How the Model is Being Adapted Across the United States. Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice

Transcription

1 How the Model is Being Adapted Across the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice

2 author year about this publication Julius Lang Director, Technical Assistance Center for Court Innovation 2011 This project was supported by Grant No DC-BX K018 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Julius Lang is director of technical assistance at the Center for Court Innovation. Research, ideas, and text were also contributed by Greg Berman, Elvita Dominique, and Robert V. Wolf of the Center for Court Innovation, and Kim Ball and Danica Szarvas- Kidd of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This publication is an update of an earlier version entitled Community Courts: An Evolving Model, authored by Eric Lee.

3 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 1 FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE The Midtown Community Court was created in 1993 to respond more effectively to street prostitution, vandalism, shoplifting, drug possession, and other quality-of-life offenses that had tarnished some thought permanently midtown Manhattan s reputation as a capital of tourism and entertainment. Researchers subsequently documented that the Midtown Community Court s approach combining punishment and help by linking defendants to community restitution projects and on-site social services made a difference, helping to reduce crime and improve public trust in justice. In the years since the Midtown Community Court opened, some three dozen community courts have opened in the United States, and many others are operating abroad. Designed to address local concerns, these courts handle a wide range of issues everything from quality-of-life crimes, truant youth, and landlord-tenant conflicts, to drug addiction, chronic homelessness, and sex trafficking. While the various community courts are organized differently some focus on one neighborhood, for example, while others serve an entire city or county they share a common approach. All seek to impose immediate, meaningful sanctions on offenders, truly engage the community, and help offenders address the kinds of problems that often underlie criminal behavior. Community courts have posed a new set of questions about the role of the court in a community s daily life: What can a court do to solve neighborhood problems? Is it possible to forge new and creative responses to lowlevel offending instead of relying on incarceration as a default setting? What roles can community residents, businesses, and service providers play in improving justice? And how can the answers to those questions be applied beyond the community court itself to the wider court system? The Bureau of Justice Assistance supports the efforts of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other local leaders who are interested in exploring concepts of community justice. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has collaborated with the Center for Court Innovation to establish a network of regional mentor community courts to provide technical assistance to reformers across the country. This publication offers a short review of community courts in the United States. The goal is to help innovators learn about community courts and decide whether the model might help them achieve the goals we all seek: a fair and effective justice system that enhances safety, supports victims, and protects our rights. Denise E. O'Donnell Director Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice

4 2 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? INTRODUCTION Over the past decade and a half, cities and towns across the United States and around the world have sought to test the proposition that courts can play a role in solving complex neighborhood problems and building stronger communities. Since the 1993 opening of New York City s Midtown Community Court, dozens of cities have created their own community courts. At their outset, each court must address the following set of questions: Can courts assume a problem-solving role in the life of a community, bringing people together and helping to craft solutions to problems that communities face? INTRODUCTION How can courts sentencing strategies address the effect that chronic offending has on a community? Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit Can local voices residents, merchants, community groups play a role in the administration of justice? in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan How can courts best link offenders to the services they need to avoid re-offending? et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Is it possible to craft meaningful alternatives to incarceration and ensure that there are swift Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod exerci tation consequences for non-compliance? ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Community courts answer these questions in different ways. Although many community courts focus on one neighborhood, Duis autem vel several eum iriure jurisdictions dolor in hendrerit have created in vulputate courts that velit serve esse a wider molestie territory, consequat, sometimes vel illum even dolore an entire eu feugiat or county. nulla facilisis Some community at vero eros courts et accumsan were begun et iusto as court-led odio dignissim initiatives, qui blandit while others praesent were luptatum initially zzril championed delenit by city augue local prosecutors, duis dolore executive te feugait branch nulla facilisi. leadership, Nam or liber community tempor cum activists. soluta Many nobis community eleifend option courts congue handle nihil only imperdiet criminal cases, doming focusing id quod largely mazim on placerat quality-of-life facer possim offending, assum. such as shoplifting, graffiti, illegal vending, and prostitution. Lorem Others ipsum tackle dolor a sit broader amet, range consectetuer of criminal adipiscing cases, elit, such sed as diam auto theft, nonummy low-level nibh felony euismod drug tincidunt possession, ut laoreet stalking, dolore and assault, magna while aliquam still erat others volutpat. address Ut non-criminal wisi enim ad matters, minim veniam, including quis juvenile nostrud delinquency, exerci tation housing ullamcorper issues, suscipit environmental lobortis nisl code ut aliquip violations, ex ea or commodo offender reentry. consequat. Community Duis autem courts vel even eum have iriure the dolor capacity in hendrerit to combine vulputate under one velit roof esse a number molestie of consequat, specialized vel court illum dockets. dolore In eu an feugiat experiment nulla facilisis in Orange at vero County, eros California, et accumsan a community court odio includes dignissim an qui adult blandit drug praesent court, a mental luptatum health zzril court, delenit a augue court for duis those dolore charged te feugait with nulla driving facilisi. under Lorem the et iusto ipsum influence dolor of alcohol, sit amet, a consectetuer veterans court, adipiscing a domestic elit, violence sed diam court, nonummy and a homeless nibh euismod court. tincidunt ut laoreet dolore

5 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 3 Given the differences in court structure and focus, responses to offending vary. Typically, however, all community courts take a problem-solving and community-focused approach. In criminal cases, community courts combine punishment and help, requiring offenders to pay back the community by participating in restorative community service projects while also participating in individualized social service sanctions, such as drug treatment or mental health counseling. In civil cases, such as housing disputes, community courts bring new resources to help create long-lasting solutions; the Harlem Community Justice Center in Manhattan, for example, houses a resource center to give both tenants and landlords the support they need to pay their rent on time or make repairs, thus avoiding more problems in the future. These variations reflect a central aspect of community courts: however they are organized, they are designed to respond to the particular concerns of individual communities. Moreover, community courts are shaped by the unique political, economic, and social landscapes in each community. The Center for Court Innovation, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice s Bureau of Justice Assistance, has provided technical assistance to many community courts and has helped to document the emergence of this field. This monograph provides a snapshot of existing community courts in the United States and explores emerging issues in their development. OVERVIEW When it opened in 1993, the Midtown Community Court represented a bold departure from business as usual in the court system. By mid-2010, some three dozen replications had opened across the United States, from California to Connecticut, Texas to Minnesota. Even more projects based upon community court principles are currently operating outside the United States in places like Australia, Canada, England, Singapore, and South Africa. While these projects have many differences, in general they all rely on a set of common principles and practices: Enhanced Information: Using better staff training (about complex issues like drug addiction and mental illness) combined with better information (about defendants, victims, and the community context of crime) to help improve the decision making of judges, attorneys, and other justice officials. Community Engagement: Engaging citizens to help the justice system identify, prioritize, and solve local problems. Collaboration: Bringing together justice players (such as judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and court managers) and potential stakeholders beyond the courthouse (such as social service providers, residents, victims groups, schools) to improve inter-agency communication, improve trust between citizens and government, and foster new responses to problems.

6 4 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Individualized Justice: Using evidence-based risk and needs assessment instruments to link offenders to individually tailored community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate. Accountability: Employing community restitution mandates and regular compliance monitoring with clear consequences for non-compliance to improve the accountability of offenders Outcomes: Collecting and analyzing data on an active and ongoing basis measuring outcomes and process, costs, and benefits to evaluate the effectiveness of operations and encourage continuous improvement. The effectiveness of these principles and practices at the Midtown Community Court has been well-documented (see, e.g., Sviridoff, M., Rottman, D., Ostram B. and Curtis, R Dispensing Justice Locally: The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers). Planners in other jurisdictions have made significant departures from the Midtown model, reflecting both the distinct needs of their communities and the practical realities of local resources. The following sections examine common questions that planners have asked as they designed their community courts and how they resolved them. How Does Community Court Planning Get Started? Community courts are complex projects that involve rethinking court operations, identifying significant resources, and building partnerships inside and outside the justice system. In the U.S., the impetus for kicking off the planning of a community court has varied from state to state. Judges or local court administrators have sparked the planning effort in some 15 of the U.S. s 37 operating courts. (Unless otherwise indicated, the numbers cited below refer to courts in the United States only). Planning for at least another 15 courts was first suggested by the local district attorney or city attorney. Notably, community prosecution programs existed in 12 of these jurisdictions; in many places, the interest of local prosecutors in community court was a response to questions raised by their constituents about whether the justice system could pay closer attention to quality-of-life problems. The local mayor s office or a countywide criminal justice commission was involved in initiating the community court effort in at least seven jurisdictions. Many projects recognized early on that a dedicated planner in some cases a full-time coordinator, in others a staff person who dedicated a majority of his or her attention to the project would be needed to move the community court from conception to implementation. This approach reflects the complexities of identifying resources, building community participation, developing an appropriate menu of court mandates, and establishing partnerships. To ensure that the partnerships necessary for success were established early in the planning process, most jurisdictions convened formal planning committees. The committees typically included representatives from the courts, local prosecutors offices, defense bar, police departments, social service agencies, and

