The Arc

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

Center for Court Innovation Celebrates Decade of Achievement

Mayor Bloomberg, Chief Judge Lippman Honor Accomplishments of Unique Public-Private Partnership

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.

An article examining the extent to which four jurisdictions offer full faith and credit to tribal court judgments and the role their tribal-state judicial forums have in fostering cooperative relationships between tribal and state court systems. This article was originally published in the Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

An article exploring the potential uses of Indian nations’ inherent authority and treaties to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indian criminal offenders. This article was originally published in the Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

An article examining the imposition of Western-style legal jurisprudence and “law” upon Native peoples. This article was originally published in the Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

This study examines pretrial release decision-making practices in tribal courts by pulling together evidence from focus group and survey responses, as well as tribal case law. This article was originally published in the Fall 2009 Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

This report provides critical information to tribal court judges about developing and sustaining effective community supervision programs. This article was originally published in the Fall 2009 Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

Reviewed by Aaron Arnold This book review was originally published in the Journal of Court Innovation Special Issue on Tribal Justice.

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.