Shane Correia

Mental health courts are creating a great deal of discussion and have provoked a surprising variety of responses from stakeholders in the criminal justice system and the mental health system. Here are some of the challenges, questions and tensions under discussion.   Use of Jail Many mental health court practitioners struggle with the issue of whether it is ever appropriate to use jail as a sanction for defendants who fail to take their medications or participate in treatment. In drug court, there’s a certain logic to sending offenders to jail for dirty urine because they’re violating the law—there’s a clear connection between the incarceration and the violation. When a mentally ill defendant stops taking his medications, he may have violated the court’s order but no law has been broken. What kinds of sanctions are appropriate in this case? And apart from appropriateness, there are questions about the effectiveness of jail for offenders with mental illness. For instance, the King County Mental Health Court in Seattle, Washington, tries to avoid using jail sanctions because offenders’ mental condition often deteriorates in jail, making it harder for them to re-engage in treatment upon release (Cayce, 2000). The San Bernardino, California Mental Health Court also seeks to avoid the use of jail, but for a different reason. Interestingly, they found that offenders with mental illness were simply not motivated by the threat of jail. Many regarded a stay in jail as a welcome relief from the difficulties of life in treatment or in the community (Morris, 2000). As a result, San Bernardino has aggressively employed community service sanctions instead. Beyond Legal Competency Legal competency statutes and rulings set a very low standard for participation in criminal proceedings. Even if defendants meet the standard for legal competency to stand trial, their mental disorders may impair their abilities to make effective treatment decisions (Grisso & Applebaum, 1998). Given this, what expectations of competency should mental health courts adopt? One approach to this difficult question is offered by King County, which permits defendants to enter treatment for a short period of time pre-plea to stabilize their condition and maximize their ability to make competent decisions about their legal and treatment options. Treatment Availability/Effectiveness Mental illnesses are various and complicated. Are certain mental illnesses less susceptible to treatment than others? How do you handle defendants for whom medication simply has no effect? Are there some illnesses for which treatment will have no impact on recidivism? Is there enough “integrated” treatment available for defendants with co-occurring disorders? Public Safety A single sensational story about a participant committing a violent act could be enough to sink the entire mental health court movement. Courts must always balance the desire to rehabilitate with the need to preserve public safety. How can mental health courts quickly and effectively assess the public safety risks posed by defendants with mental illness? How reliable are the available risk assessment instruments? How should they be used? Stigma and Confidentiality Do mental health courts run the danger of stigmatizing defendants with mental illness? What happens if a defendant decides not to opt in to mental health court and the case is transferred to a conventional court? What information should the new judge and prosecutor receive about that defendant’s mental illness, if any? And would this information have the potential to prejudice the way that the prosecutor and judge treated the defendant in subsequent proceedings? More generally, what kinds of confidentiality protections are appropriate for the information that defendants reveal as part of their involvement with mental health court? Housing Many defendants with mental illness are homeless—they need housing in addition to treatment. And the effectiveness of treatment may be seriously compromised without adequate housing (Ades, 2001). How will mental health courts ensure access to housing for those defendants who require it? Public Benefits The vast majority of participants in mental health courts will require public benefits—Medicaid, Social Security Insurance or Social Security Disability Insurance—for their subsistence and treatment. These federal benefits are often terminated or suspended when a person is jailed. As a result, when defendants are released, they must re-apply for benefits. It often takes several weeks before benefits applications are processed and payments begin. This leaves many defendants with mental illness in limbo, unable to meet their basic support and health needs (GAINS Center, 1999). What, if anything, can mental health courts do to address this problem? The Role of the Courts Many individuals who end up in mental health courts have already been in the mental health system at some point in their lives. What evidence is there that courts can bring about different results? What do they bring to the table that’s unique? Is it simply coercion? Or is it something else? Can courts promote enhanced system integration, bringing together criminal justice, mental health and drug treatment agencies? Answering these questions will go a long way toward coming to terms with a more fundamental question: Are mental health courts a good thing or a bad thing? This is a question that can only be answered over time, with the help of solid, independent research and more practice on the ground. While mental health courts have raised difficult legal, ethical, practical and therapeutic concerns, it is important to note that many of these issues are not entirely new. Drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts and other problem-solving courts have been grappling with these issues for years. And the record has shown that on a local level, many problem-solving courts have managed to figure out answers to thorny issues of confidentiality, proportionality, case targeting and public safety. Mental health courts must figure out how to build on the best of the existing problem-solving courts while formulating new responses to issues that are unique to the mental health field. Works Cited Ades, Y. (2001). Interview with Yves Ades, Director, Mental Health Programs, Center for Alternative Sentences and Employment Services, New York, NY. Cayce, J. (2000). Interview with Hon. James D. Cayce, Presiding Judge of the King County District Court, who planned and presided over the King County Mental Health Court located in Seattle, WA. GAINS Center (1999). Medicaid Benefits for Jail Detainees with Co-Occurring Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders. Prepared by Sherman, R. Delmar, NY: The National GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Criminal Justice System. Available: https://www.prainc.com/gains/publications/medicaid.htm Grisso, T. & Applebaum, P. (1998). Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press. Morris, P. (2000). Interview with Hon. Patrick Morris of the Superior Court in the City of San Bernadino, California about the Mental Health Comprehensive Offender Umbrella for Release and Treatment program.  

