The Arc

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.  

  Sex offense cases often present challenges to the police who investigate them, the district attorneys who prosecute them, the judges who adjudicate them, and the probation officers who supervise them.  Unfortunately, the traditional criminal justice system approaches each of these pieces of the puzzle working in relative isolation, with their own protocols and procedures.  In many instances these protocols and procedures are rooted in tradition and practice rather than on best practices and emerging research on sexual offenders. In order to change this, dedicated sex offense bureaus in district attorney’s offices, special victims units in police departments, and, most recently, specialized sex offender supervision units of probation departments have been developed in many jurisdictions.  Courts, however, have yet to explore the benefits of specialization.  This is unfortunate because the problems with applying a generalist approach to the adjudication of sex offense cases are many: lack of specialized knowledge for decision-making, lack of adequate communication and coordination between the court and stakeholder agencies, lack of system accountability, and the resulting dissatisfaction of many victims with the criminal justice process.  Judges lack adequate information to guide them in making critical decisions about specialized conditions of probation.  Victims follow and track the criminal cases from courtroom to courtroom, judge to judge.  Probation officers lack the tools to safely and effectively monitor offenders in the community and report violations and Assistant District Attorneys faced with an untrained judiciary sometimes plead cases down to non-sex offense, non-registerable, charges in order to secure convictions.   In light of the aforementioned frequent and complex challenges, the Center for Court Innovation and the Office of Court Administration spent several years examining the issues presented by sex offense cases to look for ways to improve the court response.  The Center for Court Innovation is a nonprofit public-private partner of the New York State Court System and serves as the independent research and development arm for the Courts.  The Office of Court Administration is the administrative arm of the New York State Court System responsible for supervising the administration and operations of the trial courts.  Center for Court Innovation staff interviewed judges, probation officers, victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys and sex offense treatment providers. Additionally, the Center for Court Innovation reviewed data on sex offense arrests and dispositions and sentences.  In the three pilot sites, many felony sex offense arrests resulted in misdemeanor convictions, and of those convictions 63% received community supervision as part of their sentence.   In reviewing court practices, the key questions we asked were:    Is there a way for the court to be involved in enhancing public safety? Is there a way to increase uniformity in how sex offense cases are handled by the court? Is there room for improvement in coordination and communication among interested agencies in sex offense cases? With those questions in mind, the Center for Court Innovation and the Office of Court Administration partnered to plan and implement the nation’s first three pilot specialized Sex Offense Courts.  In January of 2006, Nassau, Westchester and Oswego Counties became the first three jurisdictions in the country to pilot specialized Sex Offense Courts.  To ensure that the most effective court practices possible were in place, court administrators and local stakeholders planned a unified approach to management of sex offense, relying on best and emerging practices in the field of sex offender management, with an emphasis on promoting offender accountability and public safety. The mission of New York State Sex Offense Courts is to promote justice by providing a comprehensive approach to case resolution, increasing sex offender accountability, enhancing community safety and ensuring victim safety while protecting the rights of all litigants.  The two main purposes and functions of the Sex Offense Court model are to promote best practices in the resolution of sex offense cases and to facilitate and enhance coordination and communication among relevant stakeholders. Best practices in New York Sex Offense courts include the following core components: Keeping victims informed Scheduling cases promptly Dedicated, trained Judge Supervising defendants continuously Implementing additional judicial monitoring of cases post-conviction/plea Building strong relationships with service providers Coordinating with probation departments Convening regular meetings with criminal justice agencies and service providers Providing court personnel and partners with education and training The New York Sex Offense Courts incorporate all of the above listed core concepts, and are designed to work with key stakeholders such as defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation, victim agencies, sex offender-specific treatment providers, and polygraph examiners.  The Sex Offense Court model handles all cases that include a felony level sex offense charge or where the court has determined that the underlying facts of a case warrant the inclusion of the case in Sex Offense Court.  The Courts hear cases from their inception and early identification through disposition, and monitoring.    As important as it is to say what the New York Sex Offense Courts are, it is also important to point out what they are not.  Sex Offense Courts are not designed as alternatives to incarceration, they are not diversion courts, and they are not treatment/rehabilitative courts.  Instead, Sex Offense Courts are more akin to domestic violence courts; defendants do not opt-in but rather all cases of a certain nature or charge are automatically routed for their entire processing and adjudication.  Sex Offense Courts, like domestic violence courts, emphasize the need for accountability of the offenders and the increasing of public/community safety. As mentioned, one of the key elements and best practices of Sex Offense Courts is education and training for judges and non-judicial personnel.  Judicial training is integral to enhancing the court’s ability to handle complex sex offense cases in a consistent and comprehensive manner.  By understanding patterns of offending behavior, the prevalence of crossover behaviors, and effective interventions, such as the containment model of sex offender management, judges and lawyers can make informed decisions and appropriately assess special conditions of probation. Another best practice feature of Sex Offense Courts is the use of judicial monitoring.  Court monitoring includes rapid calendaring of cases on probation, immediate communication of compliance or non-compliance of court mandates, swift response to violations of conditions of probation and SORA, and consideration of a graduated sanctions scheme.  Given the reality that many sex offenders are sentenced to community supervision, Sex Offense Courts work with probation and parole departments to increase their participation, enhance coordination and communication between the court and the supervision agents, to promote the use of pre-sentence tools (investigations, risk assessments, polygraph, etc.) and utilize special sex offender conditions. The Sex Offense Courts work closely with local service providers to facilitate victim access to advocacy, counseling and other social services.  Best practices dictate that a victim-centered approach is key to any sex offense containment strategy, and should guide the framework for sex offender management and the development of a Sex Offense Court.  The Sex Offense Court model was driven in part by the involvement and input of the victim agencies who expressed interest in specialized court practices and quicker resolution to cases and violations.  In some jurisdictions, a sex offense case could be transferred back and forth between and among multiple courtrooms before several different judges throughout the duration of the case; making the process all the more confusing and frustrating for victims.  The Sex Offense Court model eliminates this concern and is designed to address the needs of the victims, and includes the victim advocacy agencies in ongoing training, planning and operations meetings. Because the New York State Sex Offense Courts are the first of their kind nationwide (with the notable exception of the few Juvenile Sex Offense Court models), research and evaluation plans are in place to determine the effectiveness of these new strategies.  The Center for Court Innovation has worked with the New York State Court System to design a court application tool to be used in all Sex Offense Courts.  Cases are tracked and data is collected to allow for a future in-depth evaluation of court procedures.  We hope to provide answers to the following research questions: How were sex offense cases handled prior to the implementation of the Sex Offense Courts? What the process was for developing and implementing Sex Offense Courts? What are Sex Offense Courts ‘best practices’? What is the impact of the Sex Offense Courts on victims? By utilizing best practices and current research on sex offenders, we are optimistic that the Sex Offense Court model will improve case outcomes, including victim and stakeholder satisfaction with the criminal justice system response and will provide for increased accountability of sex offenders in New York and, as a result, increased community safety.  

