Should problem solving be encouraged in general courts? Some may object that elements of the problem solving court model are inconsistent with conventional court processes. There are also unresolved questions. What this research project makes clear, however, is that the potential exists for problem solving to be practiced both in specialized and conventional court settings.

In recent years, an array of innovative courts has emerged throughout the country in an effort to address the underlying problems of defendants, victims and communities. Adult drug courts, which seek to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and repeat incarceration by mandating addicted defendants to treatment, were the first such innovation. The first drug court opened in Dade County, Florida in 1989; since then, more than a thousand others have opened. Analogous models have also arisen, including family and juvenile drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, and mental health courts. These “problem-solving” courts all attempt to use the authority of the judiciary in new ways and are characterized by a number of unique elements: a problem-solving focus; team approach to decision-making; referrals to treatment and other social services; ongoing judicial monitoring; direct interaction between litigants and judge; community outreach; and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside of the courtroom.

As the first generation of drug courts has been proven effective and received public attention and support, several states have begun efforts to institutionalize—or take to scale—problem-solving innovation throughout their court systems. For example, under the leadership of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, New York State has implemented adult drug courts in every New York county and has plans for implementing an “integrated” criminal/family domestic violence court in all counties by 2007.

In addition to replicating problem-solving courts, a growing number of policymakers have expressed an interest in the application of problem-solving court practices outside the specialized court setting. Among those interested are the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, who advocated,

where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law, and meeting the needs and expectations of litigants, victims, and the community.

In an effort to aid this process, the California Administrative Office of the Courts, in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation in New York, recently conducted research to explore how court systems might integrate problem-solving court practices into conventional court operations. Focus groups were conducted with problem-solving court judges in California and New York, two states at the forefront of testing new problem-solving models. The discussions were wide-ranging but focused on which problem-solving court practices are most easily applied in conventional courts, barriers to the more widespread adoption of problem solving, and strategies to overcome these barriers. The participating judges were cautiously optimistic, identifying many opportunities to practice problem solving in mainstream courts, while raising numerous barriers as well.

Which Problem Solving Practices Can Be Integrated throughout Conventional Courts?
Focus group participants identified a number of practices they felt could be effectively applied in conventional courts, including:

• Problem-Solving Orientation. Participants felt that judges in a variety of criminal and civil court settings could be more proactive—asking more questions, reaching out to service providers, and generally seeking more information about each case. Using that information, they could craft more individualized and at times unconventional court orders.
• Interaction with Defendants/Litigants. Focus group participants considered direct engagement with defendants to be one of the easiest practices to apply in conventional courts, perhaps because it requires no additional resources. Concerns were raised that, in criminal cases, defense attorneys might prevent such interaction for fear that clients might incriminate themselves. But several judges reported that they routinely address defendants directly, with few objections from the defense bar.
• Treatment and Social Service Integration. Participants identified opportunities to integrate social service mandates (drug treatment, job training, anger management, etc.) into more areas of the conventional court process. At the same time, there was a recognition of the need for increased access to, and coordination of, services.
• Judicial Supervision. Requiring defendants to report back to court to discuss progress with court mandates was identified by participants as one of the most effective practices that could be applied in conventional criminal courts. While acknowledging the limited time available, many judges said that they have integrated ongoing supervision into their conventional court practice.
• Team-Based, Non-Adversarial Approach. There was less agreement about whether it is feasible or appropriate to lessen the adversarial nature of the conventional court process. But many judges felt that there were opportunities to craft resolutions agreeable to all parties, particularly in juvenile and family law settings, which already foster such an approach. Participants cautioned that a non-adversarial approach cannot be imposed by the judge alone but is contingent on the willingness of attorneys. They emphasized that defense attorneys in particular must come to trust that the judge will not allow such a team approach to compromise the defendant’s interests.

What Are the Barriers and How Might They Be Overcome?
Focus group participants identified two key categories of impediments to the practice of problem solving in conventional courts. The first and most significant is limited time and resources. Judges, particularly those in higher-volume jurisdictions, emphasized that they had little time for individualized attention to cases and for ongoing supervision, citing pressures to “move cases along.” Participants also noted that conventional courts lack the technology, case management staff, and other resources that help make specialized problem-solving courts effective.

Could these resource-related barriers be overcome? Some participants were pessimistic, but several strategies did emerge from the discussion. For example, judges might adopt a “triage” approach, selecting only the most appropriate cases for increased attention and ongoing judicial supervision. Also discussed were longer-term, more systemic (and costly) solutions such as establishing court-wide screening, assessment and case management systems, sharing specialized problem-solving courts’ case management resources with other courts, and developing directories of community-based service providers to inform all judges about available programs.