7 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 5 communities. In the projects that did not create planning committees, lead planners worked informally with project stakeholders. The scope of the community court project, the readiness of local players to support the concept, the extent of any necessary construction, and the planners success in garnering funds and in-kind support all affected the length of the planning process. The average planning period is around two years, although some jurisdictions used less than a year to create a community court. Which Communities Should Be Served and Where Should the Court Be Located? The first community court was established to serve the central business district of America s most populous city. One question asked by planners of subsequent projects was whether the community court model is applicable to smaller cities and other types of neighborhoods. The community court approach has been recognized as a meaningful response to quality-of-life problems by many different communities. Today, many of the U.S. s 37 operating community courts serve inner-city residential neighborhoods facing serious problems, including high crime rates, property abandonment, and chronic conditions of disorder. Some courts are located in suburban areas. At least four community courts serve downtown areas and tackle the low-level crime and public disorder issues that can be barriers to civic revitalization. Finally, at least nine projects are testing the idea of a community court that serves an entire county or mediumsize city. Another decision planners have faced is selecting an appropriate facility in which to locate the community court. The decision involves balancing community court goals such as visibility and accessibility to the public with the need to find sufficient space for on-site partners. Expense and the logistical issues of case processing are also important considerations. Community courts have arrived at a variety of solutions. At least 18 courts operate out of separate neighborhood-based facilities, while at least 13 courts currently operate within centralized courthouses. Several projects have come up with creative approaches in an effort to get the best of both worlds. For example, in Washington, D.C., the East of the River Community Court is based in the central downtown courthouse but focuses on a single set of neighborhoods cut off from the rest of the city by the Anacostia River. The types of cases community courts accept vary depending on the communities that they serve. Courts in residential neighborhoods are more likely to address housing, environmental issues, and youth crime, whereas those in downtown areas prioritize issues such as homelessness and disorderly conduct. How Should the Court Use Alternative Sanctions? A core feature of the community court model is linking offenders to social services. Of the 37 community courts now operating in the United States, at least 14 provide on-site services such as case management, drug treatment, counseling, or assistance with entitlements. At least five sites provide referrals to social services plus ongoing case management; and at least nine provide referrals only.

8 6 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION All of the U.S. s community courts are experimenting with the broad use of alternatives to incarceration (and, in most instances, alternatives to fines). There is mounting evidence that mandating defendants to social services can help reduce recidivism. Most community courts tailor the mix of community service and social service mandates to the circumstances of each case; some defendants might be required to perform only community service, others only social services, while still others a combination of both. Some community courts have sought to standardize their sentencing practices. In Seattle, for example, all mandates include a requirement to meet with one or more designated social service providers as well as perform community service. Most community courts seek to engage defendants immediately by requiring them to meet with a community service coordinator the day of sentencing. Many courts share a building with social service providers, giving defendants easy access to the help they need. The Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York offers within steps of the courtroom a host of services, including job training, high school equivalency classes, and mental health counseling. In Red Hook and in other community courts, on-site services are available not only to defendants but anyone who walks in off the street. In this way, community courts are true community resources, strengthening neighborhoods by opening their doors to all comers. It s worth noting that while the Red Hook Justice Center invited social service providers to share space in its newly renovated courthouse, the opposite was true in South Dallas, where the 20 year-old Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center made room for the community court. In both cases, however, the result is the same: the court and social services providers work hand-in-hand to increase access to key services that help strengthen communities and reduce offending. While most community courts hear primarily adult criminal cases, some community courts are exploring ways to expand their mandates beyond these case types. These experiments range from a judge in one courtroom hearing criminal, civil, and family matters, to judges hearing matters such as housing and environmental code violations, to courts doing special reentry calendars once a week to assist the reintegration of offenders into the community. At least six jurisdictions are exploring ways to handle youthful offenders at community court. What Role Should the Community Play? All community courts must grapple with how and when to involve the community. More fundamentally, they must ask themselves: Who is the community? In general, community courts seek to cast a wide net, reaching out to residents, social service providers, neighborhood institutions (such as schools and faith communities), justice partners (such as police and prosecutors), and local merchants. Planners use a variety of tools to establish community participation, including attending neighborhood meetings and conducting interviews with a broad range of stakeholders. Most community courts created some sort of community advisory group during the planning period and held community meetings to determine local priorities. Many also held focus groups to better understand community members concerns and recommendations. In Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, community members were involved in recommending

9 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 7 sanctioning options. In Brooklyn, New York, community members helped to choose the location of the court. In Liverpool, England and Melbourne, Australia, community members were represented on the panel that selected the community court s judge. Since opening, each court has taken a different approach to involving the community. The most common approach is convening a permanent community advisory board, which at least 17 have done. Other courts have also developed specific mechanisms for soliciting community involvement in making community service assignments, such as a telephone hotline like the one created by the Hartford Community Court. Other practices involving the community include: regular attendance at community meetings; community impact panels that bring together low-level defendants and local residents for facilitated dialogue; using volunteers to conduct doorto-door surveys to determine public safety concerns and priorities of neighborhood residents; and producing a newsletter to give community members visible evidence that the court is accountable to the community. Another central way community courts open their doors to the public is by recognizing that defendants are not the only ones in a community who could benefit from educational, job training, and counseling programs. A community court can be a resource for anybody who needs assistance, providing referrals for drug treatment to anyone who walks in off the street, or offering its space for Alcoholics Anonymous groups or English-as-a-second-language classes, for example. Some community courts even give local stakeholders a role in overseeing community restitution. For example, AmeriCorps volunteers, who undergo specialized training, now do most of the supervision of the community service workers at the Seattle Community Court. Are Community Courts Creating System Change? Community courts encourage key changes in court procedures. By emphasizing the value of information, they ve pushed the development of new strategies and resources. For example, defendants in most community courts are screened for problems before seeing the judge. Psycho-social assessment tools are used to determine defendants individual needs and suitability for customized social service sanctions. In addition, many community courts have developed management information systems to facilitate rapid and up-to-date information sharing among the judge, lawyers, court staff, and social service partners. In this way, community courts like the Downtown Community Court in Austin, Texas, which has a goal of going paperless raise the standard of accountability for court-ordered sanctions, link together numerous key partners, and ultimately enhance both informed decision-making and immediacy. Immediacy is also encouraged by placing punishment and help that is, both community restitution and social services within easy reach. For many community courts, this means housing social services and community service coordination on-site, thus ensuring that defendants begin fulfilling their sentences promptly after leaving the courtroom. Immediacy is supported in most community courts by someone filling the role of a resource coordinator, serving as a liaison between the courtroom and service partners.

10 8 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION In the two cities where community courts have been open the longest, New York City and Portland, the lessons of better information, immediacy, and community involvement in the administration of justice have begun to spread to the rest of the system. In Portland, the success of the first community court convinced justice system officials to serve every neighborhood in Portland through special calendars on designated days of the week. In New York City, the success of Midtown Community Court led to the development of two other neighborhood-based community courts, encouraged greater use of community service and social service sanctions throughout the court system (for example, the centralized court nearly doubled its use of alternative sanctions since the Midtown Court opened), introduced the role of resource coordinator to other courts, started the trend of problem-solving courts throughout the state, and led to the establishment of a not-for-profit organization to be an engine for ongoing court innovation. Significantly, it also led to the opening in 2005 of a project Bronx Community Solutions that applies core community court principles throughout a busy urban courthouse serving an entire county. More recently, the NYC Community Cleanup project was created to apply the lessons learned through community courts to community service mandates throughout New York City s criminal courts. By emphasizing the importance of immediacy, community courts have helped encourage jurisdictions to shorten the arrest-to-arraignment time and the lag between arraignment and engagement in community restitution and social services. For example, through the efforts of the Hartford (Connecticut) Community Court, that city has been able to reduce its citation-to-arraignment time from two weeks to just two business days. Community courts have modeled the value of rapid and thorough assessment of defendants, encouraging entire court systems to use state-of-the-art tools to assess defendants needs (as is now done in the entire borough of the Bronx for tens of thousands of misdemeanor offenders a year.) And as leaders in the use of courtroom technology, community courts have inspired others to adopt new information systems to enhance communication and accountability. In New York State, for example, the technology applications originally developed for community courts have informed the design of a statewide case management system set to begin rollout shortly. In many places, community courts are explicitly seen as laboratories where ideas can be tested, whether they be new links to social service providers, new community restitution protocols, or new ways of engaging the public. Much of this work has been underwritten by external resources ranging from state legislative and city council appropriations, to federal grants, to contributions from private foundations and corporations. At least 10 community courts have secured some level of private funding to help support their work. Some community courts have relied on non-profit organizations to coordinate planning and implementation of their projects; some have also relied on non-profits to help with operations, develop new technology, promote public awareness of their work, and raise funds. In Atlanta, the Restorative Justice Center helps the Atlanta Community Court to raise funding and public awareness.

