The Arc

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International were selected by the National Institute of Justice to conduct the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation, one of the most ambitious evaluations of drug courts ever performed. Click here for an overview and summary of the major findings of the six-year longitudinal, impact, and cost evaluation that includes 23 drug courts and six comparison sites in eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington. Click here to download any of the final study reports or to download a powerpoint that includes many of the major findings. The process evaluation entails a review of program operations, structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders, and court observations. The impact evaluation uses three waves of surveys, urinalysis testing, and administrative records to test a series of theoretically-grounded hypotheses on 1,156 drug court and 625 comparison group offenders. The study's main objectives were to: Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse. Address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes. Explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs. Examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

Below are a number of sample documents—everything from consent forms and intake assessments to program descriptions and brochures—used every day by problem-solving initiatives around the country. These may be helpful for your program as guides or templates. If your program uses a tool that might be helpful to include on this list, please email expertassistance@courtinnovation.org.  Agendas – Problem-Solving ConferencesIdaho-2008 Drug and Mental Health Court Institute Agenda: Indiana Problem-Solving Courts Workshop 2008Charters and BylawsSeattle Municipal Court, Community Court CharterCompliance Tracking ToolsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community Service Time Sheet Community Engagement – Events FlyersSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Planning Committee Meeting Flyer San Francisco Community Justice Center Kick-off Town Hall MeetingCommunity Engagement – Meeting AgendasSouth Carolina Fourth, Community Forum Agenda Judicial CircuitCommunity Engagement – Engaging VolunteersMidtown Community Court, Volunteer OpportunitiesSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Volunteer ApplicationCommunity Engagement – Meeting ToolsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court Ambassadors Program, Meeting Notes (for keeping records of planning meetings)San Diego’s Beach Area Community Court Ambassadors Program, Venue List (for gathering information on possible meeting locations)Community Justice Strategic PlansTarrant County (Ft. Worth) TX Community Justice Strategic PlanCommunity SurveysLynchburg Community Court, Community SurveySan Francisco Community Justice Baseline Survey 2009San Francisco Community Justice Press ReleaseSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Community SurveyConsent FormsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Victim Consent FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Officer’s Consent FormExpungement InformationSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Fact Sheet on Expunging Records“Good Neighbor” AgreementsSeattle, Sample Community Good Neighbor Agreement Intake AssessmentsBronx Community Solutions, Intake Assessment FormClackamas County Social Services, Community Court Intake/QuestionnaireLynchburg Community Court, Intake Assessment FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intake AssessmentLinkage Agreements/Memoranda of UnderstandingPima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Memorandum of AgreementCareSouth Carolina and South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Linkage AgreementSan Diego Downtown Community Court Pilot Program, Memorandum of UnderstandingNewslettersBronx Community Solutions, Fall 2009 NewsletterCommunity Justice Devon and Cornwall - December 2008 Hartford Community Court, Fall 2007 NewsletterPhiladelphia Community Court, Winter 2006-2007 NewsletterSan Diego’s Downtown Community Court, Inaugural NewsletterSeattle Community Court, Summer 2008 Newsletter Seattle Community Court, Summer 2009 Newsletter Operations ManualsDC Misdemeanor and Traffic Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and ProceduresEast of the River Community Court, Program Manual of Policies and ProceduresPhilladelphia's Community Court, Manual -- Table of ContentsPretrial NoticesSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Program Requirements Explanation FormSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Participant Account NoticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Delinquent Payment NoticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Termination NoticeProgram DescriptionsBronx Community SolutionsCommunity Prosecution in West Midlands, EnglandIndianapolis Community Court - Program Description FlyerMelbourne's Neighbourhood Justice CentrePhiladelphia Community Court, Program DescriptionPima County AZ Juvenile Domestic Violence Project, Program DescriptionSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, General Information Flyer San Diego Collaborative and Restorative Justice Court ProgramsSan Diego, Mid-City Community Court Mission Statement San Diego Serial Inebriate Seattle Community