The second key barrier is conflicting philosophies. Many focus group participants felt that judges with a “traditional” role orientation (“deciding cases,” not “solving problems”) are unlikely to embrace problem solving. Others disagreed, arguing that problem solving is a “learned behavior” and that “exposure to the concept” is the key to changing attitudes. For this reason, many judges believed that educational efforts would be most effective with newer judges, who are less set in their philosophy and practices and more open to learning new skills. The judges conceded, however, that attitudes among longer tenured judges may be slow to change and, therefore, the widespread adoption of problem solving would inevitably be a long-term process. Participants also felt that there are many judges who would potentially be receptive to problem solving yet lack the necessary skills or are unaware of opportunities to practice it in conventional courts.

Steps were suggested to better educate the bench, such as including relevant training courses in new judge orientation and judicial college curricula. Most judges felt that it would only make a difference if these courses were mandatory to avoid a “preaching to the choir” effect. Also recommended were less formal ways that judges could be exposed to problem solving—observing specialized problem-solving courts, holding brown bag lunches to discuss relevant issues, sharing success stories. A common theme was that judges should “hear it from other judges” rather than from administrators, attorneys or academics. Focus group participants also encouraged similar training for prosecutors and defenders.

In California, there was discussion of the need for “encouragement” and “institutional validation” from presiding judges and other judicial leaders. They suggested that these leaders might encourage bench judges to practice problem solving when appropriate and to volunteer for specialized problem-solving court assignments. Focus group participants did not, however, favor mandatory assignment to these courts, fearing that an assigned judge might be hostile to the court’s goals or methods, or that too-frequent rotation might introduce discontinuity and reduce efficiency. One participant suggested that when making promotions that judicial leaders place less emphasis on traditional skills (e.g., scholarly publications or timely case flow management) and greater emphasis on solving problems.

Conclusion
Should problem solving be encouraged in general courts? Some may object that elements of the problem solving court model are inconsistent with conventional court processes. There are also unresolved questions. We do not yet know how effective problem solving might be when practiced in conventional courts, with their heavier caseloads, more adversarial process and untrained court personnel. Nor do we know what might be lost when judges and courts, rather than adopting the entire problem-solving court model, selectively apply just some of its practices and principles. What this research project makes clear, however, is that the potential exists for problem solving to be practiced both in specialized and conventional court settings.

Launched in January 2004, the Youth Justice Board brings together young people from throughout New York City to propose solutions to the public safety issues that affect them and their peers. Shocked to learn that 75% of all youth released from state custody are rearrested within three years, the sixteen Board members—drawn from high schools throughout the city—spent nine months researching the topic of juvenile reentry. They met with over two dozen city and state officials, youth workers, scholars, and even reentry youth and their family members, then spent months analyzing the data they collected, formulating policy recommendations and drafting a formal report.

Based on their interviews and research, the Youth Justice Board identified three principles that should apply to the whole reentry process:

• Early Planning
  Most juveniles who enter placement return to the same communities that they left. Placement is an opportunity to prepare the young person—and the family—to address the challenges he or she will face when released. Therefore, planning for the return home should start early—as soon as the decision is made to send the young person to placement.
• Individual Treatment
  The Youth Justice Board recommends that the key players involved with each young person meet early to create a plan that reflects his or her individual strengths and challenges. The team should include the young person, guardians, staff from the state agency responsible for placement and reentry (New York State Office of Children and Family Services, or OCFS), and a school representative.
• Coordination
  Young people in placement and aftercare come into contact with many agencies (e.g. OCFS, the New York City Department of Education, and community-based service providers), but the Board heard from several agencies that they are in the dark about what other agencies were doing. Regular meetings of all the agencies working with reentry youth would help improve communication, ensuring that youth do not fall between the cracks.

Building on these principles, the Youth Justice Board recommends the following ideas to help prevent recidivism among reentry youth:

1. Motivate young people to succeed
Ultimately, reentry youth themselves are the only ones that can improve their lives. One of the reasons youth drop out of programs and get into trouble is that they are not involved in activities they enjoy. To help reentry youth stay motivated, the Board recommends linking youth to programs they can get excited about, offering job training and links to adult mentors, in particular.

2. Help young people get in school and stay in school
Although everyone interviewed agreed that education is crucial, it is hard to get reentry youth back in school and it is hard to get them to stay in school. One Department of Education official said that the biggest barrier is “the human hurdle—no one wants them back.” The Board recommends that OCFS make a higher priority of helping young people catch up in basic reading and math skills while in placement and provide an orientation workshop once they return home to prepare students for the return to their local school. In addition, the Department of Education should match students to schools quickly, make sure credits earned in placement are transferred correctly, and create incentives for schools to accept reentry students.

3. Strengthen the relationships between family and youth
One OCFS official said that if a young person is not accepted by his or her family, he or she will hang out in the streets. He emphasized that it was important to make sure that the family is ready for the young person’s return and bring the youngster up to speed on what has occurred back home. To help address these problems, the Board recommends counseling for the family and youth together, as well as voluntary parent-to-parent support groups. In addition, to maintain communication while the young person is in custody, OCFS should make sure families have an easy way to visit placement facilities in upstate New York.

