The Arc

Technology has been a key component in the Harlem Community Justice Center’s growth and community outreach. The tool linking almost all the Justice Center’s components together is the Justice Center Application, which has been used internally by staff almost since the opening of the Center to warehouse information on clients receiving services. The application collects client data in one central database, tracking program enrollment and attendance, referrals, and general case management notes. This information is simultaneously accessible by the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys and social service staff, allowing all parties to share information as soon as it is available. Through this tool, case managers are able to maintain up-to-the minute lists of all active clients, as well as current data regarding compliance or non-compliance with case management plans. And with detailed information about clients right in front of them—what the client’s case history is, what programs they’re in, what their needs are—judges are able to make more informed decisions in the courtrooms. A separate system was developed in 1999 to confidentially track all mediation case information, including referrals, case management and follow-up of cases screened and assessed at the Justice Center. Since mediation requires complete confidentiality for the parties, this database is separate from all other Justice Center technology, and is only accessible to designated staff performing intake, screening, assessing and actual mediations. The database has automatic, built-in report generation capabilities that displays referral and dispute information, danger assessment, and police information.  Reports can also be generated regarding the number of mediators trained, certifications, contact information, and the individual area of expertise of the individual mediations (i.e., housing, parent-teen, custody visitation, attorney). Outcomes and nature of disputes, referral sources, and active cases can also be tracked. This Justice Center Application was expanded in 2005 to support the community coalition building activities of the Youth Futures Network—a coalition of 50 community-based organizations that provides a full array of services to young people through constant collaboration and sharing of information and resources. Whereas before the tool had allowed all Justice Center staff to approach an individual client in an informed and organized manner, now the tool allowed network members to refer community members to services. The network makes use of simple, user-friendly technology through which coalition members can refer youth online to mental health and drug treatment providers within the network. A school counselor, for example, might see that a student is in need of treatment. He or she can log onto the referral network, enter the student’s information, select the needed service, and make a referral to a specific provider. The recipient of the referral receives an email prompting him or her to log onto the system to respond to the referral, and is then expected to respond to the referral within three days of receiving it. The system then tracks the case as the person making the initial referral follows up. The information is stored in the system. Should the student then opt to make use of resources at the Justice Center, staff will already have a record of his or her referral history. The system allows network members to cut out a lot of time and red tape and get young people quickly into needed services. In 2006, over 150 referrals were made through the system.  

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.

On June 21, 2007, the Center’s Youth Justice Board presented the results of its year-long study of New York City’s permanency planning process to an audience that included New York City Council members, academics, judges, policymakers, and members of the press. The presentation was hosted by the Administrative Judge of New York City Family Court Judge Joseph Lauria, whose office supported the Board's work throughout the year. Written by the Board’s 16 teenage members—all New York City high schools students 15 to 19 years old, many of whom have been foster children themselves—the report, Stand Up Stand Out: Recommendations to Improve Youth Participation in New York City's Permanency Planning Process, proposes 14 specific recommendations to improve the court experiences and outcomes for adolescents in foster care.   The Board spent several months researching New York's permanency planning process—interviewing over 40 child welfare and court professionals, conducting two focus groups of youth in care and observing Family Court proceedings in Kings County, Bronx County and New York County Family Courts. The report focuses on concrete steps that can be taken by New York City Family Court, the Administration for Children’s Services, provider agencies, law guardians, and by young people themselves to make sure that youth in foster care play an active role in the court process and in the decisions that affect their lives. Stand Up Stand Out: Recommendations to Improve Youth Participation in New York City's Permanency Planning Process is the third report created by the Board, which was launched by the Center for Court Innovation in 2003 as an after-school program bringing together New York City teenagers to study and devise policy recommendations on issues affecting city youth. In its first year, members studied the challenges of youth returning home after confinement for juvenile delinquency; the next year’s group focused on safety problems in New York City high schools. This year’s report has generated even more interest. In addition to the June presentation, the Board will be presenting the report to each of the city’s county courthouses, as well as to several city agencies who have expressed interest. In addition, the New York State Judicial Institute has requested 100 copies of the report to be used at judges’ seminars. Over the next year, the Youth Justice Board will continue to advocate for their ideas and work with Family Court and child protection practitioners to turn their ideas into reality. Watch members of the Board discuss the report on WNBC.  

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

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

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

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

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

  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