Today, there are mental health courts in a number of U.S. cities, and many more mental health courts are in the planning stages. A recent study by the Crime and Justice Research Institute documented the practices of the first four mental health courts, highlighting a set of common procedures and goals that typify the mental health court approach. Based on the success of the drug court model, a handful of jurisdictions across the country have developed specialized courts to address mental illness. Like drug courts, the central goal of mental health courts is to reduce the recidivism of defendants by providing them with court-monitored treatment. The first of these courts opened in June 1997 in Broward County, Florida.   Shortly after Broward opened its doors, several other municipalities began to plan mental health courts. Today, there are mental health courts in Seattle and Vancouver, Washington; San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and Santa Clara, California; Brooklyn, New York; Anchorage, Alaska; Marion County, Indiana; St. Louis, Missouri; Akron, Ohio; and Jefferson County, Alabama. A number of other mental health courts are in the planning stages. A recent study by the Crime and Justice Research Institute documented the practices of the first four mental health courts—Broward, King County (Seattle), San Bernardino and Anchorage (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000). While each mental health court is unique, this study—and independent research on the other mental health courts—highlighted a set of common procedures and goals that typify the mental health court approach: Problem Solving Mental health courts mark an attempt by court systems to address a systemic problem, taking a critical look at the issues that defendants with mental illness pose for the courts and crafting a new set of responses. Put simply, these courts are not satisfied with continuing with business as usual—standard case processing or out-sourcing the solution to some other agency. (Finkelstein & Brawley, 1997). Public Safety By responding to widespread concerns about how courts deal with defendants with mental illness, mental health courts attempt to shore up public trust and confidence in the justice system. Indeed, many mental health courts have been created in response to a specific local crisis involving mentally ill defendants—for instance, the murder of a retired firefighter in Seattle, Washington by a person with mental illness (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000). Therapeutic Jurisprudence In linking defendants with mental illness to treatment alternatives, many mental health courts see themselves as practicing “therapeutic jurisprudence” (Lurigio et al., 2001; Lerner-Wren, 2001; Wexler & Winnick, 1996). In one way or another, mental health courts are testing the extent to which the law can be a therapeutic agent—a social force producing positive life changes for defendants. Screening  Mental health courts develop new systems to identify defendants with mental illness. The point in the criminal justice process at which this intervention occurs varies by jurisdiction. Usually, identification takes place within 24 hours of arrest while defendants are still in custody. The primary sources of identification are jail staff, family members and defense attorneys. Eligibility Criteria After identification, each court has created eligibility criteria that target a certain type of defendant. Almost all programs require that defendants have symptoms of severe mental illness and face non-violent, misdemeanor charges. San Bernardino’s court has handled some non-violent felonies on a case-by-case basis. In general, mental health courts specify that the defendants’ mental illnesses must be “Axis I disorders” as designated in the Diagnostic Statistics Manual IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Dedicated Staff Each mental health court has a dedicated judge and some additional specialized staff. The specialized staff are usually mental health clinicians who screen cases for eligibility, prepare treatment plans, and report to the judge on defendants’ progress in treatment. In some cases, this staff is hired by the court system using new funding sources. In other cases, this staff is assigned from a collaborative government agency or from a local treatment