4. Improve the reentry process
The Board recommends four specific ways to improve the current reentry process:

• Share assessment information. OCFS collects a lot of information about the young person. Relevant information from these assessments should be available to the organizations that provide services to the young person.
• Track the early warning signs of recidivism. Usually there are warning signs before a young person is rearrested: he or she becomes truant, violates curfew or doesn’t attend programs. OCFS should institute a uniform system to track these warning signs and intervene before the next arrest occurs.
• Create Connection Centers. The Board recommends creating a transition facility just north of New York City that would focus on helping young people make the difficult transition from placement to home. Since it is closer to home, OCFS aftercare workers, Department of Education staff, and parents could all meet to make sure the details of the reentry plan (e.g. school placement) are in place.
• Create Welcome Centers. Once they are back home, reentry youth need a place where they can go to get reliable information about services and opportunities. Welcome Centers in their communities would have links to youth development programs, mental health and substance abuse services, job training and peer support groups.

 

Nationally, there are 27 community courts in operation across the United States. The first community court opened in midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses (drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, prostitution, and the like), the Midtown Community Court combined punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution and receive on-site social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. The community courts that have followed in the Midtown Court’s wake seek to achieve many goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement between citizens and the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, and a greater level of accountability for low-level, "quality-of-life" offenders.

 

 

 

As yet, no consensus has emerged regarding how to best measure the goals of these programs, primarily due to the large variety of models adopted by different courts. To date, there are seven notable community court evaluations focusing on four community courts—Midtown Community Court, Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York, Hennepin County Community Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Hartford Community Court in Connecticut. This article summarizes the basic findings from these evaluations.

While sharing similar goals overall, the four community courts studied have a variety of differences, both in the types of court cases they hear and in their programmatic emphasis. It comes as little surprise that a variety of methodologies have been used to evaluate community courts. The most common is some form of community survey (e.g, phone interviews, door-to- door surveys, focus groups) designed to measure community perceptions of community court success. This was the primary method of the two Red Hook studies (Moore 2004; Frazer 2005). In addition, the studies of Hennepin (Weidner and Davis 2000; Eckberg 2001), Midtown (Sviridoff et al—Phase One, 2000; Phase Two, 2001), and Hartford (The Justice Education Center 2002) included offender interviews or focus groups and utilized stakeholder interviews to gather the perceptions and opinions of court staff and treatment providers. The two Hennepin studies and both Midtown studies also gathered administrative/court data to do larger-scale quantitative analysis. As a result, Midtown and Hennepin, unlike Hartford, have been a subject of both process and outcome evaluations. The 2000 Hennepin and Midtown studies included cost-benefit analyses as well.

What follows is a review of what the literature tells us with regard to the community courts’ success in meeting their primary goals—holding offenders to a greater level of accountability for quality-of-life crimes, increasing communication between the community and the criminal justice system, improving community perceptions of safety, increasing case processing efficiency, and reducing certain types of crimes in certain neighborhoods.

Holding Offenders Accountable
One of the original goals of the Midtown Community Court was to reduce the number of “walks” given out for quality-of-life crimes—sentences such as “time served” or a conditional discharge with no conditions. Midtown achieved this goal for all of the most common charges handled by the court—between 1 percent and 12 percent of Midtown offenders were given a “walk” for the top four charges compared to 23 percent to 55 percent of offenders whose cases were heard at Manhattan’s centralized criminal court. As such, offenders sentenced at the Midtown Community Court were at least twice as likely to receive a community or social service sentence as opposed to offenders sentenced in downtown Manhattan.

In addition to changing sentencing practice, the Midtown Court also sought to improve compliance with community-based sanctions. Researchers found that the Midtown community service compliance rate was 75 percent—about 50 percent higher than downtown, and the highest compliance rate in all of New York City.

Finally, the 2000 community survey in Hennepin reported that community members thought the most important feature of the community court was that compliance with community service sentences was closely monitored by the court (3.73 on a scale of 4.0).

Community Perceptions
Many community members in Midtown and Hennepin reported that they were willing to reallocate their tax dollars, or even pay more in taxes, to support a community court. In Midtown, 64 percent of respondents were willing to pay some amount of additional taxes to support a court with features like the Midtown Community Court. Of those willing to pay more in taxes, 52 percent were willing to pay up to $100 extra per year.

Many community members in Midtown and Hennepin reported that they were willing to reallocate their tax dollars, or even pay more in taxes, to support a community court. In Midtown, 64 percent of respondents were willing to pay some amount of additional taxes to support a court with features like the Midtown Community Court. Of those willing to pay more in taxes, 52 percent were willing to pay up to $100 extra per year.

In the 2000 Hennepin study, 66 percent of community residents who were surveyed were willing to reallocate their taxes, and 64 percent were willing to pay more in taxes to support a community court. Of those willing to pay more in taxes, 73 percent were willing to pay up to $25 more annually in taxes. Significantly, those residents who had heard of the community court or who owned their residence were most likely to be willing to contribute to the court.

The 2005 study of Red Hook, Brooklyn reported that 76 percent of respondents had a positive feeling about having a community-based court in their neighborhood. Another Red Hook study, published in 2004, documented that those who lived in public housing or who identified as “black” had more negative perceptions of their community. A similar community survey was conducted in Hennepin in 2001 and found that almost two thirds of respondents (65.6 percent) thought that the county was not harsh enough with criminals.

Processing Efficiency
The Midtown study documents speedier case processing in community court, as does the 2000 Hennepin study. In the first three years that the Midtown Court was open, the average arrest-to-arraignment time was 18.9 hours compared to 29.2 hours at the downtown Manhattan court. The Hennepin Court also achieved quicker case processing, even though more appearances were required before disposition. The average number of days from court filing to disposition was 78.9 for the Hennepin community court defendants, compared to 80 and 124 for the two comparison groups used in that study. However, from arraignment to disposition, the community court needed 6.4 appearances compared to only 3.2 and 4.2 for the comparison defendants. The authors of the Hennepin study speculate that the increased number of appearances in the community court are, in large part, due to the increased number of compliance monitoring appearances needed to hold offenders accountable.

Reduced Crime
The Midtown study is the only one to tackle the impact on crime in the community, documenting encouraging results: Prostitution arrests were down 56 percent and illegal vending arrests were down 24 percent following the opening of the community court. Data from ethnographic observations and individual interviews confirmed this drop in criminal activity. In addition, defendants who had completed at least 90 days of court-mandated drug treatment demonstrated a reduction in annual arrest rate over three years compared to prior to the Midtown intervention (2.3 annual arrests pre-Midtown versus 0.9 post-Midtown).

Cost-Benefit Analysis
The 2000 Hennepin study includes a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Overall, the community court was found to be more expensive than regular case processing, costing an additional net $704.52 per case, but the authors noted that there are many additional benefits that cannot be quantified in monetary value to offset the costs. The only benefit that was included is the value of community service performed by defendants. Other benefits included the improved quality of life in the neighborhood and the improved quality and efficiency of decision-making due to increased information sharing.

The Midtown study includes a cost-benefit analysis, as well, but that analysis is, by the authors’ own admission, limited due to lack of ability to quantify fully all benefits and costs. What the Midtown study did find, though, are significant monetary benefits to the court system—including approximately $100,000 in reduced costs due to decreased pre-arraignment detention, $500,000 in reduced costs due to reduced use of jail, $570,000 in future reduced costs due to reduced prostitution arrests, and $150,000 in benefits derived from the community service of defendants—for a total of approximately $1.3 million annually.

Offender Perceptions
The Hartford study included interviews with offenders to document their perceptions of their experience. Overall, offenders thought the community court was a good idea (96 percent), that their sentence was fair (73 percent), that the community court was helping Hartford neighborhoods (83 percent), and that all people were treated fairly at the community court (61 percent). Similarly, the Red Hook community survey (Moore 2004) found that the majority (56 percent) of those who had had a case at the Justice Center reported a positive experience. The Hartford offenders also thought the prosecutor was fair (76 percent) and an overwhelming majority (91 percent) thought they were treated with respect by the judge. As is typical in Connecticut for misdemeanor cases, most defendants had no legal representation (79 percent). Many thought they needed a lawyer (84 percent).

The Midtown study included interviews with female prostitutes who had been arrested and brought to the Midtown Community Court. These women had both positive and negative comments about the Court. On the positive side, they commented that, compared to the traditional downtown court, the community court processed their cases quicker, the holding cells were cleaner, the food was better, and the staff more sympathetic. On the other hand, the women complained that the alternative sentences at Midtown made it more difficult for them to “work”; furthermore, many women mentioned that they would continue to engage in prostitution, but would move out of the Midtown catchment area. (In response the Midtown Community Court made several efforts to combat the potential “displacement effect.” Most notably, the Court now handles all prostitution arrests in Manhattan.)

Both Hennepin studies included offender interviews or focus groups. The 2000 study included a handful of semi-structured interviews with defendants who had been sentenced to community-based services. These four defendants felt that the community court gave them the opportunity and the help they needed to break out of the cycle of rearrest by linking them to needed services.

Stakeholder Perceptions
The 2000 Hennepin study included focus groups and interviews with stakeholders of the community court, including staff and treatment providers. The treatment providers in particular were pleased with the court’s linking offenders to services, holding them accountable, and locating key service providers in the same building.

