| Seattle’s First Community Court
Upon my site-visit to Seattle’s first community court, I was fearful I wouldn’t be able to leave the city without having to do community service. With 30,000 hours of community service court ordered each year, everyone in Seattle must contribute in a positive manner either by court order or by not violating the law. I had an opportunity to meet with Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr’s community prosecution unit and, later, observe the community court in action. Seeing the natural progression of community prosecution principles into the courtroom inspires traditional courts to examine the community court model. This article will examine the Seattle Municipal Court’s Community Court in the hope of assisting other jurisdictions who may be struggling with the idea or are interested in starting a community court. After an afternoon of observing community court, I was able to sit down with Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr and his chief of Public & Community Safety, Robert Hood, to discuss the first community court in Seattle. A summary of our discussion follows:
What is a Problem-Solving Court and How Does It Differ from a Traditional Court?
According to “Good Courts,” the definitive book on problem-solving courts co-authored by Greg Berman of the Center for Court Innovation, problem-solving courts such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts share an underlying premise: “that courts should do more than just process cases, that at the end of the day, the goal is not just to make it through the calendar, but to make a difference in the lives of victims, the lives of defendants, and the lives of neighborhoods.” Community courts are one type of problem-solving court focusing on low-risk quality-of-life offenses responsible for reducing the livability of our neighborhoods. In the traditional court system judges and prosecutors are often limited by sentencing options since jails are overcrowded and serious violent offenders must take precedence. Recognizing this limitation in traditional courts for low-risk quality-of-life offenders, community courts produce better outcomes by addressing the underlying social needs of offenders and holding them accountable through community service. In lieu of short jail sentences, offenders are typically mandated to perform community service (ideally in the neighborhoods most heavily affected by low-level offending) and are linked to social services. Community court acts as a stopper to the revolving door of justice that many of these offenders experience.
The court system is not the only entity seeing these repeat offenders over and over again. Social service providers and public health officials see the same defendants in and out of treatment based upon their contact with the criminal justice system. With a relatively small percentage of repeat low-risk offenders utilizing a large percentage of jail bed space, court hours, and social service dollars something had to be done. Seattle’s solution was the creation of the first community court in the state to address quality-of-life offenders. The criteria for a defendant to be eligible for community court are:
- Commission of low-level, non-violent crime
- Not a present risk to public safety
- Less than three previous community court adjudications
- An up-front assessment of defendant’s appropriateness to the alternate sanctions
How Did Seattle Start its Community Court?
 |
| Left to right: Robert Hood, Chief, Public & Community Safety Division, Steven Jansen, Director, APRI's National Center for Community Prosecution and Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr |
In 2004, the community court started as an idea of Chief Judge Fred Bonner and Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr. A partnership was forged between the Seattle Municipal Court, under then Presiding Chief Judge Fred Bonner, and the Seattle City Attorney’s Office and the Associated Counsel for the Accused (A.C.A.), the local provider of public defender services, which in turn spent six months discussing the community court model and convening an advisory group of business owners, community members, and social service providers to provide input and feedback. The group provided information on the development of a sentencing guideline grid for the community court and, surprisingly, were not interested in significant jail time for low-risk, non-violent offenders. The advisory group recommended that offenders provide community service as recompense for the deterioration of the quality of life in the community they caused. Community service helps address the community’s needs and provides the offender with an opportunity to resolve their case by repaying the neighborhood in which the livability problems occurred.
In March 2005, the first community court in the State of Washington, which started as a pilot project with technical assistance from the Center for Court Innovation, was operating two days a week (Tuesday and Thursday) targeting 450 cases per year in the downtown core without any direct funding. As jails filled up with non-violent repeat offenders, the criminal justice system and community had grown frustrated at the cost of incarcerating these individuals. Since eligible offenders were taken from the in-custody jail list, the community court addressed two problems- jail overcrowding and the cost of incarceration. In just one year under the community court, a preliminary study by the mayor’s office showed that the City of Seattle saved a net $192,000 in jail costs annually.