11 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 9 SELECTED COMMUNITY COURT PROFILES The following profiles provide a sense of the diversity of the community court movement. Midtown Community Court Launched in 1993, the Midtown Community Court targets quality-of-life offenses such as prostitution, illegal vending, graffiti, shoplifting, fare beating, and vandalism in midtown Manhattan. Often in such cases judges are forced to choose between a few days of jail time and no sentence at all results that fail to impress the victim, the community, or the defendant that these offenses are taken seriously. In contrast, the Midtown Community Court sentences misdemeanor offenders to pay back the neighborhood through visible community restitution projects while offering them help with problems (addiction, homelessness, lack of job skills) that underlie their criminal behavior. Many social services are available on-site at the Midtown Court, providing the judge with a range of services to include in a mandate, such as drug counseling, health education classes for prostitutes and johns, and employment training. For defendants with a long criminal record and a history of substance abuse, the court offers a special alternative-to-incarceration program that sentences defendants to long-term drug treatment. Many defendants return to court voluntarily to take advantage of on-site services, including high school equivalency and parenting classes. Community involvement is extensive at the Midtown Community Court. A community conditions panel, comprised of representatives of the criminal justice system, as well as the business and residential communities, meets every month to keep the court abreast of local problems and emerging hot spots. To enhance accountability, the court uses an award-winning computer application to monitor individualized sanctions for each offender and respond swiftly to noncompliance. One of the hallmarks of the court is a commitment to responding to emerging problems. For example, the court has launched various initiatives to address the problem of homelessness. Project Reconnect, a collaboration between the Midtown Court and the city s Department of Homeless Services, helps individuals clear warrants that hinder their ability to secure permanent housing in exchange for completing a series of tailored social service sessions. Shop Talk is an on-site psycho-educational group designed to motivate homeless offenders to take the necessary steps to access more permanent housing options. In 2009, 87 percent of defendants at Midtown completed community service mandates, compared to 50 percent of the defendants who were processed at the downtown criminal courts. Supervised defendants from Midtown can complete around 18,000 hours of community service in a year, or roughly the equivalent of $130,000 of labor, including painting over graffiti, stuffing envelopes for local nonprofit organizations, and cleaning the streets of Times Square and surrounding neighborhoods. For a detailed description of how the court operates, see How It Works: A Summary of Case Flow and Interventions at the Midtown Community Court, described in the Further Reading section of this publication.

12 10 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Hartford Community Court The Hartford Community Court has its roots in the federally-funded Comprehensive Communities Partnership program that sought to improve coordination among criminal justice agencies and Hartford communities. The program initially focused on community policing and anti-gang initiatives, but community participants wanted something to be done about low-level crime as well. Planning for the community court began in 1996 and included enacting state legislation to mandate alternative sentences for ordinance violations. The Hartford Community Court serves the entire city. To ensure that the court is responsive to local concerns, the court works closely with problem-solving committees in the city s 17 neighborhoods. The court sends community service crews to every neighborhood and, when possible, assigns offenders to perform community service in the neighborhood in which they were arrested. In recent years, the court has expanded its jurisdiction to include cases from neighboring suburban communities. On average, approximately 15 percent of the court s annual caseload comes from suburban communities. A member of the bail commissioner s office screens defendants for arraignment. This interview serves as a criminal background check and is the first line of inquiry for social services screening. After speaking with the state s attorney in court, if the defendant accepts a plea agreement, the judge issues a sentence that includes community service and/or social service mandates. Upon completion of the mandate, the defendant s case is dismissed 30 days later without the defendant having to reappear in court. If the defendant refuses the plea offer, the case stays with the judge. The judge hears bench trials at the community court; cases that are eligible for jury trials are transferred to superior court. Each defendant is required to meet with the court s social service team, which includes staff from the city s Department of Human Services, the state s Department of Social Services and Department of Mental Health and Addiction, and the Capitol Region Mental Health Center. The interview covers issues such as substance abuse treatment, education services, health care, and housing options. Defendants are then linked with necessary social services. The Hartford Community Court regularly employs mediation in resolving criminal cases. Mediation is voluntary, requiring the willing participation of both the victim and the offender. If an agreement is reached between the parties and restitution is required, the judge will make the mediation agreement part of the court s order and continue the case until the restitution and other terms of the agreement are fulfilled. Red Hook Community Justice Center The Red Hook Community Justice Center was born out of tragedy. In 1992, a beloved elementary school principal, Patrick Daly, was shot in broad daylight by local drug dealers. In the aftermath of his slaying, local criminal justice officials sought to create an innovative local justice center to improve public safety. Operating in the heart of a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood, the Red Hook Community Justice Center hears cases that ordinarily are heard in three different courts civil, family, and criminal. This model did not emerge by accident. Community stakeholders interviewed during the planning process stressed that the

13 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 11 problems faced by local families do not conform to the jurisdictional boundaries of the justice system. By having a single judge handle matters traditionally heard by different decision makers at different locations, the justice center offers a coordinated response to the problems that bring local residents to court. The Red Hook judge can use an array of sanctions and services, including community restitution projects, on-site job training, drug treatment, and health counseling all of which are rigorously monitored to ensure accountability and to encourage individual responsibility. State-of-the-art technology helps the judge monitor compliance. The courthouse a refurbished Catholic school is the hub of an array of programs that engage local residents in doing justice. These programs include mediation, community service projects that put local volunteers to work repairing conditions of disorder, and a youth court where teenagers resolve actual cases involving their peers. Through these initiatives, Red Hook seeks to engage the community in aggressive crime prevention. The Justice Center s planners see this strategy working in two ways: by solving local problems before they become a court problem and by helping knit together the fabric of the neighborhood. The Red Hook Community Justice Center has incubated numerous new crime prevention programs over the years. In 2004, the Justice Center piloted an HIV/substance abuse prevention program that trained Red Hook youths to educate their peers. In 2008, the Justice Center ran a youth engagement program that engaged teenagers in public housing in creating education campaigns that addressed issues such as drug dealing and dropping out of school. Each year, the Justice Center contributes approximately 70,000 hours of community service to Red Hook about $500,000 worth of labor. The percentage of residents who say they feel safe in local parks or on the street has risen significantly from 45.6 percent in 2004 to 73.5 percent in 2010 (parks) and 40.8 to 54.5 percent (street). Confidence in the courts has also increased among neighborhood residents 94 percent rate the Justice Center favorably (compared to only 12 percent who rated local courts favorably before the project opened). Indeed, door-to-door surveys have documented improved trust in police and prosecutors as well. And defendants in the Justice Center are significantly more likely to perceive their experience in the court system as fair than defendants in traditional court. Red Hook is a safer, more prosperous neighborhood today than it was when the Justice Center opened. Once notorious for drugs and crime, the neighborhood is now home to the safest police precinct in Brooklyn. South Dallas Community Court The city of Dallas has three operating community courts. The South Dallas Community Court was the first community court to open in Dallas and began hearing cases on October 1, The community court originally started as an initiative of the Dallas City Attorney s Office and works closely with the community prosecution program as well as the city s municipal court.

14 12 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION The South Dallas Community Court serves a high-poverty neighborhood and is housed in the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center. The community center had been open for some 20 years, and already housed approximately 25 programs such as workforce development, a public library, and a gymnasium. Partnering with a vibrant community center allowed Dallas to start a community court on a modest budget, and an existing community prosecution program accelerated the pace at which community input could be included in the court s planning process. The South Dallas Community Court has initiated a number of creative partnerships, including a weekly reentry docket to tackle the challenges faced by individuals returning to the community from jail, a community service program for truant youths, and collaborations with law enforcement agencies, faith-based organizations, and social service providers to work with prostitutes and combat active drug markets. The success of the South Dallas Community Court spawned the opening of a second community court in West Dallas (opened November 2008) and a third community court in the South Oak Cliff neighborhood of Dallas (opened April 2010). The two newest community courts are using the model established by the South Dallas Community Court: a courtroom in an existing community center. Seattle Community Court In 2002, the Municipal Court of Seattle opened its doors in a new downtown Seattle Justice Center, which includes a resource center containing social service providers and a day care center. As time went on, the court and its justice system partners found that having service providers in the building presented a unique opportunity to adapt the community court model. Launched in 2005, the Seattle Community Court, with an original jurisdiction limited to the downtown business area, has sought to demonstrate how community court principles can be implemented to address the problems of defendants who are chronically homeless, frequently suffer from multiple addictions, and often have a co-occurring mental illness. The Seattle Community Court expanded its jurisdiction in January 2007 to include the entire city of Seattle. With the increased caseload came a greater need for community service projects. Originally the community court had two community service partners, and the community service workers were supervised by the partners themselves. Today, the community court has more than 16 community service partners. AmeriCorps volunteers, who undergo specialized training, now do most of the supervision. The grant manager for the community court, an employee of the city attorney s office, is responsible for coordinating which workers will be at which sites and making sure all the community service partnerships are running smoothly. The caseload of the community court has risen from 228 defendants in its first year of operation to nearly 900. In addition to helping to oversee community service, AmeriCorps volunteers help to conduct community outreach, including the production of a quarterly electronic newsletter and web-based community satisfaction surveys.

15 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 13 Bronx Community Solutions Launched in 2005, Bronx Community Solutions seeks to provide judges in the county s central criminal courthouse with increased sentencing options for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, prostitution, and shoplifting. By combining punishment with help, Bronx Community Solutions seeks to reduce the Bronx s reliance on short-term jail sentences and build public confidence that the system is holding offenders accountable and offering them the assistance they need to avoid further criminal conduct. The project builds on the lessons from community courts in the Red Hook, Midtown, and Harlem neighborhoods of New York City. Bronx Community Solutions is testing whether core community court features enhanced sentencing options, community service, increased accountability, and community engagement can be applied in a large central court that serves a population of nearly 1.4 million people. Rather than working with one judge or a single courtroom, Bronx Community Solutions provides all judges in the Bronx with a broad set of sentencing options, including drug treatment, job training, family services, and mental health counseling. Offenders are assigned to community service work in neighborhoods throughout the Bronx. Project staff work with residents and community groups to create community service options that respond to local problems (for example, trash in a local park or walls marred by graffiti). By quickly assigning offenders to social service and community service sentences, and rigorously monitoring their compliance, Bronx Community Solutions sends the message that community-based sanctions are taken seriously. Bronx Community Solutions invites community groups and local residents to play a number of concrete roles in ongoing operations, including identifying hot spots and eyesores for community service projects, and participating in a neighborhood advisory board. Since the project s inception, key program staff have documented the experiment through a frequently updated blog, Changing the Court. Bronx Community Solutions handles approximately 12,000 cases per year. Orange County Community Court A one-of-a-kind experiment in Santa Ana, California, the Orange County Community Court brings under one roof a number of specialized court dockets that would typically be scattered over several courtrooms in a centralized courthouse. This includes an adult drug court, a mental health court, a court for those charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, a veterans court, a domestic violence court, and a homeless court. Each docket is heard on different days of the week. Participants enroll in the court housed in a former department store decorated with Mexican tiles and a vintage floor-to-ceiling mural either through a court mandate or on a walk-in basis (a sandwich board out front promotes the free services available inside). The drug court and mental health court currently have an active caseload of about 200 participants and the homeless court close to 400.

16 14 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION The community court opened in August 2008 (many of the specialized court projects were already in existence). Judge Wendy Lindley was a natural choice for the program, having presided over the Santa Ana Drug Court and an earlier version of the homeless court. Significantly, Judge Lindley also spearheaded the court s community planning process, which included oneon-one interviews with 30 key stakeholders, focus groups with social service providers, faith-based groups, and criminal justice professionals, and town hall meetings open to the public (one of which was conducted in Spanish). One example of Orange County s innovative approach is the veterans court, which started in November Based on the pioneering example set by the Buffalo Veterans Court, Judge Lindley seeks to link returning veterans suffering from problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental health conditions to long-term treatment. The court works closely with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which has assigned a full-time case manager to the project. Orange County s outreach court is designed to address the unique issues posed by individuals who are homeless. The program clears up arrest warrants issued for homeless people who are unable to pay fines accrued when they are cited for low-level offenses like sleeping outside or urinating in public. The idea is to reduce both inefficient and costly short-term jail sentences (if enforced, warrants often result in a few days jail), while removing barriers to self-sufficiency (an arrest warrant can prevent an individual from obtaining a drivers license or job). In the outreach court, Judge Lindley sentences individuals to drug rehabilitation or parenting classes as an alternative to a fine. In addition, Judge Lindley conducts outreach court in homeless shelters, where residents are encouraged to bring warrants to the court s attention. CONCLUSION There are currently 37 community courts in the United States, with more planned in the days to come. The local nature of community justice means that each court tells a different story. In Portland, community court was a natural outgrowth of the neighborhood prosecutor program launched by Multnomah County District Attorney Michael D. Schrunk. In Hartford, Connecticut, the community court emerged from a process designed to solicit greater community involvement in setting law enforcement priorities. Community members urged the justice system to focus attention on quality-of-life crimes. No matter what the initial motivation, community courts in the U.S. have sought to bridge the gap between courts and the communities they ve served. Along the way, they ve taught practitioners lessons about improving the visibility and transparency of the work of the justice system and responding creatively to community needs. Community courts have produced documented cost savings through the reduced use of incarceration and through community service work performed by defendants. Community courts have also helped boost public confidence in justice. Just as important, community courts across the country have served as laboratories, providing local criminal justice officials with the space to experiment with new approaches to public safety. At the end

17 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY COURT? 15 of the day, this commitment to innovation to testing new ideas and evaluating their effectiveness is the lasting contribution that community courts have made to justice reform in the United States. FURTHER READING For more information, visit the Center for Court Innovation s web site, which contains dozens of articles, interviews, research reports, and other materials for community court planners. All of the materials listed below are available for free download: Building Support for Justice Initiatives: A Communications Toolkit by Jimena Martinez A manual to help justice practitioners communicate about their work with the public and key institutional stakeholders. Community Courts: A Review of the Research Literature by Kelli Henry and Dana Kralstein A review, updated in July 2010, of the basic findings from the most notable community court evaluations conducted to date. Community Justice Around the Globe: An International Overview by Robert V. Wolf A review of community court and community prosecution programs around the world. Originally published in Crime & Justice International. Defining the Problem: Using Data to Plan a Community Justice Project by Robert V. Wolf A look at how community justice initiatives across the county have used concrete data to define local problems. Engaging the Community: A Guide for Community Justice Planners by David Anderson and Greg Berman Tips for community justice planners about how to build stronger connections between neighborhoods and the criminal justice system. Examining Defendant Perceptions of Fairness in the Courtroom by M. Somjen Frazer An article highlighting the major findings of a study of defendant perceptions of fairness at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Originally published in Judicature.

18 16 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION From the Margins to the Mainstream: Community Justice at the Crossroads by Greg Berman and Aubrey Fox An edited transcript of a discussion about community justice among a small group of leading practitioners and thinkers. How It Works: A Summary of Case Flow and Interventions at the Midtown Community Court A detailed description of how cases move through the Midtown Community Court. Red Hook Diary: Planning a Community Court by Greg Berman How a planner for a neighborhood-based court in Brooklyn negotiated some of the early challenges of the project, including community needs assessment, fund-raising, and program design. The Principles of Community Justice: A Guide for Community Court Planners by Greg Berman A discussion of the principles underlying community courts.

19 Center for Court Innovation The winner of the Peter F. Drucker Award for Non-profit Innovation, the Center for Court Innovation is a unique public-private partnership that promotes new thinking about how the justice system can solve difficult problems like addiction, quality-of-life crime, domestic violence, and child neglect. The Center functions as the New York State court system s independent research and development arm, creating demonstration projects that test new approaches to problems that have resisted conventional solutions. The Center s demonstration projects include the nation s first community court (Midtown Community Court), as well as drug courts, domestic violence courts, youth courts, mental health courts, reentry courts and others. Beyond New York, the Center disseminates the lessons learned from its experiments in New York, helping court reformers around the world test new solutions to local problems. The Center contributes to the international conversation about justice through original research, books, monographs, and roundtable conversations that bring together leading academics and practitioners. The Center also provides hands-on technical assistance, advising innovators about program design, technology and performance measures. For more information, call or info@courtinnovation.org.

20 Center for Court Innovation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York Fax Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C Fax

21 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies Sarah Picard-Fritsche, Michael Rempel, Jennifer A. Tallon, Julian Adler, and Natalie Reyes

22 This publication was supported by Grant No DC-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to the Center for Court Innovation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to Julius Lang, Director of Training and Technical Assistance with the Center for Court Innovation, for his invaluable contributions to the conceptualization of this publication. We would also like to thank Elise Jensen, Annie Schachar, Matthew Watkins, Samiha Meah and Greg Berman, also from the Center for Court Innovation, for their comments and contributions to earlier drafts of the report. Finally, we are grateful to Alissa Huntoon and her colleagues at the Bureau of Justice Assistance for their ongoing commitment to bridging the research and practice communities in the criminal justice field. 2017

23 1 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies I. Introduction As the national push to stem the tide of mass incarceration grows, state and local jurisdictions have increasingly adopted risk assessment tools in an effort to improve decision-making at key points, such as pretrial release, sentencing, or probation and parole case management. Today, as many as 60 risk assessment tools are in use in jurisdictions across the United States. These tools are diverse in form, length, and content. The simplest tools rely exclusively on criminal records, while others add a short defendant interview, integrating the results into a single risk score. Still other tools constitute more comprehensive risk and need assessments that require a long interview. Beyond risk classification, these longer tools offer the benefit of assessing the severity of treatable needs that are often linked to criminal behavior ( criminogenic needs ). Ultimately, diversity in the current marketplace of risk assessments should be viewed positively, as different types of tools may be more appropriate depending on the decision point to which they are applied (e.g., pretrial release versus correctional supervision) and the specific goals of the jurisdiction adopting the tool.

24 2 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION A growing body of research suggests that high quality risk assessment yields more accurate estimates of risk for future crime, when compared with professional judgment alone. 1 Yet despite showing strong promise for improving decision-making and mitigating the effect of cognitive biases, risk assessment tools are controversial. Specifically, debates have emerged regarding: (1) the lack of transparency of some proprietary tools; (2) the potential for risk assessment to reproduce existing racial or ethnic biases in the justice system; and (3) the inherent challenges of applying risk classifications to individual cases based on group behavior. 2 Several recent articles compare the accuracy of some prominent risk assessments and propose practical criteria for tool selection, 3 but to date there are few, if any, pieces that address the key big picture questions: 1. What is risk assessment? How is risk generally defined in the field? What is data-driven risk assessment? What kinds of risk factors are commonly found in risk assessment tools and how are risk classifications created? 2. What are some strengths and downsides? Can risk assessment reduce unnecessary incarceration, facilitate treatment, or otherwise improve criminal justice systems? What are the limitations of current risk assessment tools and their use? 3. Why all the debate? What underlies current controversies regarding the use of risk assessment in criminal justice? 4. How can the benefits of risk assessment be maximized? What are key principles to consider for the effective, legal, and ethical application of risk assessment tools in the criminal justice field? This essay seeks to grapple with these questions, with an eye toward bridging the worlds of research and practice. Our goal is to provide an easy-to-read overview of the

25 3 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies latest social science (to the extent this is possible in a field that is rapidly evolving). Our intended audience is primarily practitioners and policymakers who want to gain a better understanding of the field and have real questions about whether and how to incorporate risk assessment into their daily practice.

26 4 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION II. What Is Risk Assessment? Defining Risk In general, risk refers to the likelihood of an adverse outcome. In contemporary societies, examples of adverse outcomes include death (medicine), dropout (education), financial losses (investment), and future criminal behavior (criminal justice). Formal Risk Assessment Formal risk assessment tools use large datasets regarding past trends to predict future outcomes. Risk assessment has long been entrenched in a variety of social policy arenas. What all assessments have in common is the statistical linking of likely causal factors (e.g., prior school failure) to a future outcome (e.g., likelihood of high school dropout). Despite the recent attention paid to their use in criminal justice, actuarial models are not new to this field. Statistical models that assess the relationship between criminal history, demographic factors, and re-arrest were applied to making parole decisions in Illinois as early as the 1930s. 4 Within criminal justice, risk assessment has most commonly been used to predict any new criminal activity (regardless of the charge type or severity). 5 This definition has important limitations, especially for decision-makers at the pretrial stage who may be particularly concerned with failure-to-appear in court or risk of future violence while a current case is pending. 6 A robust body of scientific evidence now suggests that the likelihood of new criminal behavior can be reliably assessed based on a limited set of factors, summarized in Table 1 on pages 5-6. The table lists the most prominent predictors of recidivism risk in the left-hand column, and then presents common ways in which each factor is measured in the right-hand column.

27 5 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies Table 1. Central Predictors of Recidivism Risk Risk Factor Common Measures Criminal History Demographics Antisocial Attitudes Antisocial Personality Pattern Criminal Peer Networks School or Work Deficits Prior adult and juvenile arrests; Prior adult and juvenile convictions; Prior failures-to-appear; Other currently open cases; Prior and current charge characteristics (e.g., presence of firearms, violence, drug charges, etc.). Younger age; Male gender. Patterns of antisocial thinking, which typically reflect the following primary constructs: (1) Lack of empathy; (2) Externalization of blame; (3) Entitlement; (4) Attitudes supportive of violence. Impulsive behavior patterns; Lack of consequential thinking. Peers involved in drug use, criminal behavior and/or with a history of involvement in the justice system. Poor past performance in work or school (lack of a high school diploma; history of firing or suspension); Alienation from informal social control via work or school (e.g., chronic unemployment). [continued on the next page]

28 6 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Table 1. Central Predictors of Recidivism Risk [continued] Family Dysfunction Substance Abuse Leisure Activities Residential Instability Unmarried; Recent family or intimate relationship stress; Historical lack of connection with family or intimate partner. Duration, frequency and mode of current substance use; History of substance abuse or addiction; Selfreported drug problems. Isolation from pro-social peers or activities. Homelessness; Frequent changes of address. Note: Factors and sample items developed based on extensive review of several comprehensive, risk-need assessment systems, including the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (1990); the COMPAS (2007); and the Ohio Risk Assessment System (2009). As shown in Table 1, the most prominent predictors of recidivism include a mix of both static and dynamic risk factors. Static factors are those that are unchangeable either by virtue of being historical in nature (e.g., prior criminal history) or by being largely immutable characteristics of an individual (e.g., male sex). Dynamic factors are those that can be changed, such as current unemployment, substance abuse, negative peer influences, or antisocial attitudes. The distinction between static and dynamic factors has important implications for criminal justice practice for a variety of reasons. For one, static factors

29 7 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies in particular criminal history and age at arrest are typically the strongest predictors of new criminal behavior and a short tool containing only these factors can often yield a relatively accurate risk classification. However, short static factor tools are insufficient to the larger goals of many decision-makers who are interested in reducing risk in the future. Reducing risk requires actually knowing the dynamic risk factors does the individual in front of me have a drug problem? Are they homeless? For this reason, tools with dynamic factors tend to be more useful in contexts where it is possible to engage in risk reduction strategies (e.g., linking defendants to treatment). The Theory Behind Risk Assessment Risk-Need-Responsivity theory was developed in the late 1980s by Canadian psychologists Don Andrews and James Bonta. A rehabilitative approach to crime prevention, this theory is grounded in research suggesting that rehabilitation, and consequently recidivism reduction, is achievable through appropriate intervention. This theory is composed of three core principles: 1. The Risk Principle: Risk for new criminal behavior can be predicted and that correctional interventions should focus on higher risk offenders. 2. The Need Principle: Therapeutic interventions should be directed towards an individual s criminogenic needs, which are defined as dynamic needs that can be statistically tied to recidivism The Responsivity Principle: Correctional treatment should be adapted to the specific risk factors, needs, strengths, and other attributes of the individual.

30 8 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Risk Assessment Science and Current Practice Social science often confirms what justice practitioners already know. For example, many prosecutors intuitively understand the importance of criminal history in predicting future offending. In other cases, however, science contradicts common assumptions. For instance, validation research in the criminal justice field has consistently shown that the presence of a diagnosis for mental illness is not a significant factor in predicting future criminal behavior, contrary to long-held assumptions in the field. Empirical research also challenges the use of current offense severity as a proxy for risk of future crime. Put simply, a felony defendant is not more likely to be re-arrested than a misdemeanant. On balance, actuarial or data-driven risk models have tended to outperform the judgments of individual practitioners, including clinical professionals, in accurately assessing risk. Thus the rationale behind expanding the use of formal risk assessment tools is that they offer the potential for helping justice agencies make more informed decisions. Most assessment tools whether they are brief tools relying exclusively on static factors or interviewbased tools that include numerous risk and needs domains are developed and tested in a similar manner. The first step is typically to start with the factors we have outlined in Table 1. The next step is to decide what additional questions might be worth asking (e.g., questions regarding perceptions of the justice system or more specific criminal background questions may be relevant depending on the context and purpose of the assessment). Next comes testing. An empirical analysis is conducted to assess the statistical association of each selected factor on the outcome of interest (e.g., rearrest over a certain time period). In other words, item weights or the number of points assigned to each item will be established based on the relative strength

31 9 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies of each risk factor in actually predicting recidivism. For example, a prior criminal conviction might be more influential than unemployment in predicting re-arrest in a test model, and will therefore be assigned a greater number of risk points in the final tool. Finally, having weighted each factor in the tool based on its association with recidivism, risk categories will be created based upon logical cut points in the scoring. If the average rate of re-arrest in a sample of test cases jumps between a total score of 3 and 4, for example, this would be a logical cut point for a new risk category. When risk categories are accurately assigned, defendants in the higher risk groups will consistently show higher re-arrest rates. Once a pilot version is developed, the tool is then validated. Validation simply means that the items, risk scores, and risk categories in a tool are confirmed to have a statistically significant relationship with recidivism (a statistically significant relationship is one that cannot be attributed to chance). Technically, the validation of a tool is supposed to be conducted using a fresh sample of cases, rather than the sample used to create the tool in the first place. In general, the more validation tests conducted on diverse samples of defendants, the more reliable the risk assessment tool is as a national model. It is important to note that a validated tool is not necessarily a highly accurate tool. Predictive accuracy is typically measured by the rate at which the tool correctly classifies an individual s risk (e.g., low, moderate, high, etc.). Any statistically validated tool will still produce false positives (individuals are predicted to re-offend but don t) or false negatives (individuals are predicted not to re-offend but do). In simple terms, having good predictive accuracy doesn t mean that a tool is perfect, but does mean that errors are kept relatively low.