Court, Council BriefingSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Chesterfield County Drug Court South Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Operation Community JusticeSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit Alcohol InterventionWashington DC's East of the River Community Court Washington DC's Misdemeanor and Traffic CourtProgram ReportsBronx Community Solutions, Annual ReportBronx Community Solutions, Quarterly Report San Diego’s Mid-City Community Court, Quarterly Report Fact SheetSeattle Community Court, Annual Report Referral FormsSouth Carolina Fourth Judicial Circuit, Pretrial Intervention Program Referral Form Survey ToolsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for Community Impact PanelistsSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Survey Form for OffendersSan Diego’s Beach Area Community Court, Summary of Survey of Community Impact Panelists Training CurriculaAtlanta Community Court - Police Training Curriculum

The following principles embody the collective experience of thousands of practitioners working to test new ideas and address chronic problems in the field of problem-solving justice. Over time, these principles have found their way into problem-solving initiatives in both big cities and small towns, in initiatives that address low-level offending and more serious crimes, and in projects that work with first-time offenders and chronic recidivists returning from prison. Enhanced Information Better staff training (about complex issues like domestic violence and drug addiction) combined with better information (about litigants, victims, and the community context of crime) can help improve the decision making of judges, attorneys, and other justice officials. High-quality information—gathered with the assistance of technology and shared in accordance with confidentiality laws—can help practitioners make more nuanced decisions about both treatment needs and the risks individual defendants pose to public safety, ensuring offenders receive an appropriate level of supervision and services. Community Engagement Citizens and neighborhood groups have an important role to play in helping the justice system identify, prioritize, and solve local problems. Actively engaging citizens helps improve public trust in the justice system. Greater trust, in turn, helps people feel safer, fosters law-abiding behavior, and makes members of the public more willing to cooperate in the pursuit of justice (as witnesses, jury members, etc.) Collaboration Justice system leaders are uniquely positioned to engage a diverse range of people, government agencies, and community organizations in collaborative efforts to improve public safety. By bringing together justice partners (e.g., judges, prosecutors, attorneys, probation officers, court managers) and reaching out to potential stakeholders beyond the courthouse (e.g., social service providers, victims groups, schools), justice agencies can improve inter-agency communication, encourage greater trust between citizens and government, and foster new responses—including new diversion and sentencing options, when appropriate—to problems. Individualized justice Using valid, evidence-based risk and needs assessment instruments, the justice system can link offenders to individually tailored community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate. In doing so (and by treating defendants with dignity and respect), the justice system can help reduce recidivism, improve community safety and enhance confidence in justice. Links to services can also aid victims, improving their safety and helping restore their lives. Accountability The justice system can send the message that all criminal behavior, even low-level quality-of-life crime—has an impact on community safety and has consequences. By insisting on regular and rigorous compliance monitoring—and clear consequences for non-compliance—the justice system can improve the accountability of offenders. It can also improve the accountability of service providers by requiring regular reports on their work with participants. Outcomes The active and ongoing collection and analysis of data—measuring outcomes and process, costs and benefits—are crucial tools for evaluating the effectiveness of operations and encouraging continuous improvement. Public dissemination of this information can be a valuable symbol of public accountability. Appreciation is extended to the following who reviewed and commented on these principles: Pam Casey, National Center for State Courts Cait Clarke, consultant, former director of the National Defender Leadership Institute William F. Dressel, The National Judicial College John Goldkamp, Temple University C. West Huddleston III, National Association of Drug Court Professionals Steven Jansen, National District Attorneys Association Wendy Lindley, Orange County (California) Superior Court Judy Harris Kluger, New York State Unified Court System Timothy Murray, Pretrial Justice Institute Carol Roberts, Ramsey County (Minnesota) Community Corrections

With the help of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation convened the first ever international conference of community courts in Dallas, Texas on October 19-20, 2010. In attendance were criminal justice officials from dozens of American cities as well as delegations from England, Australia, Canada, Chile and Mexico.

With support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bronx Defenders launched the Center for Holistic Defense in 2010. The Center for Holistic Defense has issued its first "request for proposals" (or RFP), which will allow it to help three jurisdictions in the development of a holistic defense practice. The Bronx Defenders, through its Center for Holistic Defense, is moving to shift public defense practice in the United States in a direction that is more aware of the client as a whole person with a broad range of challenges and needs that interconnect with their criminal case.   The organization, which provides free legal services to indigent residents of the Bronx borough of New York City, launched the Center for Holistic Defense in 2010 to help public defense offices around the United States learn how to incorporate holistic defense principles into their work.  In its model of holistic defense, each Bronx Defenders client receives services from an interdisciplinary group of experts who work together as a team to address the client’s needs, both in terms of their criminal defense and with regards to other issues that may help the client improve their well-being and avoid further involvement with the criminal justice system.  The Bronx Defenders has staff trained in many disciplines in addition to criminal law, including social work, parent advocacy, family law, and immigration law.  The Bronx Defenders is able to be more responsive to clients’ needs while keeping the cost per case comparable to that of other public defense providers.  “Being able to offer more services is a function of allocation of resources. I resist the idea that providing services is an add-on; it is integral to public defense,” Steinberg said. The Center for Holistic Defense, in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation, is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). For the second year in a row, a BJA grant has allowed the Center for Holistic Defense to issue a “request for proposals” (or RFP), which will allow it to help three additional jurisdictions in the development of a holistic defense practice.  Bronx Defenders will encourage the three jurisdictions—which will be chosen for their geographic and organizational diversity—to practice holistic defense in the way that makes the most sense for them.  In response to its previous solicitation, the Center for Holistic Defense assisted the Knox County (TN) Public Defender’s Community Law Office, the Wisconsin State Public Defender, and the Washoe County (NV) Public Defender in the development of holistic defense programs. “We recognize that there can be a spectrum of holistic defense practice.  We want to encourage each jurisdiction to practice holistic defense in the way that is most appropriate to their fiscal and organizational circumstances.  For example, for those organizations that are deeply underfunded and struggling to cope under the burden of their caseloads, we would like to show that there are mechanisms for creatively using existing resources in their communities that will not increase costs,” Steinberg explained. (Applicants who wish to be considered for the RFP should visit https://www.bronxdefenders.org/press/public-defender-offices-eligible-free-technical-assistance for more information. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, March 2, 2011.) In addition to supporting the jurisdictions selected under the BJA-sponsored program, the Center provides assistance to all comers through a website offering instructional material on developing a holistic practice. Center staff also provides direct technical assistance—through formal consulting relationships, site visits to the Bronx Defender offices, and being an informal resource center and depository of information—to help move more organizations towards holistic defense. Robin Steinberg, executive director of Bronx Defenders, founded the Bronx Defenders’ in 1997 after years of practicing as a public defender and exposure to public defense practice across the nation. It became clear to her that to be more responsive to clients, public defense attorneys needed to broaden the scope of the services they offered.  “Clients come to public defenders with many challenges other than their criminal case.  Often those challenges, such as addiction, joblessness, possible deportation, or loss of housing, are more pressing than the criminal charges faced by the client, and if those issues are not addressed, clients are destined to cycle back into the criminal justice system,” Steinberg said.  In the 2010 Padilla v. Kentucky decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attorneys representing criminal defendants have an obligation to advise their clients of the risk of deportation associated with a guilty plea.  This ruling affirms the work of the Bronx Defenders, which has been demonstrating for nearly 15 years that zealous defense of criminal defendants must include a holistic assessment of the client’s needs, including understanding how collateral consequences like deportation by immigration authorities may impact defense strategy.

LONDON, December 2009 — The Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales has launched a year-long community prosecutor pilot initiative in sites across the country. The initiative is described in “Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice”, a consultation paper released by the Criminal Justice System of England and Wales in April 2009. The paper “sets out the government’s proposals for transforming criminal justice from a system that does things to communities into a true service that does things for and with communities.” The proposals in the paper are built around four primary aims: Achieving stronger, community-focused partnerships that draw together activity across criminal justice services and other relevant agencies to secure effective, two-way communications between the Criminal Justice System and local communities; Building on the success of community justice projects and the problem-solving approach to enhance the visibility of the Criminal Justice System, solve problems for the community, and reform offenders and enable them to make amends; Increasing the intensity and visibility of community-restitution efforts; Keeping the public informed by improving the information the public receives about case outcomes and, in this way, helping ensure that the public sees a connection between the crime and the punishment meted out in response. The paper describes community prosecution as “a major new initiative” for the Crown Prosecution Service that will strengthen the agency’s role and “ensure it will be better able to play its full role in community engagement alongside the police, courts, and other partners.” The paper continues: “The aim of the approach is to enable the CPS to provide a more locally responsive service than it can at present and it will enhance the CPS’ ability to respond to local needs and circumstances.” “The community prosecutor approach is about the way the CPS does business, rather than creating a cadre of ‘community prosecutors’, and delivery of it will be subject to local variations and circumstances. It is anticipated that all members of the CPS will, over time, come to regard themselves as community prosecutors.” The Crown Prosecution Service began testing the community prosecutor approach in 49 sites across England and Wales over 12 months, starting in June 2009. Each site is testing: Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors’ taking more “community-aware” casework decisions; Increased Crown Prosecution Service involvement in problem solving for local crime and disorder priorities; and Increased visibility to communities and other agencies of the Crown Prosecution Service’s responsiveness to these priorities. By the end of 2009, the community prosecutor approach in 30 of the pilot locations will be delivered alongside three other initiatives described in the consultation paper: community impact statements, community justice teams, and citizens’ panels. Watch a short video in which Community Prosecutor Gaynor Zeki talks about the pilot program in Wakefield, England.  

Jack Straw endorses court-community collaboration following a February 2008 visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Following a visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center —during which he experienced a judge’s-eye view of the courtroom, quizzed staff about operations, and met with a group of ex-offenders who had gotten their lives back on track—Jack Straw, the United Kingdom’s justice secretary and lord chancellor, endorsed efforts in his own country to foster court-community collaborations. (To hear a podcast reporting on Straw's visit, click here.) In an opinion article in the Guardian published after his visit, Straw wrote that the Red Hook Community Justice Center “has done much to increase people’s confidence in criminal justice.” “We should not be so proud that we are unable to learn lessons from others. In New York, they have recognized that the courts cannot do it alone. Without the cooperation of the community, many offenders simply repeat the cycle of offending and detention,” Straw wrote. Earlier visits to the Justice Center by British officials inspired the creation in 2005 of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. The North Liverpool pilot has been followed by 12 other community court projects across England and Wales. “The reputation of Red Hook has gone far and wide,” Straw said. Straw had a chance to sit on the bench with presiding Judge Alex Calabrese. Among the cases Calabrese heard was that of a woman with a long history of drug abuse and prostitution arrests. Calabrese had ordered her to participate in drug treatment. “It seems like everything is going really well.  You should be proud,” Calabrese told her after reviewing a positive report from the drug-treatment facility. At the conclusion of her appearance, the courtroom erupted in applause and both Calabrese and Straw shook her hand. During a tour of the building, Straw queried both staff and clients about their experiences at the justice center. Later, Straw met with ex-offenders and the Justice Center’s law enforcement partners, including 76th Precinct Captain Michael Kemper, who explained how the police and the Justice Center have worked together to tackle low-level crime and improve safety.  The 76th Precinct is the safest in Brooklyn according to the latest crime statistics. Straw also met Tina, a former offender, who explained that she’d lived on the street for nine years before an arrest brought her to the justice center. Judge Calabrese mandated her to a year of treatment. “And I was just so relieved,” Tina said. “I never looked back. I stayed in the program three years because that’s what it took … and now I work for them.” Virtually every week, the Center for Court Innovation hosts visitors from around the U.S. and the world -- criminal justice officials from more than 50 countries have toured the Center's demonstration projects. Last year, the Center for Court Innovation hosted more than 700 visitors.   “During these visits, we try to show that courts can work better and that outcomes matter. We’re demonstrating that combining punishment and help is the best way of getting clients back on track, reducing recidivism, and serving the community,” said Julius Lang, who oversees the Center's community court technical assistance efforts.  

At New York City’s Middle School 61, high levels of conflict between students—often leading to physical fighting—has been a chronic problem. Over the last three years the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center’s School Justice Center, which works intensively with schools to transform their culture and promote peaceful resolutions to conflict, has offered mediation services to students in an effort to resolve these conflicts. Mediation not only broadens students’ ranges of options, but offers a place where parties in conflict can understand each other. And the confidential and private nature of mediation provides students with a space separate from the pressure of their peers and family members to address the issues at root of their conflicts. Students attend mediation both voluntarily and involuntarily at School 61, depending on the circumstances. Once the Program Coordinator has a referral, she has to determine whether the case is appropriate for mediation and does not pose a serious danger to participants. Appropriate cases include arguments between students, conflicts that may lead to a physical fight, and conflicts that have lingered after a fight has occurred. The Coordinator determines which parties need to be involved in the mediation, what the balance of power is between the parties, and whether or not there is a threat of violence. She gathers the involved students during their lunch period or, if that is not possible, during class time. The mediations are completed either in the mediation office or in an empty classroom if the conflict involves multiple parties. This requires coordination with school deans and also with teachers whose classrooms are being used. During the mediation, the Coordinator encourages all parties to tell their sides of the story. She interrupts behavior that is detrimental to the reconciliation process, reinforces attempts at resolution, helps the students come up with some action steps and agreements, and suggests some tips for conflict resolution the next time a situation should occur. While there are varying opinions about how involved the mediator should be in helping the parties come to their own agreements, the Center’s experience at Middle School 61 over the past three years has shown that an adult mediator in the middle school setting has an educational role, helping students to see and use alternative approaches to conflict. As an educator, the Program Coordinator also uses mediation sessions to help the students recognize how their conflicts escalate as a result of their body language, tone of voice, and choice of words. Once the mediation has ended, the Coordinator sends the students back to class. If they were referred by a teacher or dean, she confirms with that person that the mediation took place. She later follows up with the students privately to confirm that the issue has been successfully addressed and, if conflict still exists, brings the students in for a second mediation. Follow-up continues with the students until they agree that the conflict has ended. As students and staff have seen successes among children of different grades and abilities, and with various disciplinary issues, there has evolved a school-wide understanding that mediation is not only a viable option within the school disciplinary system but also a line of first attack. Today students and teachers unknown to the Program Coordinator approach her knowing not only who she is but also what mediation is. In a school as large as MS 61, this is somewhat extraordinary, and speaks to the fact that the successes of mediation have led participants to discuss their experiences with their peers and elders. Additionally, everyone from the principal of the school to new sixth graders relies on mediation to settle disputes that arise. The result is that mediation has become, in the past three years, a crucial element of the conflict resolution culture at Middle School 61. This form of mediation is a problem-solving strategy that can complement community prosecution and community court efforts—by providing better connections to schools, a focus on enhanced prevention and safety, and robust youth development.  

In Fall 2007, the New York State Unified Court System and the Center for Courts and Communities (a project of the Center for Court Innovation) is publishing Personal Stories: Narratives of Drug Court Participants from across New York State. Here are three of the stories included in the book: Brooklyn Family Treatment Court: A Young Mother Finds Encouragement to ChangeContributed by Judge Susan S. Danoff A young mother gave birth to a child and both the mother and child tested positive for cocaine. The mother was found eligible for Brooklyn Family Treatment Court, signed the waiver and contract, and made an admission to drug use. The court arranged for the mother to enter the Odyssey House mother/child drug program with her infant. The first time the mother returned to court for monitoring, the court noted her progress. She had 20 days clean, and about 15 people in the courtroom, including attorneys, court officers, the court clerk, and I, all applauded her progress. The mother turned to each person and waived (the “royal” wave, I might add!) with the biggest smile on her face. I think nobody had ever applauded anything she had ever done—literally or figuratively. The next time the mother came to court, she had accumulated 50 days clean. Again everyone applauded at which point she stood up, raised her hands to the ceiling and said, “Yes!”  Then she sat down and burst into tears. Through her tears, she told the court, “Thank you for having faith in me,” to which I responded, “We always had faith in you –now you have faith in yourself, too.”  