Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:35 am
Time: 1:35 am
Results for community courts
7 results foundAuthor: British Columbia. Ministry of Attorney General, Justice Services Branch Title: Downtown Community Court in Vancouver: Interim Evaluation Report Summary: Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court (DCC) was launched in September 2008. The DCC was created as a pilot project in response to a recommendation of the B.C. Justice Review Task Force and its Street Crime Working Group. The DCC was established as a partnership of 14 agencies to integrate services and supports: the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Provincial Court of B.C., and a number of health and social services agencies. The justice ministries, and other partner agencies, have made significant financial contributions to develop and operate the DCC. The DCC partner agencies work together in an integrated manner, facilitated by staff and services that are co‐located in the courthouse, to support victims and offenders. This level of integration was possible due to considerable organizational and staff commitment and dedication. The DCC also creates relationships with neighbourhoods and community groups, and seeks opportunities for the public to connect with the court. The DCC takes a problem‐solving approach to deal with offending behaviours of individuals and the health and social circumstances that often lead to crime. The DCC has a number of goals: improve outcomes for offenders; implement innovative criminal case management to improve justice efficiencies; and provide new opportunities for community participation in the justice system. Ultimately, the DCC aims to reduce crime in Vancouver’s downtown area, reduce offender recidivism, improve public safety, and increase public confidence in the justice system. Evaluation is a fundamental component of the project. It will ultimately determine if the DCC model results in more successful outcomes for victims, offenders and the community, and whether it helps the justice system operate more efficiently. Interest in the DCC is broad and many B.C. communities are looking to establish community courts as possible solutions to crime. The DCC full evaluation, due for release in 2012, will inform these discussions. Details: Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Attorney General, 2010. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/interimevaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/interimevaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 122765 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity CourtsProblem-Solving Courts (Vancouver, BC) |
Author: Porter, Rachel Title: Choosing Performance Indicators for Your Community Prosecution Initiative Summary: This report was developed to aid prosecutors in their selection of performance indicators to monitor the effectiveness of community prosecution initiatives. Community prosecution is a broad term used to describe strategies other than traditional prosecution to address problems in the community, to improve interagency coordination, to make prosecution more efficient, and to expand the presence of prosecutors in the community. The report includes a table listing five potential goals of community prosecution program: community engagement, problem-solving, effective case administration, public safety, and interagency partnerships. Each goal is linked to a set of objectives that can be measured using performance indicators showing progress in achieving the desired goals. Performance indicators for community prosecution that have been identified in previous research include: 1) target problems, 2) geographic target area (which may, but is not always confined to specific neighborhoods), 3) role of community, 4) content of response to community problems, 5) organizational changes within prosecutor’s office, 6) case processing adaptations, and 7) interagency collaboration and partnerships. Performance indicators are quantitative in nature and should be able to answer a relatively straightforward yes or no question. The final section of the report briefly explains each of the five goals and its associated objectives. Details: Washington, DC: Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, 2011. 23p. Source: Prosecutor's Report II: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Choosing_Performance_Indicators.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Choosing_Performance_Indicators.pdf Shelf Number: 124317 Keywords: Community CourtsCommunity PolicingPolice-Community Relations (New York)Prosecution |
Author: Henry, Kelli Title: Community Courts: The Research Literature A Review of Findings Summary: The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 community court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement between citizens and the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for lowlevel, “quality-of-life” offenders, speedier and more meaningful case resolutions, and cost savings. In advancing these goals, community courts generally make greater use of community-based sanctions than traditional courts (Hakuta, Soroushian, and Kralstein, 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff et al., 2000; Weidner and Davis, 2000). Among a sample of 25 community courts surveyed in 2007, 92 percent routinely use community service mandates, and 84 percent routinely use social services mandates (Karafin, 2008). This paper reviews the research literature to date about community courts. Community court studies have employed a number of different research methods, reflecting the variation in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Shelf Number: 126917 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsCommunity SentencesCommunity ServiceMeta-Analysis |