In Hartford, staff felt that reacting strongly to quality-of-life crimes prevents future offenses because offenders know these actions are going to be taken seriously. Similar to Hennepin, Hartford staff liked the balance between punishment and help and thought accountability was important. Overall, Hartford staff thought the community court provides an “opportunity for a second chance” with “a client-centered” social service delivery system. The Hartford study also included interviews with staff that documented the implementation challenges and barriers in opening an innovative program within the criminal justice system.

Conclusion
As the community court model spreads across the country, it is important for the evaluation literature to catch up. There are several methodologies highlighted here, but, to date, no one single study has covered all aspects of evaluation—process evaluation, outcome evaluation, community impact survey, offender perceptions, and cost-benefit analysis. The Midtown and Hennepin evaluations come the closest but are now several years old. Future analysis should seek to give a more comprehensive picture of these complex projects.

References
Eckberg, Deborah, 2001, Hennepin County Community Justice Project: Summary Report of Short-Term Evaluation, Hennepin County District Court Research Department.

Frazer, M. Somjen, 2005, Op Data, 2004: Red Hook, Brooklyn, Center for Court Innovation.

Goldkamp, J., D. Weiland, and C. Irons-Guynn, 2000, Developing an Evaluation Plan for Community Courts: Assessing the Hartford Community Court Model, Crime and Justice Research Institute.

Malkin, Victoria, 2003, Community Courts and the Process of Accountability—Means to What End? (unpublished paper).

Moore, Kelli, 2004, Op Data, 2001: Red Hook, Brooklyn, Center for Court Innovation.

The Justice Education Center, Inc, 2002, Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court, The Justice Education Center, Inc.

Sviridoff, M., D. Rottman, B. Ostrom and R. Curtis, 2000, Dispensing Justice Locally: The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.

Sviridoff, M., D. Rottman, R. Weidner, F. Cheesman, R. Curtis, R. Hansen, and B. Ostrom, 2001, Dispensing Justice Locally: The Impacts, Cost and Benefits of the Midtown Community Court, Center for Court Innovation.

Weidner, R., and C. Davis, 2000, Benefits and Costs of the Hennepin County Community Court—A Preliminary Analysis, Institute on Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.

In 1992, Patrick Daly, a principal at an elementary school in Red Hook, was accidentally murdered in a drug-related shoot-out. In the months following his death, Brooklyn D.A. Charles J. Hynes began to speak out publicly about public safety in Red Hook, saying that the neighborhood would be an ideal location for a community court.

In 1994, Greg Berman was hired as the lead planner for the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The following are excerpts from his Planning Diary, which he wrote as a record of how he negotiated some of the challenges of early planning, including community needs assessment, fundraising and program design. To read the entire document, click here.

In 1992, Patrick Daly, a principal at an elementary school in Red Hook, was accidentally murdered in a drug-related shoot-out. In the months following his death, Brooklyn D.A. Charles J. Hynes began to speak out publicly about public safety in Red Hook, saying that the neighborhood would be an ideal location for a community court. His remarks started the ball rolling. There were other factors that made Red Hook an attractive site. Most important was the neighborhood’s isolation—it is one of the few communities in New York with easily identifiable borders. In such a well-defined community, it is easier for a demonstration project like a community court to have a concentrated impact. It is also simpler for researchers to measure that impact.

One of the very first things that happened after I accepted the job as planner was a series of focus groups with Red Hook residents. The Brooklyn D.A.’s Office helped put the groups together, bringing in an outside consultant to facilitate the conversations. We held separate discussions with community leaders, social service providers, young people and single moms. Red Hook is small enough—it has less than 11,000 residents—that we were able to get just about all of the major players in the neighborhood to come, as well as reach beneath them to talk directly with their constituents. More than 50 people attended the groups, which were held at the Red Hook Public Library. Participants were asked a series of fairly simple questions: What are the major problems in Red Hook? How might a community court help address them? What should be the court’s priorities? The conversations were extremely lively. I remember that once people started talking it was difficult to get them to stop—several of the groups ran well over their allotted times.

I learned a couple of important things from the focus groups. The first was that despite Red Hook’s reputation for drugs and serious violence, the way that local residents talked about their community was not markedly different from the way that residents of Midtown Manhattan talked about their neighborhood in focus groups held before the creation of the Midtown Community Court. Quality-of-life conditions—graffiti, littering, noise violations, loitering—weighed heavily on the minds of those who participated in the focus groups. I remember one participant saying, "Violations do not receive any priority. ... We need a [better] quality of life. Even the schools are not safe." Another expressed the feelings of many when he said, "The court system has failed us. ... [Offenders] go through revolving doors."