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.

In 2006, the Red Hook Youth Photography Project was developed as a response to community needs in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Over the course of a summer, young people use photography to express their feelings and questions about the world. At the end of the summer, all student portfolios are displayed in a show at the Red Hook Community Justice Center, giving participants an opportunity to be the subject of positive attention from their community. As a geographically and socially isolated neighborhood, Red Hook has struggled with the absence of many basic services and amenities. For example, local youth and their parents have emphasized the need for more arts programs for young people. At the same time, the Red Hook Community Justice Center’s social workers have identified a need for programs that build self-esteem and enable positive forms of self-expression. The Red Hook Youth Photography Project was developed in 2006 as a response to this set of needs. Over the course of a summer, young people ages 14 to 18 use photography to express their feelings and questions about the world in which they live. Program participants are trained in the technical elements of photography—camera operation and care, image editing, and photograph printing—and develop visual literacy by identifying and employing composition, framing, symbolism, mood, and gestures in images. At the end of the summer, all student portfolios are displayed in a show at the Justice Center. The display of their work gives participants an opportunity to be the subject of positive attention from their community, according to James Brodick, director of the Justice Center. Supported by the Edith Glick Shoolman Children’s Foundation, the Youth Photography Project in its first year recruited 10 students to work three days a week for eight weeks. Over the next two years, the program’s capacity will increase to 15 and then 20 students. The program begins with a 25-hour training that teaches youth appropriate workplace behavior, financial management, conflict resolution, and other skills. Participants receive a small weekly stipend that enables them to make a contribution to family finances and helps them begin to implement some of the financial management skills they have learned. In 2006, classes were coordinated by a lead teacher Alice Proujansky and assistant Johanna Neufeld, who have extensive experience in arts education with youth from under-resourced areas. “Sharing and discussing their photographs helps young people develop coping behaviors like positive self-expression, constructive risk-taking, and appropriate social participation, while the photography itself provides an alternative way to communicate difficult emotions and ideas,” Proujansky said. Because some topics may spark challenging and deeply personal conversations, a Justice Center social worker participates in some class meetings and activities, and is available to the participants individually as needed. Each participant also has an individual meeting with the teachers and the social worker to identify any services or programs the young person may want or need and to provide appropriate referrals. The program is designed to have an impact that extends beyond the eight weeks the students spend at the Justice Center. All young people who participate in a Justice Center program have life-long access to the center’s network of partnering agencies and programs, and also become eligible for a variety of services provided by the Justice Center’s Youth Court, including college prep classes and trips, summer internships, and mentoring matches. They also get to keep their digital camera, enabling them to continue their artistic work. To view photos from the 2006 class, click here.

