, explaining the concept for the program and convincing providers that if they would co-locate staff members in space provided by the court, defendants would have easier access to their treatment systems. “On the staffing side we started the program with no dollars,” Pirowski says. “Zero. I was given a closet in the courthouse that still had wash basins in it. But the city gave me a team of six people, two from the Division of Substance Abuse Services and four from the Division for Youth, and my partnering agencies donated staff at no additional cost to the court.” Today there are 26 full- and part-time workers on site, only four of them from the Office of Court Administration. “Without the community partnership, we wouldn’t exist,” says Pirowski, who also helps oversee Buffalo’s drug court and mental health court. C.O.U.R.T.S. staff interview defendants while in custody, relaying the information to court advocates, who make recommendations to judges. The judges make the final call on whether a defendant is appropriate for C.O.U.R.T.S. or not. Defendants referred to the program are placed with a participating member of the treatment consortium. Placement is based not on which agency performed the assessment but on the defendant’s individual needs, geographical location and ability to pay. No one is allowed to refer defendants to his or her own agency, though the judge may approve such a placement if it is clearly the best choice for the defendant. Managed care partners are on site to make the process run more smoothly. And once defendants are placed, case managers monitor defendants’ compliance with tailored, individual service plans, and report treatment outcomes to the judge. By the summer of 2006 the C.O.UR.T.S. program had made over 40,000 referrals, and was referring 6,000 cases to social service providers each year. From 2000 to 2005, defendants completed over 75,500 hours of community service, including graffiti removal and demolition of crack houses. The value of labor contributed to the community during that time was estimated to be $453,000. The program has received the New York State Bar Association Public Service Award for the Furtherance of Justice and the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ City Livability Award.

  During spring and summer 2004, focus groups were conducted among the participants and court staff in three New York State drug courts. The research was designed to provide feedback about drug court operations and to assist programs by examining the extent to which participants and staff hold comparable views about various aspects of the drug court experience. In other words, do drug court participants and court staff see eye-to-eye? At each court, participant sessions were followed by focus groups and interviews among court staff. Participants and staff discussed a variety of topics: why participants enter and remain in drug court, views about the drug court program and staff, which components of be the program are more and less effective, the courtroom experience, and suggestions to improve the program. Motivating the project was a recognition that drug courts are likely to be most effective when those operating programs are fully cognizant of the attitudes and experiences of program participants. Drug court staff and participants will, of course, have areas of agreement and disagreement. But it is crucial for staff to be aware of how their perceptions and attitudes might differ from participants’ so that they can most effectively manage those differences, deliver the drug court intervention, and identify areas for continuous improvement. To ensure the anonymity of research participants, the drug courts are not individually identified in the report, which can be read in its entirety here. The report focuses on common themes and findings that emerged across sites. Key Findings Drug court participants and court staff generally do see eye-to-eye. In all three courts, staff were remarkably cognizant about why participants enter drug court, what they do and do not like about it, and what motivates them to remain clean and in the program. The research also made clear that these courts, to varying degrees, regularly elicit feedback from program participants and take that feedback into account when shaping policies and procedures. Staff members’ knowledge of and concern for the participant perspective likely explains in part participants’ positive impressions of the staff. More detailed findings are below.   Participants enter drug court primarily to avoid prison, not to enter treatment and get off drugs. Although some said that their opportunity to enter drug court happened at the “right time” when they wanted to enter treatment, the overwhelming majority of participants acknowledged that they entered drug court mainly to avoid going to prison. Most also felt that, although the program is nominally voluntary, they had little choice but to enter drug court—prison is viewed as an unattractive alternative. Many participants did concede that their motivation changed after being in the program for some time, and they became more concerned about completing treatment, staying clean, and improving their lives. Many participants do not fully appreciate what they are agreeing to when they enter drug court. Most drug court participants reported that the rules and expectations of drug court were explained to them, but it was not until they spent some time in the program and began treatment that they fully understood what they had gotten into—intensive supervision and monitoring. Drug court staff members were aware of this, and reported that they make numerous attempts to make it clear to participants what they are agreeing to at program entry. They were also aware that participants are likely to be resistant early on and that it takes time for them to adjust to the program. Most participants believe the rules of drug court are fair. Most participants reported that the rules of drug court are fair and felt that they are treated fairly by the treatment court team. They spoke particularly favorably about how the judge and others take participants’ “personal situations” into account when making decisions such as sanctions and phase advancement. This knowledge about participants’ lives, and capacity to use it to craft personalized responses, appears to add to drug court participants’ perceptions of procedural justice. Defense attorneys were not perceived as important to drug court. Many participants complained about what they felt was their defense attorneys’ lack of involvement in their case. Once again, staff members appeared aware of these concerns. Some seemed to agree that, at least after the participant enters drug court, defense attorneys are not critical to the program. Others, however, pointed out that defense attorneys have a role but that it is largely behind the scenes—in team meetings rather than open court. Drug court participants, therefore, generally do not see the work their counsel does for them, according to this argument. The judge is a critical component of the drug court treatment model. Both participants and staff had largely positive views about the judge in their court. While appearing before the judge can be daunting, particularly for those called up on an infraction, most participants acknowledged that the judge was fair, sympathetic, and supportive, and that having to appear before the judge helped them stick to their treatment plan. Heightened monitoring, drug testing, and the threat of prison are key motivators to remain clean and in the program. The threat of going to prison for failing the drug court program has a clear and powerful effect on virtually all drug court participants. Participants clearly feared incarceration and would go to great lengths to avoid it. Just as most participants entered drug court to avoid prison, so too the prospect of incarceration is a powerful motivator to keep them in the program. Participants also cited heightened monitoring, especially frequent drug testing, as a critical component of drug court. They differentiated drug court from previous court experiences where there was little monitoring and, thus, their continued drug use went undiscovered. The courtroom experience is critical to drug court participants. Drug court participants clearly personalized the experience of appearing before and speaking to the judge in court; it appears to have a powerful effect. Participants spoke about being very nervous before court appearances, particularly when they anticipated sanction or reprimand and also about the sense of satisfaction when they received positive feedback from the judge. Sitting in court and seeing other cases also appears to be effective. Participants were surprisingly cognizant that this “audience effect” is intentional and most agreed that seeing others receive praise and sanctions (particularly the latter) sends the message that “it could be me” and helps to keep them clean. Treatment programs were the subject of frequent complaint. In all focus groups, criticism focused on a variety of complaints about treatment programs. Participants voiced concern about the length of treatment, classes they felt were inappropriate for them, scheduling issues, and required treatment fees. Staff discussed the lack of certified treatment providers in their communities, particularly those offering programs for specialized populations, as well as the drug court’s limited ability to hold providers accountable. Suggestions to Improve Drug Courts The focus groups also produced a number of thoughtful suggestions from participants and staff about ways to improve their drug court programs. Participants recommended expanding the court in different ways—e.g., having more treatment providers work with the court and providing flexible scheduling of classes; enhancing access to education, employment, job training, and other services; and reimbursing for travel so participants can more easily travel between court and treatment and home. Drug court staff echoed many of these concerns, and offered other suggestions not raised by participants, including the need for more treatment services for women, non-English speakers and the dually diagnosed; more training in addiction issues for judges, attorneys, and other legal staff who work with drug courts (as well as those in other court settings); and more widely available methadone treatment.