But low-level offending was not the only thing on the minds of the focus group participants. Red Hook residents had problems that took them to Family Court and Civil Court as well as Criminal Court. These included disputes with landlords, small claims cases and domestic violence issues. Several participants lamented the jurisdictional boundaries of New York’s court system. One person said, "You can’t divide a person up. You have to have a comprehensive look at the whole person. The community court could do that." Comments like this one confirmed our initial hunch that a community court in a neighborhood like Red Hook should be multi-jurisdictional, that it should attempt to address the full range of legal issues faced by local residents, not just criminal matters.

Finally, participants in the focus groups urged the court to be as aggressive as possible in providing social services. One recommended that the court look at "the total picture—spousal abuse, victim services, teenagers, mentor programs, mock court, parenting skills." From comments like these, we began to fashion a notion that the court should provide services not just to defendants, as the Midtown Community Court does, but to everyone who is touched by crime in Red Hook—defendants, victims and those in the community who were simply concerned about public safety. It was not long after the focus groups that we decided to call the project a "community justice center" instead of a community court. We thought that "community justice center" better signified our intention to build much more than just a courtroom in Red Hook.

Given its history, it is fair to say that many Red Hookers were understandably hesitant about ambitious new government initiatives. In attempting to win community support for the Justice Center, this attitude would prove to be planners' largest obstacle.

In 1994, Greg Berman was hired as the lead planner for the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The following are excerpts from his Planning Diary, which he wrote as a record of how he negotiated some of the challenges of early planning, including community needs assessment, fundraising and program design. To read the entire document, click here.

The focus groups were productive sessions, unearthing a treasure trove of valuable data about community attitudes and expectations. At the same time, they were a useful tool for building neighborhood support, as I discovered in the days that followed.

Red Hook is a neighborhood with a deep skepticism about government initiatives, a skepticism that is rooted in a history of government neglect and unwanted intervention. Many Red Hook residents feel that their community is home to a disproportionate number of undesirable government projects. They point to the neighborhood’s methadone clinic and waste transfer station as prime examples. They also feel that their neighborhood’s character was forever changed for the worse by Robert Moses, the master builder of New York, who essentially cut the neighborhood off from the rest of Brooklyn when he constructed the elevated Gowanus Parkway in the 1940s.

Given this history, it is fair to say that many Red Hookers are understandably hesitant about ambitious new government initiatives, no matter how good they sound on paper. In attempting to win community support for the Justice Center, this attitude would prove to be our largest obstacle. We got off to a good start in overcoming it with the focus groups. Almost by accident, we had sent a powerful message to Red Hook residents by convening the focus groups. And that message was: your voice counts. The focus groups were a visible sign that we intended to consult the community at each step of the process. This was not lost on participants.

Over the next several months, I met individually with every stakeholder that I could think of: business owners, clergy, tenant leaders, elected officials, police officers, Housing Authority administrators, local social service providers and others. As an outsider to the community, I took pains to emphasize that I was there to learn from them, that my job was to help translate their concerns and their ideas into concrete programs. In general, people were generous with their time and grateful to be asked their opinion.

I also went to as many public meetings in Red Hook as possible. At some, I spoke about the Justice Center. At others, I went just to listen. This sent the message that I wasn’t coming to the community as a carpetbagger, that I was interested in more than just selling a bill of goods. 
 
What I learned from all of these encounters was that there is no substitute for face time. In other words, it is impossible to build meaningful relationships with people without investing significant time and energy. As the months passed, I found my connections with community leaders deepening. I met their children, attended their church services, wrote them letters of recommendation, ate dinner with them, and supported several of their neighborhood charity efforts. These ties would serve the Justice Center well when it was necessary to mobilize neighborhood support for a grant proposal, a newspaper article or a public meeting.

To my surprise, my outreach efforts revealed very few concerns about the Justice Center. The few issues that did come up were less about the concept than about process: Who would direct the Justice Center once it opened? What were we doing about jobs for neighborhood residents? Would the Justice Center have a community advisory board?

Given these concerns, we decided to create a formal vehicle for community input. For the last 30 years, New York City has had a network of 59 "community boards" that are responsible for advising the city’s administration about land use and other neighborhood issues. Several dozen community representatives sit on each board. Early on, Community Board 6 in Brooklyn, which includes Red Hook, agreed to convene a special task force devoted to the Justice Center. During the first years of planning, this task force functioned as a de facto advisory board for the project. They convened public meetings about the project every three months or so. These sessions were a valuable opportunity for community residents to stay informed about the Justice Center and for us to keep our fingers on the pulse of the neighborhood.

In 1994, Greg Berman was hired as the lead planner for the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The following are excerpts from his Planning Diary, which he wrote as a record of how he negotiated some of the challenges of early planning, including community needs assessment, fundraising and program design. To read the entire document, click here.

I was not alone in trying to build community support for the Justice Center. From the start, I enjoyed the active partnership of the Brooklyn D.A.’s Office. Two attorneys in particular—Gene Lopez and Carl Thomas—were instrumental. Their presence, and the D.A.’s early endorsement, lent the project immediate credibility.