  In just 10 years, the New York State Court System has launched dozens of domestic violence courts across the state—an achievement that the court system marked during a special ceremony Sept. 20, 2006.   The state’s first domestic violence court—the Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court—opened in 1996.  The court, which was developed in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation, was distinguished by a specially trained presiding judge and an emphasis on reaching out to potential partners, including victim advocates, batterer programs and probation officials. Researchers found that these innovations led to a reduction in probation violations, reduced dismissals and improved delivery of services to victims.   Today, that Brooklyn model serves as the inspiration for two kinds of domestic violence courts in New York: criminal domestic violence courts and integrated domestic violence courts. While the criminal courts handle only criminal cases, the integrated courts bring before a single judge all the cases involving an individual family, whether the cases involve criminal, civil, family, housing or matrimonial issues.   As New York State Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman explained, the most important goals of all the state’s domestic violence courts are “victim safety and defendant accountability.”    Domestic violence courts represent “a basic change in the way we do business,” Lippman said. “It’s about not letting domestic violence victims fall through the cracks. With this and other problem-solving courts, we developed a new role for the courts, one that is less passive … The courts cannot remain passive in a world where the ills of society are reflected in the courts.”   Judith S. Kaye, the state’s chief judge, recalled two murder-suicides in the mid-1990s that motivated the court system “to find a better way” to deal with domestic violence.  The question court planners asked themselves, Kaye recalled, was, “How do we assure there will be a just result in every one of these heart-wrenching cases?”   Despite the progress of the last decade, Kaye lamented that there seems to have been no reduction in the need for orders of protection.  She noted that 1.4 million orders had been issued in the state over the last 10 years.  “Yes, we’re making a difference, but as these grim statistics remind us, our work is far from complete,” Kaye said.   Barry Kamins, president of the Bar Association of New York City, called the concept of the domestic violence court “a breathtaking one.” He said the courts today have changed dramatically for the better since his days as a young prosecutor when “a battered woman would appear before the judge, and the judge would ask me if there’s a relationship, as if that explained the evil that had been done… and then he’d suggest that they go home.”   Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson noted that domestic violence crime poses unique challenges. “This crime doesn’t quite respond to the placement of a police officer in a particular location. It happens behind closed doors… Because of that, it cries out for the community and courts to do a bit more.”   Also speaking at the ceremony was a woman whose case had been handled by an integrated domestic violence court.  The mother of two young children talked about the abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband of 13 years.  “It started as verbal and then went to hitting, pushing, slapping… Once he had me on the floor with a knife to my throat threatening to kill me.”  Her husband restricted her access to money and the phone “to control everything I did.” Eventually, fleeing to a battered women’s shelter, she brought both criminal and custody cases in an integrated domestic violence court.  Today, she said, her life is much better. Among other things, she lives in a shelter and her children are in counseling, getting proper medical care for their asthma and have supervised visitation with their father. An order of protection is also in place.   Judges John Leventhal, who has presided over the Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court since its inception, and Matthew D’Emic, who was appointed to the second Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court in 1998, were singled out for special praise. “How lucky we were John Leventhal to have found you on day one and then his colleague Matt D’Emic,” Kaye said.   Speakers also highlighted the Center for Court Innovation’s role. The center, which serves as the independent research and development arm of the New York State Court System, helped develop and run the state’s first domestic violence courts and provides training and other forms of technical assistance, including evaluation services, to all the state’s domestic violence courts.    Other speakers at the 10th anniversary ceremony included Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein, chairwoman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and Yolanda B. Jimenez, commissioner of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Domestic Violence.   There are over 60 domestic violence and integrated domestic violence courts in operation or planning in New York, and the state has received over $5 million in federal grants to support domestic violence court operations, program development and staff. Domestic violence court judges from across the state attended the ceremony, which was held in the Brooklyn Courthouse.

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.

Over the past several years, a broad consensus has emerged within the research community that adult drug courts indeed fulfill their promise of increased treatment retention rates and reduced recidivism. While it is difficult to generate exact national estimates, drug courts appear to retain from 60 to 65 percent of their participants for at least one year. This improves considerably on the 10 to 30 percent one-year retention rates that are typical of community-based treatment programs nationwide, where many participants enter voluntarily—without the pressure of a court mandate. Further, drug courts appear to average about a 15 percentage point reduction in the re-arrest rate when compared with conventional prosecution (although many drug courts have achieved considerably larger reductions). While most studies only track re-arrests over one or two years following program intake, several that track offenders over longer “post-program” periods—including studies of the Los Angeles Treatment Court, Baltimore City Treatment Court, and six New York State drug courts—have similarly found that drug courts reduce recidivism.   Drug court results vary considerably from site to site of course. As with many innovations showing early promise, results may decline as drug courts are institutionalized, early charismatic judges and other staff turn over, and funding resources grow more strained. Sustaining the model’s effectiveness may require a more surgical approach to research, focused less on “The bottom line”—do drug courts work?—and more on teasing out which specific components are truly essential. While to date research efforts in this area are limited, a few lessons have begun to emerge: Immediacy: Participants engaged early in the drug court process, often measured by whether they actually begin attending a community-based treatment program within the first thirty days after formally agreeing to enter a drug court, are more likely to be retained and have successful long-term outcomes. Legal Coercion: Part of the success of drug courts stems from the threat of jail for failure. However, legal coercion does not work magically on its own. Evidence indicates that drug courts elicit greater perceptions of coercion when staff conveys clearly, frequently, and specifically the exact consequences of graduating and failing (how much jail time will be served); and when participants perceive that noncompliance will be consistently and swiftly detected and enforced. Judicial Supervision: Biweekly judicial supervision before the drug court judge works especially well with “high-risk” participants (e.g., with those who have previous failed treatment or are diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder). Supervision that includes a great deal of positive feedback from the judge is particularly effective. Sanctions: Behavioral research is clear that sanctions are effective when applied consistently (in every case), fairly (everyone treated the same), rapidly (soon after the infraction), and with appropriate severity (severe enough to be undesirable but not so severe as to preclude graduating to a more severe sanction next time). The literature is limited with respect to which drug court sanctions are most effective, and under what circumstances, however. Rewards: The limited research that exists suggests that rewards appear to increase program retention when they are tangible and applied frequently throughout the participation process—not merely once every three or four months upon phase advancement. Treatment: In general, more time in treatment leads to more positive post-treatment outcomes on measures such as drug use, criminal activity, and employment. Ninety days in treatment is a critical minimum threshold, while on the other end of the spectrum, imposing excessive graduation requirements that keep participants in treatment far beyond one year may be counter-productive. While the evidence indicates that treatment can make a difference, little is known about which modalities (e.g., residential, outpatient, etc.) are most appropriate for different categories of participants. Graduation: Participants who reach drug court graduation are more likely to attain continued success thereafter. Can those who fail drug court nonetheless gain from the experience? Several studies suggest they cannot—that graduation is a pivotal milestone and that without it continued progress is unlikely. These findings highlight the importance for drug courts to maximize their graduation rate (again suggesting that graduation requirements should not be excessive). Equally important as how drug courts work is for whom—which categories of defendants are especially likely to benefit. While little is known to date, three categories of defendants have emerged as likely candidates for success: (a) “high risk” defendant (e.g., more serious criminal history and weaker community ties), (b) those facing greater legal consequences for failing (e.g., those charged with more serious offenses and thus facing more potential jail time), and (c) drug offenders (i.e., as opposed to those arrested for property or other crimes, who may be driven by criminal impulses or motivations besides addiction).

  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.