provider. In general, mental health courts have been planned and overseen by interdisciplinary teams composed of a variety of criminal justice and behavioral health stakeholders. For instance, the Santa Clara Mental Health Court “team” includes the judge, district attorney, public defender, and mental health caseworkers (Santa Clara Bar Association, 2001). The team meets to discuss every case, with each representative providing input from their unique institutional perspective. Non-Traditional Roles Mental health courts—like drug courts before them—have altered the dynamics of the courtroom, including, at times, certain features of the adversarial process. For example, in some courts defenders and prosecutors come together to discuss their common goals for each defendant. Mental health courts may engage judges in unfamiliar roles as well, asking them to convene meetings and broker relationships with service providers. Voluntariness Participation in mental health court is voluntary—defendants must affirmatively “opt-in” to receive treatment. For instance, the King County Mental Health Court in Washington gives defendants two weeks in a treatment placement to help them decide whether to participate in the program or not (during this time, their attorneys can also investigate the strength of the case against their client) (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000). Plea Structure Once a defendant opts into a mental health court, one of two things happens: either prosecution is “frozen” and charges are dropped after the defendant successfully completes treatment, or a plea is taken and later vacated (or charges reduced) after treatment is completed. All of the mental health courts require a longer period of time in treatment than the defendant would have served in jail or prison if they had plead guilty to the crime charged, and most courts require participating defendants to spend a minimum of one year in treatment. The rationale behind this is two-fold. First, mandated treatment involves many fewer restrictions than being incarcerated (many defendants are even released to their own residences). Second, mental health courts are willing to invest in treatment only if there is real promise of reducing symptom severity (and thereby reducing recidivism). Experience indicates that it takes at least a year to successfully engage people with mental illness in treatment. Accordingly, many mental health courts reserve the right to extend offenders’ period of treatment in the event of non-compliance. Judicial Monitoring Mental health courts require participants to return frequently to court to enable the judge to monitor the progress of treatment. Court appearances are made less frequently as participants demonstrate consistent compliance over a sustained period of time. System Integration Mental health courts seek to promote reform with partners outside of the courthouse as well as within. For instance, mental health courts have encouraged mental health and drug treatment providers to come together to improve service delivery for offenders. Works Cited American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington, D.C. Finkelstein, H. & Brawley, D. (1997). Introduction. Broward County Mental Health Court Status Report, 1(1). Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Broward County Public Defender. (Both authors are Chief Assistant Public Defenders). Available: https://www.browarddefender.com/mhealth/volume_i_mental_health.htm#Vol I, No. 1 Goldkamp, J. & Irons-Guynn, S. (2000). Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. Available: https://www.ncjrs.org/html/bja/mentalhealth/contents.html Lerner-Wren, G. (2001). Letter from the Mental Health Court Judge. Third Annual Mental Health Court Progress Report. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. Available: https://www.co.broward.fl.us/ojss/jsi00500.html Lurigio, A., Watson, A., Luchins, D., Hanrahan, P. (2001). Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Action: Specialized Courts and the Mentally Ill. Judicature, 84(4), 184-189. Santa Clara Bar Association (2001). Time for a Change: The Mental Health Court of the County of Santa Clara (Press Release of April 3, 2001) reprinted in Santa Clara Bar Association Legal Links. Santa Clara, CA: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.  

In order to sanction offenders who commit certain low-level offenses and educate them about the effects of their actions, planners at Midtown Community Court came up with the idea of Community Impact Panels: mediated sessions in which community members meet with offenders to discuss the impact of their offenses on the community.   Problem The Midtown Community Court was established in 1993 to combat quality-of-life offenses such as shoplifting, turnstile jumping and graffiti. The Court, the first of its kind in the nation, is based on the philosophy that meaningful and visible sanctions for low-level crimes, combined with access to services, can restore a community's sense of safety as well as prevent future offending. Typical sanctions include one to 10 days of community service, such as painting over graffiti or cleaning up local parks. Services, which can either be mandated by the court or accessed voluntarily, include on-site counseling, drug treatment and job training. For some offenses, however, Court planners had difficulty finding a sanction to match the crime. Some low-level offenses, such as public drinking or public urination, were too minor to warrant a full day of community service, but too serious to let go with a fine. In addition to calibrating the punishment with the crime, the Court wanted to find a way to make the sanction meaningful to both the community and the offender. "For a lot of [low-level] offenders, paying a fine is too easy," says Judge Eileen Koretz, who presides at the Midtown Community Court. "They just pay and get out. They don't really understand why the police are bothering to pick them up; that police don't just arrest people, they respond to the community's concerns." Solution In order to sanction offenders who commit certain low-level offenses and educate them about the effects of their actions, court planners came up with the idea of Community Impact Panels. This sanction requires more of the offender than a fine, but is not as time-consuming as community service, thus matching the seriousness of the crime to its punishment. Community Impact Panels are mediated sessions in which community members meet with offenders to discuss the impact of their offenses on the community. The goal is to show offenders that their crimes harm the neighborhood and to keep them from offending again. Each Community Impact Panel is composed of community representatives, a facilitator, and offenders. The community representatives are volunteers, recruited by the Court from the neighborhood. They include people who live and work in the area: merchants, citizens, social service providers, the police and representatives of the faith community. The facilitator is a trained mediator. The role of the mediator is to help the two groups stay focused and maintain respect for each other over the course of the discussion. Planners decided that it was vital for participation in the Panels to be mandatory for offenders. Compelling offenders of low-level offenses to go to Court and attend an Impact Panel is a form of punishment that expresses the community's disapproval. Implementation In January 1999, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Impact Panels made their formal debut as a sanction at the Court. In the courtroom, the judge makes a determination about whether an Impact Panel is an appropriate sanction for a given offender as part of the standard plea bargain process. Typically, those linked to the Impact Panels are offenders with no previous record. If sanctioned, participation in the Impact Panels is mandatory. On the day the Impact Panel has been scheduled, offenders receive a basic, one-hour training and orientation from a Court mediator. Community members also receive a one-hour training to help them prepare for the unpredictable nature of the conversations. In addition to explaining the basic purpose of the Impact Panels, the Court provides volunteers with tips for defusing anger and using non-judgmental language. The Impact Panel discussion lasts one hour and usually includes four offenders, four community members and a Court mediator. All of the participants sit together around a table, with community members on one side and offenders on the other. The mediator initiates the discussion and then facilitates, making sure that everyone is allowed an opportunity to share his or her perspective. Discussion often covers a wide range of issues, from the causes of the crimes committed to possible solutions. Brief surveys are administered both before and after Impact Panels to gauge their effectiveness. After offenders complete the requirement, their cases are dismissed after six months so long as they aren't re-arrested. Challenges Finding the appropriate tone: Panel participation is intended to be a positive experience for everyone involved, which is why skilled facilitators are essential to ensure that both sides maintain an attitude of respect. "If what you want is respect for your neighborhood, you can help that process out by giving some respect up front," says Stuart Sears, a mediator who originally helped coordinate the project. Sears, who facilitated many of the Panels and who also helped attract community volunteers, learned that offenders say more when the process is not overly judgmental of them. Community representatives are also uncomfortable with the process when they feel they need to judge the offenders. This distinction had not been made clear at one early Panel in which all the offenders were johns. "They felt they were being asked to judge the people sitting across the table from them, and they reacted against that," Sears recalls. "That really made us rethink what we were doing in terms of training participants. We don't want the community representatives to do something that two hours later they feel badly about." Integrating police into the panel: Soon after the program began, the Police Department representative on the Court's advisory board suggested that a police officer would be able to contribute an important perspective to the conversation, allowing offenders and community members to understand how police make decisions related to the topic at hand. Others feared, however, that a police officer would intimidate offenders and inhibit their candor. And some also worried that a police officer's presence would be a distraction, turning the Panel into a cop-bashing session. As it turned out, the police perspective was integrated into the sessions without sabotaging the spirit of trust and honesty or diverting conversation. Recruiting volunteers: Panels are sometimes difficult to arrange. The Court tries not to use community members more than once or twice in order to keep the voices fresh and to involve over time as many community members as possible. Finding new community members and scheduling the Impact Panels at a mutually convenient time, however, kept the number of Panels relatively small—16 over the course of the programs's first year, involving 44 community members and 59 defendants. This represents only a small fraction of the Court's annual caseload of over 15,000 cases. Recruiting community members has gotten a little easier over time as word of mouth about the Panels has grown. Results Nearly 70 percent of participants—both offenders and community members—reported that the Impact Panels were "worthwhile" or "very worthwhile." All 59 offenders surveyed answered affirmatively when asked whether they felt the community members had treated them with respect. When asked what they learned from the process, answers included: "It enlightened me that people live in this area," "It drives home the point of personal responsibility very effectively," and "I learned that specific acts can have a ripple effect." These responses are particularly significant given the offenders' attitudes toward their offenses prior to the Panels: 60 percent had said that they thought their actions were "not harmful." As for community participants, 96 percent felt that the Impact Panels had given them the opportunity to present their point of view. And 84 percent felt that the offenders who participated had learned that their actions had a negative effect on the surrounding community. This response was typical: "It's an opportunity for the offenders to see the faces of the people they have affected. It makes it real."  