32 10 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Increasingly, tool developers are releasing Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistics, which provide a useful measure of a tool s predictive accuracy. AUC statistics range from.50 to 1.00, with a higher AUC indicating a lower rate of error in classification. By current industry standards, an AUC of.70 or higher is considered good. An AUC in the.60 to.70 range is considered acceptable. Given the real life consequences of criminal justice decisions, practitioners should pay close attention to AUC statistics.

33 11 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies III. Can Risk Assessment Tools Improve Criminal Justice? An individual defendant s likelihood to commit a new crime can be an important aspect of pretrial release, sentencing, community supervision, and parole decisions. Indeed, judges, prosecutors, correctional officers, and other practitioners routinely assess risk as part of their daily practice. Because data-driven tools have been shown to improve the accuracy of risk assessments, they may improve decision-making in a variety of contexts e.g., Is an individual a good candidate for community-based pretrial supervision? What terms of probation are appropriate in a given case? These questions, and many more, hinge on an assessment of risk. The scientific consensus is that validated risk tools with high predictive accuracy (i.e., high AUC scores) can increase the accuracy of these decisions. In particular, risk assessment tools can help reduce recidivism by clarifying when intensive supervision or treatment is truly needed. This is a compelling justification for their use, since recidivism rates among justice-involved populations remain frustratingly high. In a national study consisting of a cohort of more than 400,000 state prisoners released in 2005, for example, 41 percent were re-arrested within a year following release. 8 A recent study among misdemeanor offenders in New York City serving short jail sentences has documented similarly high rates of re-arrest. 9 Conversely, well-implemented alternatives to incarceration such as police diversion or problemsolving courts have been shown to result in moderate, but nonetheless significant, reductions. 10 However, alternatives to incarceration do not work equally well for all individuals. Meta-analyses examining over 400 studies have concluded that interventions are most effective when focused on higher-risk populations.

34 12 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Indeed, intensive intervention can actually increase offending among those at lower risk. 11 The potential negative effects of intervention including well-meaning treatment programs are especially pronounced the longer and more intensive the intervention is. A recent study of one validated risk assessment tool, the LSI-R, bore this out by showing that the placement of lowrisk drug court participants in long-term residential treatment doubled their likelihood of re-arrest over a two-year follow-up period. 12 In sum, the literature suggests that accurate knowledge regarding criminal risk can help safely reduce the use of incarceration. A key case study that bears this out is the state of Virginia, where the use of a validated risk tool in multiple jurisdictions allowed for the diversion of 25 percent of nonviolent, prisonbound offenders over a three-year period without increasing crime. 13

35 13 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies IV. What Are the Limitations? Actuarial risk assessment tools have a number of scientific and practical limitations. Probability, Not Perfection No tool can predict the behavior of any individual with 100 percent accuracy. Indeed, the oft-used term risk prediction is misleading when applied to risk assessment tools. What these tools actually do is place individuals in a risk category (e.g., minimal, low, or high) based on the behavior of other individuals with similar characteristics. A hypothetical high-risk individual might have a 50 percent chance of re-arrest over a oneyear period, compared with an individual in the lowrisk category, who might have a 15 percent chance of re-arrest. These are probabilities rather than certainties. The need to tolerate some uncertainty should not come as a shock to practitioners in the criminal justice field, given the complexity of criminal behavior. At the end of the day, risk assessment is an aid rather than a replacement for professional discretion. Type of Risk Risk assessment tools may not always be designed to assess the outcome that is most relevant to specific decision-makers. For example, a judge may be interested in risk of a new violent offense or, more specifically, a new domestic violence offense when making a pretrial release decision. Currently, many tools do not produce this type of nuance. Additionally, only a few tools or risk assessment systems offer the ability to predict failure to appear in court, which in many jurisdictions is the most relevant question at the pretrial stage. In general, overall recidivism (any re-arrest, regardless of charge) is the easiest outcome to predict reliably. At the other end of the spectrum, failure-to-appear assessments often yield the least impressive accuracy.

36 14 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Culpability Perhaps the least acknowledged limitation of risk assessment tools is their silence on the critical matters of moral culpability and legal proportionality. An individual s risk for re-arrest may not align intuitively with the seriousness of the current case. Individuals arrested on a low-level misdemeanor are often a high risk of re-arrest. The converse is also true; defendants charged with serious offenses may be classified as low risk. While both possibilities present challenges, the former may present a greater puzzle for the justice system. A great many defendants with relatively minor cases may be high-risk for future offending due to underlying problems like substance use, unemployment, and housing instability. A dynamic risk-needs assessment tool may aid in identifying needs, but that does not assist in crafting a sentence that is proportionate to the current offense.

37 15 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies V. What Are the Major Controversies Today? In recent days, risk assessment tools have generated a good deal of controversy, including prominent legal cases, media coverage, and even an opinion from former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. 14 What follows is a look at some of the concerns that have been raised. Individualized Justice There is a legitimate concern that making risk classifications based on group behavior is a poor fit in a justice system founded on the notion of individual rights and individualized justice. 15 The counterargument is that evidence-based risk assessments, and especially those assessments that measure needs as well as risk, improve the ability of the justice system to respond to each defendant s unique needs and attributes, thereby creating more just individual outcomes while protecting victims. 16 Transparency Although there is a near consensus in the field regarding the main drivers of recidivism risk, the relative weight given to each of these factors and the specific measures that are used can differ significantly from one tool to the next. Often for proprietary reasons, risk assessment developers are not transparent about the weights, items, and algorithms that they are using. This lack of transparency can create a variety of challenges. Non-transparent tools may be more likely to trigger due process concerns from defendants and defense counsel. 17 They may also make collaborative buy-in from stakeholders regarding the use of risk assessment generally more challenging. 18

38 16 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Racial Bias There has recently been significant debate in the academic and popular press regarding the potential for actuarial risk assessment to perpetuate racial disparities, based on correlations between common risk factors (e.g., unemployment, lack of education, criminal history) and race. 19 Indeed, a recent study of the use of one prominent risk assessment tool in a large, urban jurisdiction, published in ProPublica, found that African-American defendants were more likely to be classified as high-risk for re-offense and were thus more exposed to detention when compared with white defendants. 20 The ProPublica article and a subsequent response did not resolve the more nuanced question of whether the observed race differences were due to factors external to the criminal justice system (e.g., unequal educational opportunities, employment discrimination, historic effects of neighborhood segregation) or due to racial and ethnic bias in arrest, sentencing and incarceration practices. These questions continue to be explored in the academic literature. 21 Because many criminal history factors (e.g., number of prior arrests or convictions) are both correlated with race and commonly considered in sentencing decisions, there is a strong possibility that racial disparities in sentencing would persist even if there were no risk assessment tools. Indeed, risk assessment proponents argue that actuarial tools can effectively mitigate racial disproportionalities arising from implicit biases in laws, police practices, or the discretionary patterns of individual decision-makers. In Colorado, for example, an actuarial risk assessment tool effectively eliminated a pattern of disparity where judges were more likely to place African-American juveniles in secure detention compared with white juveniles with similar case characteristics. 22 To date, the debate regarding race and risk assessment has been subjected to only limited rigorous

39 17 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies study using data from real criminal cases. An important exception is a recent study of the PCRA, a risk assessment tool used in federal courts, which found little to no discrepancy by race in the predictive accuracy of the tool and no significant disparate impact of the tool between black and white defendants. 23 These results counter the findings from ProPublica, but further research is clearly needed.

