1. Sherene Crawford, Esq. February 1, 2018

2. The Center for Court Innovation seeks to help create a more effective and humane justice system by designing and implementing operating programs, performing original research, and providing reformers around the world with the tools they need to launch new strategies.
Three Core Areas of Business
Project Director
Non-profit – community based organization – we are not part of the court but a partner to the court

3. Center for Court Innovation
Community Court Model
Community courts are neighborhood-focused courts that attempt to harness the power of the justice system to address local problems.
They strive to engage outside stakeholders such as residents, merchants, churches, and schools in new ways in an effort to bolster public trust in justice.
They test new approaches to reduce both crime and incarceration.
CC- Think of them as spaces to try out alternatives to address community problems.
Smaller scale and then scale up as you prefect the model.
Idea – CC focus on improving conditions in whole neighborhoods, not only addressing the individual litigant needs. As such, they are uniquely accountable to the communities they serve and uniquely concerned with the community input.
Community Collaboration
Community Restitution
Problem solving orientation – focusing on solving the underlying problem of litigant, victims, or communities.
Often this is specific to the interest in of the individual and their rehabilitation, but sometimes the “problems” of interest belong less to the presenting litigant or defendant than to the victims of crime, including the larger community.
Center for Court Innovation

4. What is procedural Justice?
Concerns the perceived fairness of court procedures and interpersonal treatment while a case is processed
Defendants and victims are more likely to accept court outcomes (win or lose) if they:
perceive the process was fair;
had a chance to be heard; and
believe they were treated with dignity and respect
Research on PJ by Yale professor Tom Tyler and Tracy Mears – has shown us the impact PJ has on enhancing the community’s trust in the criminal justice system and likelihood that individuals will follow the law.
Important to train staff and partners on principles PJ
EXAMPLES:
The information and documents are clear and expectations are communicated.
Signage in the court house –
The judge explains why she is doing what she is doing.
Survey – Midtown hearing from defendant’s about their experience.
Center for Court Innovation

5. Outcomes of Interests for Alternatives to Incarceration
Increase compliance with court orders
Reduce the use of jail
Avoid criminal convictions & collateral consequences
Reduce risk of recidivism
Increased public safety
Other prosocial benefits defendants
Focused on designing and offering ATIs that are meaningful to the individual and the community – looking towards these outcomes
Center for Court Innovation

6. Community Courts: Six Guiding Principles
Enhanced Information
Community Engagement
Collaboration
Individualized Justice
Accountability
Outcomes
1.Creating opportunity for the court stakeholders to better understand the individual and cases coming before them. Who are the people getting arrested and why. BETTER INFORMATION sharing = better results.
2. Community -Part of the process for how the court will community; helping to decide how energy, time and resources are spent
3. Creating space for LE, court and community to problem-solve together
4. Individualized Justice – having staff in the court room to assist the judge and lawyers in accessing the needs and risk of the individuals to craft a mandate that is appropriate and proportionate
5. Accountability – meaningful sanctions that hold the individual accountable to community where they committed their crime. Visible community service and often doing community restoration projects with the community. (NYCHA – Public Housing – community room no longer in use, help to refurbish the room – our staff will go to the community room and offer workshops to the residents on employment, parenting and other workshops at the request of the residents.
6. Outcomes - Important to measure and track the data; recidivism, completion of mandate or SN by the court.
Demonstrate to funders and the community how the court is working.
Center for Court Innovation

7. Center for Court Innovation
Court Structure
Community Courts are part of the New York State Court System
Funding provided by the city and the state
Services offered by independent community based organizations
Judge can be multi-jurisdictional hearing both civil and criminal cases
New York Court System
RED HOOK and MIDTOWN – 2 in NEW York each in different types of communities.
Judge
Prosecutor
Defense lawyer – lawyer for the accused
Center for Court Innovation staff – assisting in the assessment and facilitation of the ATI
Center for Court Innovation

8. Midtown Community Court
Established 1994
Evolved over the past two decades
Center for Court Innovation

9. Midtown Community Court
Idea: Neighborhood-based courthouse that focuses on low-level criminal cases
Location – a shared space with a theater company, 25 years of shared space
Catchment – population residents, tourist and local businesses (4 police precincts – 10th, 14th ,20th, 18th )
Caseload – 18,000 criminal and summons cases each year
Low level violations and misdemeanors – theft, small quantities of drug possession, illegal vending, disorderly conduct, trespassing
We do not take more serious offenses, but that is by design
– where we see the greatest impact is in focusing on these lower level crimes and the effect they have the quality of life for the community and as a result
Adapt and change with the community over the last 25 years
Review the impact we have had and develop and innovate ways to address new problems
HTIP – looking mostly a domestic sex trafficking cases where women and girls are being exploded and victimized and instead of treating them as offenders
– see them victims of crime and offer them support and services
Adolescent Diversion Part
– Specialized part takes place to hear the cases of year olds – Age appropriate services, science on brain development
–decision making and what is most effective to change behavior.
Center for Court Innovation