In Spring 2003, the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center conducted a formal survey to assess the needs and concerns of the Crown Heights, Brooklyn, community, as well as to gauge the community’s use and awareness of the Mediation Center. The Operation Data survey provided a forum for community members to voice their concerns about issues of quality of life, safety, services, conflict, and diversity in their neighborhood. The Spring 2003 Crown Heights Operation Data survey was conducted by approximately ten members of the New York City Public Safety Corps, a number of whom had been working primarily in the Crown Heights area and were, therefore, somewhat familiar with the neighborhood. The Corps members administered a total of 198 surveys with members of the Crown Heights community, both door-to-door with local residences and businesses as well as with individuals in public spaces (e.g., parks, bus stops, etc.). The 128 questions in the survey covered such issues as quality of life, public safety, services, conflict, and diversity, as well as demographic characteristics of respondents. The Corps members conducted the survey for two weeks in April 2003. Just over one quarter of respondents (25.4%) had heard of the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center prior to this survey. Of these, 67% heard about the Mediation Center from a friend or family member, 11% heard about the Mediation Center from a newspaper or poster, and 8% heard about the Mediation Center from another local organization. Of those who had heard of it, 63% said that they were satisfied with the Mediation Center. Only one respondent reported being dissatisfied with the Mediation Center. Fourteen respondents had actually utilized services provided by the Mediation Center. When asked generally whether they saw the existence of a community-based mediation center in the neighborhood as a positive or negative thing, 63% of all respondents saw such a facility as a positive thing. Only 2% saw a community-based mediation center as a negative thing and, of these, only one had specifically heard of the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center. When asked to rate the quality of life in Crown Heights, the majority of respondents reported that things were neither extremely good nor extremely bad. Nearly 3/5 (58%) of respondents classified the quality of life as “okay,” while 22% found the quality of life to be poor or very poor and 20% found the quality of life in Crown Heights good or very good. Although 21% of respondents believed that the quality of life had improved in the past year, the majority of respondents (69%) felt it had stayed the same. Likewise, the majority of respondents (70%) felt that inter-racial, inter-religious, and inter-cultural relations had stayed the same over the past year. When asked whether they felt that inter-racial, inter-religious, and inter-cultural relationships in the neighborhood had improved or declined since 1991, the year of the Crown Heights riots, 74% of respondents reported that relations had remained the same. Due to methodological and data quality issues, the group of questions asking about specific quality-of-life issues were collapsed into a single quality of life index, measuring the average score given by respondents. The series included the following items: garbage on the streets, garbage collection, graffiti, run down parks and green areas, illegal dumping, streets in need of repairs, street lighting, turnstile jumping, disorderly conduct, public urination, littering, public drinking, drug selling in public, prostitution, panhandling, vandalism, traffic accidents, and abandoned or dilapidated buildings or houses. When rating the overall seriousness of these quality of life issues, more than half of all respondents (60%) rated them on average either a big or very big problem. Only 6% believed that the issues included in the index were not a problem at all for the neighborhood. Interestingly, although the majority (78%) of respondents reported the quality of life in Crown Heights to be good or “okay,” when asked about specific quality-of-life issues, the majority of respondents responded that quality-of-life issues were big or very big problems. Not surprisingly, respondents were most likely to report feeling safe in their homes, with 91% of respondents feeling safe or very safe in their own homes. Respondents also felt relatively safe in their lobbies and in stores, with 72% and 73% feeling either safe or very safe in these locations respectively. Respondents were least likely to feel safe on the streets (59% report feeling safe or very safe), in parks (60%), on the way to and from the subway (61%), and at the local subway station (61%). Similar to the quality-of-life index discussed above, responses to a number of safety questions were consolidated into a single safety index. Items included in the index were as follows: fighting in public, drug use in public, mugging, domestic violence, child neglect and abuse, residential burglary, shoplifting, youth violence, gangs, unsafe buildings, car theft, displaying guns, and using guns. 68% responded that these issues were either a big problem or a very big problem in the neighborhood. Respondents were asked to rank a number of youth-related issues. The responses were collapsed into a single index, which measures respondents’ average rating of youth problems in Crown Heights. The issues included in the index are: teen pregnancy, lack of resources for young people, lack of after school programs, gangs in schools, quality of schools, truancy, youth running away from home, youth congregating in the streets, and fighting in schools. A substantial majority—86%—of respondents felt that these issues posed “big” or “very big” problems to the youth in the community. In addition to questions about youth-related problems, respondents were asked to rate the importance of a number of youth services and programs as very important, somewhat important, or not important. Respondents were also asked if they thought that additional youth services were needed in Crown Heights. Only 11% of those interviewed felt that additional youth services were not needed in the community. More than 75% of respondents felt that each of the fourteen youth services and programs listed were very important (the services listed were family mediation services, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, jobs and job training, conflict resolution training, after-school programs, mediation in schools, and computer training, youth courts, dating abuse education, arts programs, sports, and religious organizations). In general, residents of Crown Heights feel that issues of quality of life, safety, and youth are problematic in their community. In all three indices, at least 3/5 of respondents rated the issues as big or very big problems. Youth problems stand out in particular, with 86% of respondents rating them problematic. These findings point to a wide range of potential issues for the Mediation Center and partner organizations to seek to address. One of the primary roles of the Crown Heights Community Mediation Center is to train mediators and provide mediation services to community members in conflict. In light of this, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of various types of conflict within Crown Heights. Slightly more than half of respondents felt that landlord/tenant disputes and disputes between neighbors were common, while just under half of respondents felt that disputes between merchants and residents and disputes within families were common. While half of respondents believed such disputes were common, 17% or less of the respondents had had any of the four types of disputes themselves in the past year. However, when both respondents’ disputes and the disputes of their acquaintances are considered, at least 30% of respondents have had some personal experience with each of the four types of dispute. There appears to be a disconnect between estimates of disputes in Crown Heights and respondents’ actual experience of conflict. For example, while 55% of respondents indicated that landlord/tenant disputes were common or very common in Crown Heights, only 35% of participants had had such a dispute (16%) or knew someone who had had such a dispute (19%). Also, more than half (51%) of respondents reported having daily professional contact (defined as non-personal interactions, such as those one might have with merchants or co-workers) with people of a different race and with people of a different nationality than their own. Nearly half (49%) also reported having daily professional contact with people of a different religion than their own. More than 1/5 of respondents reported that they had professional contact with those of a different race (22%), religion (25%), or nationality (24%) rarely or never. Respondents reported more diversity in their personal lives; 60% of respondents reported having daily personal contact with people of a different religion or nationality and 57% reported having daily personal contact with people of a different race than their own. In general, respondents reported feeling safe with people from different religious, racial, and national backgrounds than themselves. More than 85% of respondents reported feeling safe or very safe with people from different races, religions, and nationalities. The findings that respondents in Crown Heights report extensive diversity in their personal and professional interactions and feel safe with members of diverse racial, religious, and national groups may indicate that public perceptions of Crown Heights as a community riddled with racial and ethnic strife do not accurately reflect the experiences of those who live and work in the community. This finding is particularly interesting, given the earlier finding that the majority of respondents did not feel that inter-racial and inter-ethnic relations had improved in Crown Heights since the 1991 riots.