40 18 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION VI. What Are Key Principles to Help the Field? A threshold challenge for individual jurisdictions is establishing a shared understanding of the ultimate intent behind risk classification. How will the instrument be used? At what point in the process? To achieve which goals? Answering these kinds of questions is the first step toward successful implementation. For instance, if the goal of a jurisdiction is to increase the pretrial release of low-risk individuals, the menu of appropriate assessment tools will be quite different than if the intent is to link higher-risk offenders to appropriate therapeutic intervention programs post-sentence. In most cases, successful implementation of a formal risk assessment will require collaboration from multiple stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others (e.g., victim advocates and social workers). Lack of buy-in among key stakeholders has been shown to undermine the adoption of evidencebased practices more broadly, and risk-based decision making more specifically. For instance, a recent study of the use of a risk assessment system to set bail in Cook County, Illinois showed a greater than 80 percent override of the tool s recommendation on the part of arraignment court judges. 24 Beyond working to achieve consensus on adopting a risk-based approach, what follows are some lessons from the field about how to implement a risk assessment tool successfully. Reflection Once a particular tool is adopted, the next question is how the information will be applied to decisionmaking. Risk assessment tools should not be thought of as a replacement for professional discretion, but rather as one of many aids to informed decisionmaking. Others might include legal proportionality

41 19 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies (i.e., the going rates for a particular charge) and the treatment or supervision resources in a particular jurisdiction. In short, higher risk classification suggests the need for greater resource allocation in a particular case, but this finding should be considered in context. Practitioners should use their knowledge of their reform goals, local agency culture, and target population to create guidelines for the effective application of risk assessment results. For example, if a risk-based model is adopted with the goal of creating off-ramps from incarceration for lower-risk defendants, it is incumbent on jurisdictions to identify the kinds of alternative programs that will be made available and which specific risk categories will be targeted. Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Given the underlying complexities of risk assessment tools and the importance of adapting risk assessments to local contexts, jurisdictions are urged to develop collaborative working groups that include both researchers and practitioners. Research-practice partnerships can enhance discussions regarding the appropriateness of specific tools. The active involvement of researchers can also facilitate local validation studies to assess predictive accuracy and racial equity of selected tools. Ongoing monitoring is key to the sustainability of risk based decision-making and provides an opportunity for jurisdictions to course correct should implementation issues arise. Another way in which research-practice partnerships can be particularly fruitful is in the ground-up development of a risk tool specific to a certain jurisdiction or subpopulation. While tools that have been nationally tested carry the advantage of adaptability to diverse populations, localized tools are better able to account for differences in criminal risk based on geographic, social and political context. Taking a one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessment may

42 20 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION undermine successful implementation. For example, a tool validated in one jurisdiction may not be responsive to the unique risk factors and needs that are present in another jurisdiction, or a tool validated on a general pretrial population may not be responsive to the unique needs of certain defendant populations (e.g., veterans). Accuracy and Transparency The purpose of risk assessment is simply to forecast the probability of recidivism in individual cases, with the accuracy of such predictions varying from one tool to the next, as well as from one jurisdiction to the next. If resource constraints dictate selecting a preexisting tool, practitioners are strongly encouraged to look beyond whether a tool has ever been validated and focus specifically on two performance indicators: (1) whether the type of risk assessed by the tool (re-arrest, failure to appear, new violent offense, future domestic violence) aligns with what the jurisdiction is trying to achieve; and (2) the predictive accuracy of the tool (as indicated by AUC statistics). Jurisdictions selecting preexisting tools should select one that is characterized both by strong classification accuracy and transparency. Transparency means that the weights for each risk factor in the tool are apparent to the user, as are the formulas employed to calculate the raw risk score and final risk categories. This allows jurisdictions to understand the factors driving risk in their population and supports local validation and adaptation. Conversely, proprietary risk assessment systems which only provide users with a final risk score or category will prevent this type of local control. Racial Equity Finally, prioritizing transparency when selecting a risk assessment tool will help safeguard the assessment process from potential racial bias by allowing the jurisdiction to track disparities in risk factors, total

43 21 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies risk scores, and risk classifications. Detection of racial disparities in the predictive accuracy of a selected tool (i.e., different AUC statistics by race) would suggest the tool is not appropriate, while correlations between risk factors and race may suggest other empirical or policy revisions that could be made to improve implementation. For example, if unemployment status were strongly correlated with race in a particular jurisdiction, it could be removed from an assessment tool, provided it did not substantially compromise its overall predictive accuracy (empirical revision) or it might suggest the need for diversion or alternative-toincarceration programs focused on employment needs (policy solution).

44 22 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION VII. Closing While critical debates regarding the appropriate application of actuarial models to criminal justice are likely to continue for some time, there is a growing professional consensus that the careful and ethical implementation of risk assessment tools can facilitate improved criminal justice outcomes. This paper has attempted to demystify risk-based decision-making by distilling the science underlying risk assessment and identifying some of the important benefits and limitations. Jurisdictions considering the adoption of a risk assessment tool are urged to consult the growing literature regarding the characteristics and performance of specific assessment systems and to take a localized, collaborative approach to implementation.

45 23 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies Endnotes 1. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical vs. actuarial judgment. Science, 243, ; Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, ; Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1060; Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2014). Risk redux: The resurgence of risk assessment in criminal sanctioning. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, Starr, S. B. (2015a). The risk assessment era: An overdue debate. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27, doi: /fsr Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments; Serin, R. & Lowenkamp, C.T. (December 2015). Selecting and using risk and need assessments. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. 4. Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 5. Most often, new criminal activity is measured as re-arrest. It is of course an imperfect measure, since not all arrests are for crimes that actually occurred, and, conversely, not all crimes that actually occurred lead to an arrest. But re-arrest is an almost universally preferred measure of re-offense for methodological reasons that lie beyond the scope of this paper to detail. 6. Some pretrial risk assessment tools (e.g., the Arnold Foundation Public Safety Assessment) include classifications along multiple dimensions of risk, including general recidivism risk, risk for violence, and risk for failure to appear. A longstanding interest in predicting new violent behavior, and in particular domestic violence, has produced quality models with some but not complete overlap with general recidivism models. A thorough review of domestic violence risk assessment can be found in a recent issue of the Domestic Violence Report: com/online/article.php?pid=18&iid= Risk-Need-Responsivity theory has proposed all of the major factors

46 24 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION included in the model of recidivism risk presented in Table 1, with the exceptions of demographic factors and residential instability. See Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2007). The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from: 8. Durose, M., Cooper, A. & Snyder, H. (2014). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf. 9. Picard-Fritsche, S., Adler, J., Rempel, M., Reich, W. & Hynen, S. (2014). [Predictors of Re-Arrest in the Misdemeanor Population in New York City]. Unpublished raw data. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. 10. Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2015). LEAD Program Evaluation. Seattle, WA.: Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab, University of Washington: Retrieved from: static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/ / / / LEAD_EVALUATION_ pdf. Lee, C.G., Cheesman, F., Rottman, D., Swaner, R., Lambson, S., Rempel, M. & Curtis, R. (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Williamsburg VA: National Center for State Courts; Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1997). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. In M. McShane & F. Williams (Eds.), The Philosophy and Practice of Corrections (pp.9-44). London, UK: Taylor and Francis. 12. Reich, W. A., Picard-Fritsche, S., Rempel, M., & Farley, E. J. (2016). Treatment modality, failure, and re-arrest: A test of the risk principle with substance-abusing criminal defendants. Journal of Drug Issues, 46, Ostrom, B. J., Kleiman, M., Cheesman, F., Hansen, R. M., & Kauder, N. B. (2002). Offender risk assessment in Virginia. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from gov/risk_off_rpt.pdf.

47 25 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies 14. Holder, E. (2014). Attorney General Eric Holder speaks at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting and 13th State Criminal Justice Network Conference. United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. Retrieved from: Doyle (2016, July 26). Portraits in risk. The Crime Report. Available at: Aldrich, L. (2016, July). The use of risk assessments in judicial decision-making. The Domestic Violence Report, 21, E.g., see Wisconsin v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68, 120 (2016). 18. Tools that are not transparent preclude stakeholder input on the ethical or legal implications of the tool s design (for example, some tools include prior arrests, while others only include prior convictions; some tools include, while others exclude, gender and age as risk factors). 19. Starr, S.B. (2015a). The risk assessment era: An overdue debate. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27, ; Harcourt, B.E. (2015). Risk as a proxy for race. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27, ; Horwitz, S. (2014 August 1). Eric Holder: Basing sentences on data analysis could prove unfair to minorities. Retrieved from: washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-attorneygeneral-eric-holder-urges-against-data-analysis-in-criminalsentencing/2014/08/01/92d0f7ba e4-85b6-c1451e622637_ story.html?utm_term=.438a4b49cc Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias: There s software used across the country to predict future criminals and it s biased against blacks. ProPublica. Retrieved from: Dietrich, W., Mendoza, C., Brennan, T. (2016). COMPAS risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity: Performance of the COMPAS scales in Broward County. Retrieved from: go.volarisgroup.com/rs/430-mbx-989/images/propublica_ Commentary_Final_ pdf. 21. Clair, M. and Alix, S. (2016). How Judges think about racial disparities: situational decision-making in the criminal justice system. Criminology, 54, ; Mitchell, O., & Caudy, M. S. (2015).