The Seattle Municipal Court’s Community Court focuses on addressing the offenders’ underlying reason for committing the crime. Offenders are expected to perform the ordered number of community service hours ideally in the community in which the crime occurred. The court provides multiple resources and mandates that offenders make all social service provider contacts to address their underlying problems (i.e., referrals to agencies such as housing, employment, domestic violence education, alternatives to prostitution, or alcohol drug/mental health treatment.) Cases generally are targeted for short terms of court supervision usually extending jurisdiction only 35 days.
By July of 2006, the community court was no longer a pilot project and a formal charter was adopted. In March 2007, the community court with the assistance of a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice began taking cases citywide, whether in-custody or out-of-custody significantly increasing its caseload. The court expects to see approximately 1500 cases per year and another 750 through its diversion program.
What is the Prosecutor’s Role?
Since the prosecutor is the only arm of the criminal justice system touching upon every other partner, the prosecutor’s office acts like the hub of a wheel. By making sure all other criminal justice partners are functioning in accordance with the vision for the criminal justice system, the wheel keeps turning. Community prosecution seems to be a natural fit under the community court model. Community prosecutors see first hand the livability problems created for communities by quality-of-life offenders. Having already made the change from a more traditional approach to prosecution where goals and objectives promote the fair, impartial, and expeditious pursuit of justice concerned with holding offenders accountable and with case disposition, community prosecutors adopt a more proactive model concerned with ensuring safer communities by reducing crime and the fear of crime. Community prosecutors subsequently change how the criminal justice system operates with an emphasis on problem solving, public safety, and quality-of- life issues similar to the concerns of community courts.
Name One Pro and Con of the Community Court
The advantage of a community court allows for the ability to screen every case coming into the prosecutor’s office, therefore creating a better administration of justice. Prosecutors are able to determine at the early stages of a case if the defendant is eligible for community court. Unlike some community courts, which include jail as a sentencing option, Seattle prosecutors screen out likely jail-bound cases in advance. Moreover, properly directing cases into the community court and diverting offenders from overcrowded jails provides a more efficient form of justice, leaving jail space and the traditional court to handle more violent offenders.
One disadvantage is the difficulty of controlling the number of cases on a daily docket. Because many of the referrals to community court come from the in-custody jail list, the number of offenders placed on the community court daily docket on any day depends on how many individuals were arrested the proceeding night.
What Does the Future Hold?
The Seattle Municipal Court’s Community Court hopes to provide services to over 2000 offenders this year subsequently administering over 30,000 hours of community service. Community courts are the gate-way to managing court dockets as low-risk non-violent offenders receive more of a restorative justice approach than utilizing jail beds and incarceration costs (tax dollars). The community court approach allows other criminal justice partners such as judges and sheriffs to create better strategic plans for the use of jails and detention facilities.
While sitting through an afternoon of community court, it doesn’t take long to realize that if you commit the crime, you are going to repay the community in which you committed the offense. With over 20,000 hours of community service to be distributed this year, the benefits of community courts are not only shared by the offender and criminal justice system, but the community as well:
- The offender receives the needed assistance and treatment, reducing the likelihood of re-offending,
- Social service providers are able to make the necessary contact with defendants through a resource center,
- The community gains from positive contributions such as community service,
- The jail and criminal justice system are elevated from overcrowding and are able to save tax dollars.
For further information on community courts please contact Center for Court Innovation (CCI), National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), or the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. Also attached is the Seattle Community Court packet distributed to each offender who enters the program.
Special thanks to the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle Municipal Court, and Associated Council for the Accused
1. Exhibit 1- The Seattle City Attorney’s Community Prosecution Unit and Community Court Staff
2. http://www.courtinnovation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=610
3. The presiding chief judge of Seattle Municipal Court sits as the presiding judge of community court. The Hon. Fred Bonner sat as presiding chief judge over community court from March 2005 to January 2007. The current presiding chief judge of Seattle Municipal Court is the Honorable Ron Mamiya.
4. Exhibit 2- An example of the sentencing grid.
5. Exhibit 3- An example of the community court charter
6. Exhibit 4- A complete list of diversion eligible offenses
7. http://www.courtinnovation.org/
8. http://www.seattle.gov/law/
|