10. Center for Court Innovation
Partnerships
NYC Police Department & other local law enforcement agencies
District Attorney’s Office
Office of Court Administration
Defense Bar
Social service agencies & treatment programs
Arts based organizations
Community organizations
Business Improvement Districts
Residents
New York Housing Authority
New York City Public Schools
Wide and diverse set of partners that we work to collaborate with on the strategy and planning for the court, individual cases and identifying system and community issues. – each important stakeholders with unique contributions.
Center for Court Innovation

11. Community Conditions Panel
Community Conditions Panel meetings take place monthly at the
courthouse with various stakeholders.
Frequent attendees include:
New York Police Department
District Attorney’s Office – Prosecutors
Legal Aid Society – Defense lawyers
Residents
Political and Government representatives
Business Improvement Districts such as; Times Square Alliance, Garment District, Lincoln Square
Various nonprofit service providers
The meetings take place to talk about the conditions in our community
and how we all can work together to resolve issues.
Every month we bring together our partners to discuss community issues, concerns, conditions and work together to develop community conditions.
Homelessness
Blight - Community clean up
Addressing spikes in crime when they occur
Center for Court Innovation

12. Criminal Court Assessment Tool (C-CAT)
THE RISK PRINCIPLE
Vary the intensity of intervention (treatment & supervision) by risk level.
Higher-Risk: Provide more intensive intervention.
Lower-Risk: Intervention can be harmful: Why?
Interferes with work or school.
Increases contact with higher-risk peers.
Can stigmatize and produce psychologically damaging effects.
Supported by close to 400 studies.
JAIL INCREASES RISK
The harms of intensive intervention to lower-risk individuals are magnified when jailing them.
Jail is the most intensive and disruptive intervention of all; AND
The intervention of choice in most jurisdictions.
Research generally shows that incarceration increases re-offending after release—but this relationship applies especially at lower risk levels.
Individualized Justice -
Validated risk assessment tool designed by the Center for Court Innovation
Helps us to apply the appropriate intervention based in their need and risk of recidivism
Center for Court Innovation

13. A Focus on Alternatives to Incarceration Mandates
Midtown offers a variety of onsite interventions, including:
Individual Counseling Sessions
Social Service Groups
Drug Treatment Services
Treatment Readiness Program
Gateways to Prevention
Midtown Treatment Track
Youth and Young Adult Services
Prostitution Diversion Services – WISE (Women’s Independence, Safety, and Empowerment)
Veterans Services
Employment and Job Readiness - Pathways to Employment
Accountability and Individualized Justice
High needs clients that need to work one on one with a social worker – mental health, homelessness and/or substance abuse issues
- Group work; Larceny or substance abuse specifically looking a underlying issues that lead to the behavior
Center for Court Innovation

14. Community service at Midtown Community Court is designed to help and enrich the neighborhoods that have been affected by vandalism, graffiti, increased litter, and many other quality-of-life issues.
Accountability
Same – day and next day interventions; engaging the litigant immediately. Our services are in the same building.
Court on the 1st floor and social services are upstairs staff available
Employ a trained Community service supervisor to engage individuals and go out with with them on projects in the community or conduct work within the building helping to maintain the court.

15. 2016 Social Services Compliance Rate
81%
85%
Compliance tracking and monitoring
Designing the appropriate mandate based on D, Crime and underlying issues (risk assessment)
2016 Social Services Compliance Rate
2016 Community Service Compliance Rate
Center for Court Innovation

16. Red Hook Community Justice Center
Independent evaluators tracked 3,000 defendants
from Red Hook and conventional court for 2 years:
Incarceration: The Justice Center reduced the
number of offenders who received jail sentences
by 35%.
Sentencing Practice: The Justice Center
significantly increased the use of alternative
sanctions (78% at Red Hook, 22% downtown)
Fairness: Offenders at Red Hook were more likely
to perceive the judge’s decisions as fair than
offenders in the comparison group.
Recidivism: Adult offenders at Red Hook were
10% less likely to be re-arrested than offenders who
went through conventional court; juveniles were
20% less likely to be re-arrested.
Source: A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center,
National Center for State Courts, 2013.
35% less jail sentences
Offering 78% more Alternative SN verses our traditional court that only offered 22%
PJ – offenders at RH more likely to perceive the out of their case as fair
RH – adults 10 % less likely to be re-arrested than those in the conventional court
Juveniles were found to be 20% less likely to be re-arrested
Center for Court Innovation

17. Director Midtown Community Court Center for Court Innovation
Sherene Crawford, Esq.
Director Midtown Community Court
Center for Court Innovation