Eric Lee

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 AccountableOne 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 PerceptionsMany 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 EfficiencyThe 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 CrimeThe 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 AnalysisThe 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 PerceptionsThe 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 PerceptionsThe 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. ConclusionAs 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. ReferencesEckberg, 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.