I am happy to report that as of this writing, the mother has accumulated 120 clean days and continues to remain compliant with the mother/child drug program. Erie County Family Treatment Court:She Found a New Life Contributed by Priscilla My life began on July 19, 1966, born to Emma Jean and Steve. I am the sixth child out of seven. I was born in Chicago, Illinois. We lived in one of the roughest projects in the nation: The Cabrini Green. I witnessed all types of violence and chaos everyday—whether it was on the streets or in our apartment. My oldest brother and sister were always fighting each other, as well as my mother and stepfather. When they would fight, I would hide until they finished. I really didn’t have any friends at school or at home because there was so much fighting. As a child, I didn’t know what to say to make the fighting stop, so I just lived through it. I was always surrounded by alcohol because my mother and stepfather drank a lot. My mother battled two disease—mental illness and alcoholism. She was always in and out of the hospital. Then my world was shattered when I was told that my mother was gone from this world. I never had the opportunity to do the mother-daughter bonding as I would have liked. After my mother’s death, I was sent to live with an Aunt in Lackawanna, New York. In a strange city, I didn’t know how to fit in. It took me awhile to get to know others. When I came around, I was about 16 years old. To fit in, I started drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. When I graduated high school, I moved to Buffalo and continued drinking. I started to use crack at the age of 28. I thought I was being productive because I had a job and wasn’t using everyday. My weekend use then became daily use. I let drug dealers in my home, had no food, the electric, and gas were shut off constantly. I tried recovery before but wasn’t ready to stop using. As years went on, I kept using and things didn’t get any better. In 2003, I entered Erie County Family Treatment Court entered, and I stayed until I stopped giving up on myself and on being a mother. I finally stopped using and decided to give life a second chance. There are so many details that are missing from this story, not because I left them out on purpose but because there is so much pain, and I’m not ready to let them surface again. Recovery has been good to me. I am grateful to have Narcotics Anonymous in my life. As long as I don’t give up on N.A., I know that N.A. won’t give up on me. As I continue in recovery, I stay active with meetings, conventions, and doing work with my sponsor. I reach out to others when I am hurting and more importantly, I don’t use, no matter what is going on in my life. As I stay in recovery, I apply the spiritual principles in my life. I do things with my children. I have a job that I love and hang with people that don’t use. On April 12, 2007, I celebrated three years of recovery. I thank God for allowing me to go through Family Treatment Court because without its help, I don’t know where I would be today. Jefferson County Drug Court:After his Final Arrest, He Said ‘Enough’Contributed by Mike Two years ago I was lying face down on a cheap hotel room floor while detectives tore my hotel room apart. The task force had arrested me once again. Till then, I had no idea what I was going to have to do to get my life together. Over the course of the 10 years preceding that day, I had struggled against and had been defeated by my addiction to heroin and cocaine. I was caught up in the idea that I could use drugs successfully. After a while, it had gotten to the point where nothing else mattered. Even though I knew what I was doing was wrong, I could do nothing to stop it. I remember sitting in jail, knowing that I had had enough. I had said that before but it was something that I knew I had accepted this time. Despite being sick from not having my drugs in me, I was relieved to have it over with. The worst thing I faced in jail was the uncertainty of what was going to happen to me. I thought for sure I was going to prison because this wasn’t my first offense. It wasn’t long after that I was interviewed and approved for the Jefferson County Drug Court program. I was extremely fortunate to get the opportunity to make a change in my life. Having come to the point that I had accepted the fact that I was going to prison, being approved for drug court was something I had a lot of gratitude for. That gratitude that I had for being given the opportunity I was given, coupled with the acceptance that I had that I could not use successfully are what got me through what I had to do. Drug court sent me to an intensive inpatient facility for a period of nine to 12 months. After my track record of completing short-term programs but still using it was the only logical option. I went into it with an open mind and I had made the decision that I was willing to do whatever I was asked to do. Most of all in that facility I learned to be a part of a community, something I had no idea about before I went there. After inpatient, it was recommended that I go to supportive living for a minimum of three months. It was a great opportunity to get on my feet and save money for independent living. While in supportive living it was mandated by drug court to attend 12 step meetings. Besides the initial opportunity that Drug Court had given me, this is the thing that I am most grateful for. I had been to meetings before but I was still thinking that some day I could go back to using successfully. Throughout my past, that has been my most destructive thinking. When I got to the meetings I had no idea what I was going to find. I was as unsure as I was going into treatment in the beginning. The biggest thing that helped was that I had remained in the frame of mind that I would do anything to stay clean. The problem remained, that up until that point, I had no idea how to stay clean on my own. In the past I had gone to treatment and stayed clean for a while and then gone back to my old ways. The difference this time was that I found a fellowship of recovering addicts that I could relate to. I found other people there that had been just as messed up as I was and that were staying clean. In addition to trying to stay clean; they were also trying to help each other learn how to live. The meetings are what saved me from myself and from my pattern of falling back into the drugs. It wasn’t long before I was moved into my own place and was graduated from Drug Court. I still go to meetings regularly and maintain my recovery. I have gotten back into school where I am going after a degree in Human Services. Hopefully one day I can help other people with their addiction. For the first time in as long as I can remember I am happy with where my life is. I don’t feel the need to put a substance in my body to feel comfortable with myself. I was given an opportunity to turn my life around and that is what I did. I am grateful for every day clean and continue to try to improve myself.

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.