48 26 CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION Examining racial disparities in drug arrests. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 32, doi: / ; Spohn, C. (2015). Race, crime, and punishment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Crime & Justice, 44, Eaglin, J. & Solomon, D. (2016). Reducing racial & ethnic disparities in jails: Recommendations for local practice. New York: Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from: brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/racial%20 Disparities%20Report% pdf. 23. Skeem, J. & Lowenkamp, C. (2016). Risk, race & recidivism: Predictive bias & disparate impact. Retrieved from: com/abstract= Chicago Judges Spurn Risk Assessment System in 85% of Bail Cases (2016 July 5). The Crime Report. Retrieved from: thecrimereport.org/2016/07/05/chicago-judges-spurn-riskassessment-system-in-85-of-bail-cases-2/.

49 27 Demystifying Risk Assessment Key Principles and Controversies

50 Center for Court Innovation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York P F courtinnovation.org

51 SPOKANE COMMUNITY COURT ANNIVERSARY EDITION STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY The creation of Community Court relied heavily on support from the criminal justice system as a whole. Thus, partnerships were formed with the Downtown Spokane Partnership (DSP), Spokane Transit Authority (STA), Spokane Police Department (SPD), and the Spokane County Jail. The benefits of those relationships are highlighted in the following letter from STA officer Kory Bjornstad: I just wanted to share with you a success story that was a result of getting someone hooked up with Community Court. Daniel was originally arrested by me back in April for Unlawful Transit Conduct (loud/unruly behavior). During that arrest, Daniel told me that he had been living at the House of Charity and other homeless shelters, and was trying to find work. Daniel told me he was frustrated with all the people he saw at the homeless shelters abusing the welfare system and not working when they were able so that s why he lashed out. At that time, I believed Daniel was a great candidate for community court due to his desire to not be homeless, to gain work and to get himself back on his feet. Daniel isn t a bad guy; he was just really upset with people abusing the system. Daniel contacted me today to tell me his great news. He was so excited when he told me that he now has a home that he believes was a direct result of his community court appointments and other funding that had come his way. Daniel told me that he only has to pay $312 for his rent (all utilities included) for the rest of his life. Daniel also said that his damage/security deposit was HE WAS SO EXCITED WHEN HE TOLD ME THAT HE NOW HAS A HOME THAT HE BELIEVES WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF HIS COMMUNITY COURT APPOINTMENTS cut in half several times so that he could afford it. You should have seen the excitement on his face and in his eyes as he told me of his good news; it looked he was going to cry out of happiness. I am so excited for Daniel that as a result of my contact with him and his interactions with Community Court, he is no longer homeless and is back up on his feet. I just thought I would share with you guys a success story that resulted from the amazing relationship between STA, the citizens and Community Court! [Community Court] is an investment that benefits our entire region. Rick Eichstaedt, Executive Director, Center for Justice The City of Spokane is committed to criminal justice reform and acknowledge the enhancement and expansion of the Community Court will benefit our entire region by enhancing the lives of many of our less advantaged citizens. Ben Stuckart, Spokane City Council President City of Spokane Community Court, Quarterly Newsletter, Anniversary Edition 1

52 THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION The court has spearheaded an amazing collaboration of community agencies, non-profits, and governmental entities that has improved the way our community works together. Dan Sigler, Spokane Regional Director, Pioneer Human Services The library has always been a place people turn to for help The Community Court collaboration expands the type of assistance available at the library. Andrew Chanse, Director, Downtown Library This court has the ability to reach people on a different level. I feel like we are reaching out to them where they are and offering support as we stand together. We are not standing apart in this endeavor. Janis Olson, RN, Providence Consistent Care The DSP has been collaborating with the City of Spokane s Community Court since its inception in December, The court has been responsive to the expressed needs of the downtown businesses of creating a safe and welcoming environment for all of the City s residents. By providing wrap around services to those individuals that have obvious health and housing needs, the stress on the local businesses has been relieved by an appreciable degree. Mark Richard, President, Downtown Spokane Partnership We have been an active partner since the inception of Community Court we have committed resources to ensure that the Court reaches their implementation goals by making all our programs available to participants. Mark Brownlow, Executive Director, SPARC SINCE bus passes have been provided by Catholic Charities Providence Consistent Care assisted 121 individuals in obtaining primary physicians and reducing visits to the emergency department Over 10,000 lunches have been provided to both participants of Community Court and library patrons demonstrating a need 143 participants obtained housing and case management assistance through collaboration between Better Health Together, Volunteers of America, Catholic Charities, and SNAP Lion s Club distributed 223 pairs of reading glasses to individuals in need, and scheduled 128 eye exams to obtain prescription glasses 325 participants have graduated Over 2,600 downtown community service hours have been completed by Community Court participants Skils kin has enrolled approximately 65 participants for payee services At least 50 participants have been referred to the Dental Emergencies Needing Treatment program (DENT) Roughly 2,700 individuals with no criminal charges accessed provider services offered at Community Court on Mondays Over 1,000 participants have been referred to Community Court each year The partnership established through the court has challenged the orthodoxy and rigidity of many... The collaborative approach has helped to break silos across many human service organizations in our city. The program has helped many of the vulnerable members of our population to access housing, employment, healthcare, alcohol/drug and mental health treatment as well as many other services. Mayor David Condon In my 16 years at Catholic Charities in Spokane I do not believe I have seen a program that has done more to transform the lives and futures of the homeless and extremely low income superutilizer population than Community Court. Dr. Robert J. McCann, Executive Director, Catholic Charities Spokane City of Spokane Community Court, Quarterly Newsletter, Anniversary Edition 2

53 COMMUNITY COURT IN ACTION Much of Community Court s success relies heavily on partnerships with providers that serve the Community Court participants. Below is a letter from Pioneer Human Services Pathway House residential housing manager, James Noriega, about the benefits of this partnership. Pathway House provides supportive housing services for people in recovery by an onsite case manager. "We currently house two individuals who were two of the highest emergency room utilizers in Spokane. These two gentlemen had been trapped in their alcohol addiction for decades. They used the local emergency system to meet their health, social, and sometimes housing needs and unfortunately burned a lot of bridges. Both of them ended up in local emergency rooms more than one hundred times each in one year. It was clear that they needed a community to help and rehabilitate them. So the Pathway House, together with the Spokane Downtown Community Court, Better Health Together, Consistent Care, and members of the local fire and police departments joined forces to close the gaps so that these two men could get the best help the Spokane community had to offer. With the help of this collaborative group, they are now thriving in Pioneer s Pathway House and the neighboring community. Both men are flourishing from the care they are receiving and now want to give back. They have received the help necessary to strengthen their life skills while living inside the Pathway House from many resources and they are participating in a healthy way in the community One of the men is planning on training as a peer counselor and also wants to volunteer at Community Court weekly. Pathway House s relationship with Spokane Community Court is extremely valuable. The Court is very unique in that it looks for resources for their defendants and aims to rehabilitate rather than incarcerate. In addition, a collaborative group of Spokane partner organizations meet twice per month to discuss local individuals who are high-utilizers of the emergency system and need the most help in our city. The Pathway House is a part of the collaborative group in that it provides supportive housing. In return, the collaborative group provides support to the Pathway House with generous amounts of case management, medical, and sometimes legal help. Another reason we built a network with other care providers is that it helps all of our tenants, not only those who struggle with substance use disorders, to access more resources that promote rehabilitation. The story of our two residents who are in recovery illustrates how effective networking can be in extremely tough cases. What the collaborative partnership has learned from their stories can be applied in many cases. Pioneer knows that we cannot help our tenants in isolation. It takes community connection to restore and rehabilitate." [Community Court] is an effective tool that helps to end and prevent violence against women. Susan Tyler-Babkirk, Program Director, Women s Hearth VOA supports all that the Municipal Court is trying to achieve by helping to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. Jon Carollo, Director of Adult Services, Volunteers of America We have been one of the partners with a table at the Community Court since its inception and we greatly value the access the court has provided for our patients and users of our programs. Jeff Thomas, CEO, Frontier Behavioral Health City of Spokane Community Court, Quarterly Newsletter, Anniversary Edition 3