I think it is important to note that the partnership with the D.A.’s office is not a make-believe or paper partnership, but a real-world relationship fraught with real-world tensions and conflicts. Although we share a common goal—creating a neighborhood justice center—we both have our own organizational agendas and pressures outside of Red Hook. Inter-agency collaboration takes patience, but in my experience it is well worth the effort. The D.A.’s office has helped enrich the planning process, bringing additional resources—and a different institutional perspective—to the table.

While the relationship with the D.A.’s office was the most intimate, it was by no means the only partnership that was forged in the early days of the project. Another crucial partner was Victim Services, New York’s largest victim assistance agency, which runs programs throughout the city’s neighborhoods, including Red Hook.

Bringing Victim Services into the planning process made perfect sense; Red Hook is a community in which nearly every resident is at immediate risk of being a crime victim. Similarly, many residents know someone, either a friend or relative, who has been the perpetrator of crime. In this environment, a community justice center must be aggressive about providing victims with assistance and giving them a voice in the justice process. Victim Services has been instrumental in helping us think through these issues.

n 1994, Greg Berman was hired as the lead planner for the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The following are excerpts from his Planning Diary, which he wrote as a record of how he negotiated some of the challenges of early planning, including community needs assessment, fundraising and program design. To read the entire document, click here.

Siting a new project is almost always a tricky business, particularly in a city like New York, where real estate is an extremely precious—and political—commodity. Thankfully, Red Hook offered one major advantage in this regard. Because of the dramatic population and business flight out of the neighborhood over the preceding 25 years, Red Hook has a number of vacant and abandoned properties. After investigating all of the city-owned sites in the neighborhood—and inspecting several privately-held properties as well—eight sites emerged as viable options. Each was close to public transportation and each was large enough to house both a courtroom and social service programs.

In an effort to narrow the list further, we organized a bus tour for local community leaders from the Community Board 6 task force. After looking at all of the possibilities, their clear first choice was Visitation School, a vacant parochial school that had closed its doors in the 1970s.

Visitation struck their fancy for several reasons. First, it was located in between "the front" and the "the back." In Red Hook parlance, "the front" signifies the public housing projects. "The back" is the area closer to the waterfront, which is composed of single-family row houses that are occupied primarily by Italian and Irish Americans. Visitation, in effect, is situated in neutral territory—it "belongs" to neither the front nor the back. This is an important political consideration in Red Hook. 
 
On an emotional level, many residents were drawn to Visitation because it had once been an important community resource. They looked at the Justice Center as an opportunity to bring back to life a magnificent old building. And magnificent is precisely the word to describe it: built at the turn of the century, Visitation School has the kind of dignified street presence that you might expect from a neighborhood courthouse. And, as it turned out, Catholic Charities, which owned the building, was willing to lease it to us for a reasonable price and play an active role in making the project happen. End of story, right? Wrong.

Visitation was not without its drawbacks. Although the structure itself was in good shape, the interior was a disaster. Asbestos and lead paint were major problems. The roof needed to be replaced. None of the windows were worth saving. It took several months to investigate the building properly—conducting tests, analyzing results, meeting with engineers and construction managers, preparing preliminary architectural drawings. After all was said and done, we got the bad news: it would cost several million dollars to renovate the building.

In 1994, Greg Berman was hired as the lead planner for the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The following are excerpts from his Planning Diary, which he wrote as a record of how he negotiated some of the challenges of early planning, including community needs assessment, fundraising and program design. To read the entire document, click here.

Many good ideas founder on the shoals of poor fundraising. No program, no matter how well-intentioned or creative, can survive without adequate resources. I won’t lie about this: raising money for the Justice Center was not easy. There were days, even months, when I thought that the project would wither on the vine as we waited for grant proposals to be reviewed.

The initial planning of the Justice Center was underwritten by small grants from a couple of sources—the Fund for the City of New York, the Schubert Foundation, the Scherman Foundation and, in what might have been a first in this country, the local housing authority. While this was enough to keep me employed, it was not nearly enough to support a multi-million dollar renovation project. The question quickly became: where do we find that kind of dough?

The answer came at the end of 1996. After several months of conversation, site visits and proposal writing, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance agreed to pay for the soft costs associated with renovating the Visitation School—primarily fees for architects, engineers and renovation managers. With this money in hand, we were able to make a much stronger case to the Mayor’s Office in New York City. Red Hook all of a sudden had attracted the interest of the federal government, which had shown its commitment to the project by making a two-year, $1.2 million grant. Would the city step up to the plate as well?

The decision was made at the highest possible levels: New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and New York City Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani were personally involved in the conversations. Finally, after more than two years of reaching out to the community, building the concept and developing the site, in December 1996 the City announced that it would cover the full cost of renovating the school.

Before developing a community court project, planners need to define the major problems a neighborhood faces. This article breaks down that process into six steps.