Author: Hynynen, Suvi Title: Community Perceptions of Brownsville: A Survey of Neighborhood Quality of Life, Safety, and Services Summary: In 2010, the Center for Court Innovation began exploring the possibility of creating a community court in Brownsville, Brooklyn. A community court is a neighborhood-focused court that attempts to harness the authority of the justice system to address local problems. As part of the planning process community members were asked to voice their opinions about their neighborhood and community through an “Operation Data” survey, a tool to assess community needs and inform future initiatives. In October 2010, 815 residents, merchants, or people who work in Brownsville completed the survey. Their perceptions of quality of life, safety, services, and youth issues in their neighborhood are presented in this report. The Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn covers less than two square miles and has a population of 113,484 (Citizens’ Committee for Children in New York, 2010). Median income for a family in Brownsville is $26,802 with 32.1 percent of families living below the poverty line (New York City Department of City Planning, 2011). Brownsville has the highest concentration of public housing developments in New York City (New York City Housing Authority) and 48 percent receive income support in the form of public assistance, SSI, and/or Medicaid (New York City Department of City Planning, 2011). The majority of residents (80 percent) are African- American. Crime is a major concern in Brownsville—in 2008 it had the highest homicide rate in the city, and along with the surrounding communities of East New York, Bushwick, and Bedford-Stuyvesant accounted for nearly a fifth of the city’s murders and almost half of those in Brooklyn (Wright 2008). The 2010 Brownsville survey was conducted by 25 members of the Juvenile Justice Corps (JJC), the Center for Court Innovation’s AmeriCorps program. The survey consisted of 82 questions asking respondents about their perceptions on a wide range of community issues including youth, the justice system, community problems and safety. Assigned to four teams of about six individuals each, the JJC members conducted surveys with people on the street in seven specific zones in Brownsville. For the purposes of the survey, Brownsville was defined by the official census boundaries that coincide with the area of the 73rd Precinct. The zones (see Appendix A for a map of the Brownsville zones) were high pedestrian traffic areas, such as around public housing complexes, in the main shopping district, and close to subway station entrances. In five of the zones, the volunteers conducted surveys at least twice a day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon). The other two zones (Zone 5 and Zone 6) were in the Ocean Hill part of Brownsville (north of Eastern Parkway) and were only surveyed once. The Juvenile Justice Corps members conducted surveys Monday through Saturday for one week in October. They approached individuals in public spaces and, with permission, in some businesses. They asked if they were interested in participating in the survey (no incentives were offered). The survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. While a total of 815 surveys were completed, for some questions the number of responses was as low as 639. Descriptive statistics are reported for most of the questions. Where appropriate, t-tests and regression analysis were used to indicate any significant difference between results based on respondent background characteristics and the relationship between variables. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Brownsville%20Op%20Data%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Brownsville%20Op%20Data%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127441 Keywords: Community CourtsNeighborhoods and Crime (New York City)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Chittenden County Rapid Intervention Community Court: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Chittenden Rapid Intervention Community Court (hereafter the “RICC”) is a program that is available to non-violent offenders whose crimes have been driven by untreated addiction or mental illness. The program is designed as a pre-charge system through which offenders are quickly assessed using evidence-based screening tools and offered diversion to community programming, services, and community-based accountability programs. The RICC staff work closely with the Chittenden County State’s Attorney and the Burlington Police Department to identify individuals who may benefit from a rapid intervention program, without which they may reoffend and engage in conduct that is costly both to them and to the community. The Burlington Community Justice Center accepts referrals from RICC for individuals who agree to meet with a restorative justice panel to take responsibility for the crime, learn how individuals and the community were impacted, and take steps to repair the harm caused by the crime. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of the RICC the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which the RICC reduced recidivism among program participants. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 654 subjects who entered the RICC from September 14, 2010 to December 5, 2012, was conducted using the Vermont criminal history record of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center at the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history records on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont Superior Court – Criminal Division that were available as of September 17, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain Federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. For this evaluation, the study cohort was divided into three segments – subjects who successfully completed the RICC program (n=470), a segment that did not complete the program and were returned to docket (n=71), and a segment that were currently in the RICC and pending outcome (n=113). Summary of Conclusions 1. The RICC appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among participants who successfully complete the program. Only 7.4% of the successful participants of the RICC were reconvicted of a crime after leaving the program. In comparison, 25.4% of participants who were unsuccessful at completing the RICC were convicted of a new crime after leaving the program. Although this is a significantly higher rate of recidivism compared to the successful participants, the rate is still relatively low. This indicates that even an abbreviated exposure to the benefits of the RICC may provide a positive influence on those participants who do not complete the program. 