1. Ask Residents What They Think

Purpose:
To get an understanding of the community, and the issues residents feel are important; and to identify community assets that could help in developing solutions.
 
How to do it:
The basic techniques of community engagement—stakeholder interviews, focus groups, attending community meetings, administering community surveys—will help you get the information you need. Some helpful tips are:

• Engage a broad spectrum of local voices, including youth.
• Seek out those with special knowledge of the community, in addition to the average citizen.
• Ask people to identify possible solutions as well as problems.
• Find out what people think of the criminal justice system.
• Make firsthand observations and assessments of the neighborhood.

2. Gather Hard Data About the Problem

Purpose:
To obtain quantitative data that will sharpen the understanding of problems identified by community members. 

How to do it:
Relevant numbers are available from an array of sources, including the United States Census Bureau, the state and local court systems, police departments, district attorneys' offices, welfare agencies, departments of education, health and social services, housing authorities and other government agencies. You can also collect your own numbers by:

• Observing court proceedings and recording dispositions over a week or a month to understand how judges respond to particular cases.
• Polling defendants held prior to arraignment to find out what kind of problems they have.
• Talk to system insiders who might be able to accurately estimate numbers that are otherwise unavailable.

3. Analyze the Current Response 

Purpose:
To understand what is working and what is not working with the current ways of addressing local problems. Planners must study the current procedures in-depth, identifying weaknesses, gaps in service, inefficiencies and unsatisfactory outcomes.

How to do it:
You can interview key players in the criminal justice system (police, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, court clerks, probation officers, etc.) and outside the criminal justice system (social service providers, health care staff, etc.) who might have valuable insights. You can also review statistics with system insiders and undertake first-hand observations of key processes.

4. Share Idea with the Community 

Purpose:
To ensure that all stakeholders understand what problem or set of problems the project will address, and that there is a general consensus that this is the right approach.

How to do it:
This step not only helps focus the planning effort, but it also demonstrates to the residents that the community is a real partner in the project. You can get the word out by:

• Drafting a problem statement that can be circulated among key stakeholders.
• Conducting follow-up community meetings to share what the data revealed.
• Sending letters to stakeholders.
• Checking in with key stakeholders by phone.
• Contacting elected officials and fill them in on what you're doing and learning.

5. Develop Solutions 

Purpose:
To craft concrete solutions to the local crime and public-safety problems identified by the community and criminal justice stakeholders.

How to do it:
Once the problem is defined, planners can start brainstorming potential solutions. No doubt some ideas are already in hand. More can be found by talking to system players, such as judges, attorneys, cops, parole and probation officers, court officers and service partners. Ideas often come from other jurisdictions that are handling similar problems in creative ways. Planners should also find out what's been done in the past—what worked, what didn't and why?
return to map

6. Monitor Results 

Purpose:
To study the effectiveness of the project as it moves to implementation and to continue to identify new problems and appropriate solutions on an ongoing basis.

How to do it:
The most successful projects pursue reflection and self-improvement on a regular basis. This requires collection of data for self-evaluation and can be done a number of ways. Here are some ideas:

• Survey community members regularly.
• Form a collaboration with a local university to engage in ongoing research of your project.
• Devote project resources and personnel to monitoring program results.
• Develop and maintain on-going communication with the community your project serves through newsletters, formal and informal meetings, and involvement in your program.

 “Talk to everybody. Get the vision of the stakeholders, community boards, the business community, cops, every single block association and everybody in and out of the system.”

– Michele Sviridoff, deputy director for research at the Center for Court Innovation

Whether it originates out of the local police department, prosecutor’s office, probation department or court system, a community justice project must be tailored to the neighborhood it serves. And since the focus of all community justice projects is solving local crime and public safety problems, one of the foremost tasks for planners is to identify the key problems that the neighborhood in question faces.

Planners can go about that in a number of ways, starting with direct outreach to local stakeholders. Planners should talk with both community leaders and a cross-section of average citizens. In addition to individual conversations, focus groups, surveys and attending community meetings are excellent ways to take a community’s pulse. It’s best to ask a broad range of questions, covering general attitudes about the neighborhood and issues related to crime, safety and youths. Planners should also ask people to identify a community’s assets. Planners can round out their picture of the community by walking through the neighborhood.

Planners need quantitative data to sharpen their understanding of the issues identified by the community. Planners find it useful to know the number of people in the catchment area; profiles of residents, as well as offenders, including their socio-economic status, ages, level of schooling and employment; types and locations of crimes; types of housing; the annual number of violations, misdemeanor and felony arrests and case outcomes.

Once the problems have been clearly defined, planners start generating solutions. By this stage, many good ideas have probably already surfaced; others can be harvested by talking to local members of the criminal justice system, and by turning to other jurisdictions that are handling similar problems in creative ways.

For more, read Steps to Defining the Problem, which breaks down the process.