2. The RICC was shown to be very effective in producing successful participants that remained conviction free in the community during their first year after leaving the program. Approximately 93% of the successful participants of the RICC had no arrest for any new criminal conviction within one year after program completion. The unsuccessful participants had a significantly lower success rate – only 78% remained conviction free within the first year after leaving the program. 3. The RICC appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number of post-program reconvictions for participants who successfully complete the RICC. The successful participants of the RICC had a significantly lower reconviction rate of 15 per 100 participants compared to 48 reconvictions per 100 participants for those who did not complete the program. 4. A large majority of the recidivists who completed the RICC were reconvicted in Chittenden County (91%), followed by Franklin and Addison counties. The recidivists who did not complete the RICC showed a similar pattern with most of their crimes occurring in Chittenden County (76%), and the remaining occurring in Franklin, Addison, Grand Isle, and Lamoille counties. 5. Comparing the demographic and criminal history profiles between the subjects who were successful in completing the RICC and those who were unsuccessful revealed no significant differences. This leads to the conclusion that the reduced recidivism rates observed for the successful participants compared with those who were unsuccessful at completing the program were more likely due to the benefits of the RICC program rather than to differences in characteristics of the study segments. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/chittricc_files/Chitt%20Rapid%20Referral%20Rpt2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/chittricc_files/Chitt%20Rapid%20Referral%20Rpt2.pdf Shelf Number: 128188 Keywords: Community CourtsDrug OffendersMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts (Vermont, U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Suggit, Daniel Title: Joining Forces: A partnership approach to effective justice - community-driven social controls working side by side with the Magistracy of the Northern Territory Summary: Community Courts began as a formal pilot project in 2005 within the NT Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the direction of the then Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley, and with funding and support from the Yilli Rreung ATSIC Regional Council. In 2008, the pilot was 'expanded' to program status through the NT Government's Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage: A Generational Plan of Action (2007), which provided a funding commitment of $2.1 million over 5 years: 2008-2012. A Requirement of this funding was for the Department to undertake an external evaluation of the 5 year program. It is understood that the evaluation was intended to be undertaken in the third or fourth year of the 5-year program. However, this evaluation was commissioned at the start of 2012 within the program's final 6 months. The methodology employed by the consultant includes: - Stakeholder consultation (refer: Appendix 1: List of Stakeholders consulted) - Observation of one community court (Youth Justice Court) at Alyangula Court House, Groote Eylandt on 10th May 2012 - Desktop research (refer: References) - Analysis of IJIS data in relation to Community Court pilot and program implementation, reoffending and breach of court orders Key limitations to the effectiveness of this review methodology have been: - Suspension of Adult Community Courts (2011): due to the suspension of Community Courts for adult offenders from 2011 (as detailed below), there was limited opportunity within the current project timeframe to observe this specialist court operation and moreover, to discuss the effectiveness of the program with all participating stakeholders. This particular limitation undoubtedly constrained the consultant's ability to interview Indigenous community participants in relation to this model of court delivery. - Data: the Community Court program objectives refer explicitly to two quantitative indicators of program success: a reduction in both rates of reoffending and breach of court orders. While these may have been both stated program objectives, there appears to have been no commitment to establishing a data analysis framework to monitor these objectives against mainstream outcomes over the past 5 years. It has been left to the consultant - with the patient and time-consuming assistance of NTG officers within and outside the Department - to define, collate, test and analyse the various datasets from scratch. While it is admirable to have identified quantitative measures within the list of original program objectives, it would have been helpful in terms of the program's implementation and subsequent improvement to have established at the outset a framework to monitor and analyse this data. Details: Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/d_suggit_apo_joining_forces_report_sept_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/d_suggit_apo_joining_forces_report_sept_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 145604 Keywords: Community CourtsCourtsJuvenile OffendersPartnershipsYouth Justice Courts |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |