Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports

Thom, Katey; Mills, Alice; Meehan, Claire; Chetty, Marylin --- "Evaluating Community Justice - a review of research literature" [2013] NZLFRRp 4

Last Updated: 22 March 2021

Citation: Thom, K., Mills, A., Meehan, C., and Chetty, M. (2013). Evaluating community justice: A review of research literature. Auckland: Centre for Mental Health Research.

This publication would not have been possible without the funding assistance and more general support provided by The New Zealand Law Foundation.

Published in November 2013 by the Centre for Mental Health Research

Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, New Zealand.

Table of Contents

4

1

Introduction

Community courts are neighborhood-focused courts that attempt to harness the power of the justice system to address local problems. They can take many forms, but all focus on creative partnerships and problem solving. They strive to create new relationships, both within the justice system and with outside stakeholders such as residents, merchants, churches and schools. And they test new and aggressive approaches to public safety rather than merely responding to crime after it has occurred (see www.courtinnovation.org/topic/community-court)

Community courts and community justice centres work in partnership with local organisations and the wider community to problem-solve local justice, crime and safety issues. The first community courts were developed in the United States and have now spread to the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, with interest from places as far as China. By 2009 there was estimated to be over 70 community courts and community justice centres around the world (see http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/community-courts- around-world).

This report provides a comprehensive overview and critical exploration of existing evaluations on community courts and justice centres. It is hoped that this report will act as a resource for future considerations of the development, implementation and on-going evaluation of community justice approaches in New Zealand.

5

2

The development of community justice

2.1 United States

The first community court – the Midtown Community Court – was established in 1993. This court is located in Manhattan, New York. In 1998, the Hartford Community Court was developed and, following nearly four years of planning, the Red Hook Community Justice Centre opened in 2000. These three community justice initiatives continue to inspire the implementation of similar movements internationally.

The Midtown Community Court (Midtown) has been described as an experimental response to the high concentration of low-level crimes in Times Square and the surrounding communities. The court aimed to facilitate immediacy and visibility of sentencing by using alternative community based sanctions (Hakuta, Soroushian, & Kralstein, 2008). Midtown targets low-level offending such as graffiti, vandalism and shoplifting. Sanctions are generally in the form of community service sentences aimed at paying back to the community (Lee, 2000).

The Hartford Community Court (Harfford), in contrast, operates a community court over a larger geographical area, covering 17 neighbourhoods in total. This initiative originally aimed to test the idea that a community court was only effective when confined to a single neighbourhood as with Midtown. To ensure responsiveness to local neighbourhood needs, each neighbourhood has a problem-solving committee that reports back to the court and defendants serve their community sentences in the neighbourhood in which they offended (Lee, 2000).

Red Hook Community Justice Centre (Red Hook) continued to expand upon the Midtown and Hartford community court models by including wider services to defendants and the broader community. Red Hook, for example, houses an onsite clinic that carries out needs assessments and makes referrals for offenders. It also provides a strength-based programme for youth, and mediation services, and operates Youth Court run by peers (Henry & Kralstein, 2011).

Community courts and community justice centres have continued to expand rapidly across the United States. Similar to Red Hook, the Harlem Community Court (Harlem) displays an increased focus on youth offending, and has established the goals of early intervention, holding youth accountable, with an emphasis on family and improving community linkages (Turgeon, 2006). Bronx Community Solutions (Bronx) also followed the principles of Red Hook by working with the entire borough and Brownsville Community Justice Centre (Brownsville) has a wide array of resources facilitated by social, educational, and health service providers located onsite (Center for Court Innovation, 2010).

2.2 United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has piloted several community justice centres. The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre (North Liverpool) and Salford Community Justice Initiative (Salford) were piloted in 2005. Both of these centres sought to emulate the community courts in the United States by focusing on taking a problem-solving and community-orientated approach to offending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009). North Liverpool has received substantial funding and operates as a community justice centre with onsite support services, collaborative partnerships and a dedicated judge. Salford, in contrast, operates out of the existing magistrates court, has no onsite or dedicated support services and is handled by a rotating bench of judges (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2010a; McIvor, 2010).

6

Following the establishment of the first two pilot centres, another 11 pilot community justice projects were rolled out across the country during 2007. Community justice centres were developed in Bradford, Birmingham, Devon and Cornwall, Hull, Leicester, Merthyr Tydfil, Middlesbrough, Nottingham and three sites in London at Haringey, Newham and Wandsworth (Cookson, Gaskarth, & Begum, 2009). These later pilots resembled Salford in that they lack dedicated judge(s), treatment provision and third sector resources and partnerships available to the North Liverpool centre (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2010a, 2010b).

2.3 Canada

There is one community court in Canada which opened in Vancouver in 2008. Similar to Red Hook, the Downtown Community Court uses a problem-solving approach to deal with low-level offending and aims to forge community connections. The court uses a multi-disciplinary team that includes a judge, coordinator, prosecution and defence counsel, police, probation, a forensic psychiatrist, health liaison workers, employment assistance, housing and social services workers, and a native court worker (Criminal Justice Reform, 2013). The focus of the court is to address the causes of offending in a co-ordinated manner. On successful completion of the program defendants may have their records expunged.

2.4 Australia

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) in Yarra, Melbourne is a community court and neighbourhood centre based in a purpose-built site. Operating since 2007, the NJC is multi- jurisdictional and hears both civil and criminal cases. In keeping with its problem-solving origins, the centre seeks to address the underlying causes of offending by providing on-site treatment and support services, including drug and alcohol counselling, mental health counselling, financial counselling, legal advice and representation, housing support, employment and training support, victims assistance and mediation with monitoring and follow-up (Pearson, 2011). While the sole presiding judge plays a key role, the linking of the court and service agencies is overseen by the neighbourhood justice officer, and the court also has an Aboriginal justice worker based onsite.

2.5 New Zealand

The Porirua Court and Community Project operates out of the Porirua District Court. It was the result of a grassroots initiative instigated by local judges and part of a broader local government initiative developed in consultation with residents (Porirua City Council, 2009). The Porirua Court and Community Project was inspired by the community courts internationally and is an attempt to mainstream the community justice approach within existing structures and processes of the district court. The Porirua court also fosters relationships through having the same judges handling cases and locating services centrally.

2.6 A model of community justice?

As section two has begun to illustrate there is no definitive ‘community justice’ model. Amongst all the different problem-solving court initiatives in operation, community courts show the most variation in underlying structure and operation. Although many community courts are influenced by the original Red Hook or Midtown models, they tend to take on a local flavour reflecting the distinct needs of the communities. Correspondingly, the scope and nature of the courts vary as do the types of areas they service, from single suburban or inner-city neighbourhoods to entire medium-size cities (Lee, 2000). While most community courts are limited to low-level offending, for example, others follow in the tradition of the Red Hook and are multi-jurisdictional courts. The motivation behind this is to be able to respond to the complexity

7. | P a g e

of the cases that come before court (Feinblatt & Berman, 1997) given that “the problems faced by families and individuals do not conform to jurisdictional boundaries” (Lee, 2000, p. 18).

The term ‘community justice centre’ used in some contexts also appears even more ambiguous than community courts. Community justice centres at times resemble community law centres, providing advice and advocacy, but are nevertheless termed community justice centres for reasons such as that they offer mediation services in resolving disputes. In Australia, the Community Justice Centres Act 1983, which set up the framework for these centres, enshrined a focus on mediation and dispute resolution. Examples of such centres include the Southern Community Justice Centre and the Northern Territory Community Justice Centre which provide mediation services to the community. For the purposes of this review, community justice centres are defined as those with the authority to hear and sentence criminal cases, and currently in Australia there is only the NJC in Melbourne that is charged with this purpose (Pearson, 2011).

Despite variations in the operation of community courts and justice centre, some key characteristics common across these initiatives are outlined below.

2.6.1 Working with the ‘community’

Generally, community courts and community justice centres attempt to decentralise authority and accountability through the involvement of community in the criminal justice process (Karp & Clear, 2000). Community is actively engaged through education, outreach and also through active involvement in the courts processes via planning, implementation and on-going governance (Wolf, 2012). Hartford, for example, created a local board with community representations who are involved in the creation and supervision of community sentencing. The NJC has an advisory group comprising representatives of local residents, agencies and businesses who give input towards the continuing operation of the centre (Neighbourhood Justice Centre, 2013). Criminal justice actors also take an active role in engaging with the community, increasing the visibility of the court and better equipping the court to respond to the needs of the neighbourhood.

2.6.2 A focus on low-level offending

The majority of community courts and community justice centres are limited to low-level offending. One of the key motivations behind the establishment of community courts was to respond to the high volume of low-level offending and quality-of-life offences, such as vandalism, shoplifting and prostitution. Some courts explicitly exclude violent and sexual offences, although serious offences can be heard (see San Francisco Community Justice Centre, which handles felony cases as well as misdemeanours).

2.6.3 Targeting causes of offending

As with the problem-solving movement in general, community courts and community justice centres have a strong focus on the offender; the causes of offending are targeted in order to address that offending behaviour. This focus is reinforced by the involvement of treatment and social support within the multi-disciplinary teams that comprise community courts and community justice centres. A defining feature of many community justice centres is the onsite location of treatment and support services (see Red Hook and San Francisco Community justice centres). Such services aim to provide a co-ordinated one-stop shop, providing assistance with alcohol and drug treatment, mental health programmes, support groups, career development and job training, counselling, mediation and other legal services. These services may be available to offenders and local residents.

2.6.4 Local solutions to local problems

Many of the courts limit eligibility to offenders residing in the community where they committed their offences. Community courts and community justice centres that are multi-jurisdictional still

8. | P a g e

require offenders to serve their community sentences in the community where they committed their offence. Eligibility criteria are more flexible in some jurisdictions. The NJC, for example, accepts indigenous and transient offenders with connections to the area (Neighbourhood Justice Centre, 2013). Community justice centres also tend to facilitate attention to ‘non-justice’ issues required by the community by providing co-ordinated approaches to the housing needs of offenders or introducing facilities for youth (Hynynen, 2011).

Community courts generally favour community based sanctions that reap benefits for the community, while signalling the seriousness of offending. The community service performed by offenders serves as a visible link between the court and community (Berman, 2004). Community service can be used as a sole sanction or as one component of a sentence involving treatment and participation in court ordered programmes (San Francisco Community Justice Centre, 2011). Community courts also seek to expedite typical court proceedings in order to ensure sentences are delivered and commenced with a sense of immediacy. In Midtown, sentences begin within 24 hours of appearing before the courts.

2.6.5 Consistency of judges

The focus on building connections and partnerships with offenders, criminal justice and social welfare agencies and with the community necessitates a consistency of judicial involvement. Most of the community courts and community justice centres involve the same judges presiding over all cases and they are often viewed as ‘the face of community justice’ (Grant, 2007). In a few courts within the England and Wales there may be a team of rotating judges.

2.6.6 Multi-disciplinary team

The community courts and community justice centres all involve multi-disciplinary teams comprising the judge, defence and prosecution lawyers, court co-ordinator, and representatives from community service and social welfare agencies. Unlike in traditional criminal courts, the prosecution and defence lawyers work within a team approach framework that is characteristic of problem-solving courts generally. The court co-ordinator is responsible for liaison between the court and social service agencies. Representatives from the community and social welfare agencies may include professionals from health and treatment services, education, employment and housing. Justice sector representatives such as police and prosecution professionals are also usually part of the team. In some instances, as in the NJC, indigenous support workers may be involved.

9. | P a g e

3

Evaluations of community courts and justice centres

The marked uptake of the community court model has been influenced by the successes seen in the now iconic examples of Red Hook and Midtown. There has been limited evaluation, however, of community courts or justice centres outside of the United States. This section provides a critical review of the existing research based literature on these initiatives.

3.1 Profile of studies

3.1.1 United States

The Centre for Court Innovation, a think tank established in 1997, has been instrumental in not only establishing community courts and other justice initiatives in the United States, but also developing and conducting evaluation of these projects. The community courts in the United States have been subject to the most evaluation internationally.

Red Hook, Midtown, Bronx, Harlem, the Hennepin County Community Court (Hennepin) and the Seattle Community Court (Seattle) have all been subject to some form of impact evaluation. Some of these evaluations, however, focused on specific aspects or programmes associated with the community court or justice centre rather than an evaluation of the whole court. Process evaluations were also completed for Red Hook, Hartford, Midtown, Hennepin, Seattle and the Philadelphia Community Court (Philadelphia). Midtown and Hennepin were also subject to cost- benefit analysis (See Henry & Kralstein, 2011). As of date, the San Francisco Community Justice Centre (San Francisco) has only been evaluated informally using official data (Sills, 2009), but a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation is underway and the findings are expected in 2014 (San Francisco Community Justice Centre, 2011).

3.1.2 United Kingdom

Three evaluations of North Liverpool have been conducted by McKenna (2007), Llewellyn- Thomas and Prior (2007) and Jolliffe and Farrington (2009). The latter evaluation also considered Salford, a community court program also evaluated by Brown and Payne (2007). Though there are other community courts operating in England and Wales no evaluations could be found for these courts.

3.1.3 Canada

Three evaluations of the Downtown Community Justice Centre were planned; an initial process evaluation followed by an evaluation of offender outcomes and then an evaluation of recidivism outcomes. An interim evaluation report was released in 2010 and a final report is currently due. The first report focuses on the design of the court and early implementation, and a review of the first year of operation.

3.1.4 Australia

Ross, Halsey, Bamford, Cameron, and King (2009) evaluated the NJC, and compared the recidivism rates of community court defendants to that of nearby courts. An Auditor-General’s review of the NJC looked at the development and implementation of the court and explored whether the court was achieving its intended outcomes (Pearson, 2011).

10

3.2

Evaluation Findings

The following section summarises the findings of existing evaluations thematically. See appendix one for a detailed table of studies.

3.2.1 Alternative sentences

In their meta-analysis, Henry and Kralstein (2011) found an increased use of alternative sanctions and reduction in jail sentences after the introduction of the Bronx initiative. This same review found that Midtown made greater use of alternative sanctions than the centralized court. The meta-analysis contributes to earlier studies which also found these two community justice initiatives increased alternative sanctions, reduced jail sentences and time-served sentences (Hakuta, et al., 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff, 2000; Sviridoff et al., 2002). Studies of wider community justice initiatives in Philadelphia and Seattle further confirmed these results (Durkin et al., 2009; Mahoney & Carlson, 2007). These results suggest the community justice approaches used in the United States have mostly met their goals of using alternative forms of sentencing for low-level offending. These findings, however, have not been consistently found in other jurisdictions.

3.2.2 Respondents’ perceptions

Overall, existing evaluations suggest positive results from the perspective of defendants (Abuwala & Farole, 2008; Frazer, 2006; Henry & Kralstein, 2011; Justice Education Centre, 2002; Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007; McKenna, 2007) and community residents (Llewellyn- Thomas & Prior, 2007). At Hennepin the majority of residents were willing to reallocate taxes towards a community court (Weidner & Davis, 2000) or to pay slightly increased taxes and/or transfer tax money from other criminal justice agencies to fund the continuation of the court (Eckberg & Podkopacz, 2002; Weidner & Davis, 2000). Confidence in the community justice centre’s effectiveness at bringing people to justice, dealing with young people accused of a crime, and responding to the needs of the community was reported in one study (Llewellyn- Thomas & Prior, 2007). These measures decreased slightly from waves one to three of Llewellyn- Thomas & Prior’s three wave survey. While McKenna (2007) also reported a slight decrease in respondents’ perceptions of effectiveness over time, it was found that North Liverpool provided a more streamlined service where unnecessary delays and bureaucracy were avoided, and decisive action against offenders' non-appearance or breach of their sentence was possible (McKenna, 2007).

3.2.3 Inclusion of the general public

The literature was generally critical of the fact that community justice centres do not always actively engage the public in the court processes. In some instances the public were unaware of the functions of the community justice centres. In Liverpool, for example, respondents were asked how much they knew about the work of the criminal justice agencies in their area. Overall, around three out of ten said that they knew ‘a lot‘ or ‘a fair amount‘ (30% at Wave 1, 27% at Wave 2 and 26% at Wave 3). At each wave, around a half said that they did not know very much, and around a quarter that they knew nothing at all (Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007). This research suggests further consideration on how to effectively engage the community in the goals of community justice is imperative.

3.2.4 Recidivism

Reports on any reduction in recidivism rates have been mixed. NJC offenders were 14% less likely to re-offend and residential burglaries were down 26%, motor vehicle theft 38% and other (mainly commercial) burglaries 20% (Ross, et al., 2009). Nugent-Borakove (2009) outcome evaluation found the community justice courts were no more effective at stopping recidivism than the traditional courts, with 80% of both groups committing a new offence within 18 months. Community justice centres, however, were significantly more effective at reducing the

11. | P a g e

frequency of recidivism than traditional courts and also had a positive effect on low level high volume offenders. Further, Sviridoff, et al. (2002) found no clear effect on individual offender recidivism rates and Jolliffe and Farrington (2009) study indicated rates of re-offending within the first year for all three areas were not statistically significantly different. In this latter study, 37% of offenders in the comparison group (Manchester) were reconvicted within one year, compared with the 38.7% in the North Liverpool and 38.3% in Salford. This meant that those in Salford and North Liverpool were as likely to be reconvicted as those in Manchester. There was an indication that community justice centres may have a positive impact on reducing the number of offences per offender, but these results were not statistically significant.

3.3 Limitations of existing research

As community courts and community justice centres gather momentum, it is important for evaluation studies to be performed. More research is needed on how a ‘community’ is defined and how community justice centre outcomes differ from traditional courts, and the effect this has at the individual and community levels. While community justice centres often cite recidivism reduction as the most important community court goal, thus far reviews have reported mixed results.

This section further outlines some of the limitations exhibited across the existing studies of community courts and community justice centres.

3.3.1 Data concerns

The quality of evaluation research is strongly dependent on the quality of the available data and the value of evaluation findings. The intensive problem-solving approach to offending handled by a single judge often yields only small sample sizes for evaluators to work with. Small sample sizes make it difficult to establish statistically significant indicators of the impact of a community justice approach (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009).

The ability to determine whether or not programs were achieving successful outcomes has also been hampered by the lack of relevant data and/or ready access to data. In the Auditor-General evaluation of the NJC, a recommendation for more emphasis on monitoring progress and timely and comprehensive reporting was outlined (Pearson, 2011). Evaluation research often uses official data and where crucial information, such as the type of offences for previous and subsequent convictions is unavailable, it weakens the ability of research to determine whether or not the community court processes and programs have any significant impact on reducing the seriousness of reoffending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009).

3.3.2 Generalizability issues

Site-specific evaluation procedures offer crucial insights into the effectiveness of individual community justice initiatives, and this is the mode used in many existing evaluations; however such specificity to site limits the generalizability of findings. This is somewhat a product of the level of variability found in this particular area of problem-solving courts as has been already discussed in this report (see section 2.6). The lack of a uniform model creates challenges in generating comparable data.

3.3.3 Lack of robust and in-depth analysis

Many evaluations of community courts have offered simple descriptive reporting of basic statistics such as the number of referrals. Rigorous and quasi-experimental analysis of variables evident in drug court evaluations (Slinger & Roesch, 2010, p. 262) are not common place in the community court literature. The use of non-matched comparison groups means differences in outcome variables cannot be attributed to program participation with any certainty (Slinger & Roesch, 2010).

12. | P a g e

Slinger and Roesch (2010, p. 260) argue that the absence of robust and in-depth analysis of community justice approaches is characteristic of the majority of research in this area that is “largely unpublished, and tends to reflect unscientific methodology and superficial analyses”. Henry and Kralstein (2011, p. 20) further state:

...as the community court model spreads across the country, it is important for the evaluation literature to catch up. There are several methodologies highlighted here, but, to date, no one single study has covered all aspects of evaluation—process evaluation, outcome evaluation, community impact survey, offender perceptions, and cost-benefit analysis. The Midtown and Hennepin evaluations came the closest but are now several years old. Future analysis should seek to give a more comprehensive picture of these complex projects.

The planned evaluation of the San Francisco Community Justice Centre offers promising progress on the quality of evaluations to date. This evaluation will comprise a comprehensive analysis looking at both the criminal justice and public health outcomes, and use several types of comparison data to evaluate the effectiveness of the centre (San Francisco Community Justice Centre, 2011).

Overall, however, the nature of community courts means ‘hard’ measures of success do not give a full portrayal of their effectiveness and impact. On-going support for the community justice approach necessitates the collection of data that allows for the success of these initiatives to be measured.

13. | P a g e

4

Discussion and conclusion

This report has provided a comprehensive overview of community justice approaches internationally. The review of existing literature illustrated there is room for growth in the evaluations of community courts and community justice centres. Of the limited evaluations available, most involved qualitative process evaluations. Although these kinds of evaluations offer valuable insights into the processes involved in practising community justice, they do not generate data on outcomes that would support the anecdotal suggestions community courts and community justice centres reduce recidivism (Nugent-Borakove, 2009). Of particular significance was the Auditor-General’s review of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne which criticised the public reporting of the positive outcomes of some court programs without qualifying these conclusions (Pearson, 2011). This comment reflects a wider reliance on the findings from more rigorously and extensively evaluated community courts (cf. Midtown) to support the implementation and use of community justice approaches in other jurisdictions. It remains largely unknown, therefore, how community justice initiatives operate across jurisdictions and how the outcomes seen in such courts as Midtown can be achieved elsewhere (Nugent-Borakove, 2009).

As Karafin (2008) has suggested, perhaps the most important contribution future studies could make is to identify quantifiable performance indicators. Pearson (2011, p. 16) has also argued there is a need for “clear and measurable objectives, and relevant and appropriate performance indicators” in order to more accurately measure performance and evaluate whether the programmes were meeting targeted outcomes. Following the evaluation frameworks used for years on other problem solving courts (cf. Alcohol and other drug courts), a comprehensive evaluation of community justice might be inclusive of a process evaluation, outcome evaluation, community impact survey, offender perceptions and cost-benefit analysis, and be longitudinal in scope.

Although many of the existing evaluations of other courts using problem-solving approaches may be helpful in devising performance indicators, it is important that evaluators identify specific goals and objectives that reflect their community-orientated approach. Wolf (2012, p. 16), for example, detailed several factors that evaluations might include that would lead to improved measuring of success:

(1) Level of community participation
(2) Participant compliance
(3) Rates of recidivism
(4) Neighbourhood crime rates
(5) Benefits to the community
(6) Public attitudes toward the neighbourhood and justice system
(7) Voluntary continuation of treatment
(8) Cost savings
(9) The adoption of community justice processes and policies into mainstream justice

Porter, Rempel, and Mansky (2010) also suggested a focus on how the court solicits information about community needs and how it maintains a community presence is important. Given community benefit is a key goal of community justice initiatives, these authors also argue evaluation should consider how the court prioritises community restitution and communicates performance to the community.

14

In those studies which did report on the outcomes of community justice initiatives, effectiveness varied. These studies have reported largely positive results, indicating community courts and community justice centres facilitate the use of alternative community based sentencing that benefits not only the defendants but also the wider community. Findings on any reductions in recidivism remain mixed largely due to methodological problems already discussed. Finally, although issues associated with defining ‘community justice’ remain unreported, a major critique of these initiatives is a general lack of awareness from the public concerning the exact function and role of community courts and community justice centres. The provision of nuanced understandings of community justice approaches and increasing awareness of community courts and community justice centres should be a key aim that is evaluated in future studies.

*

In conclusion, this review provided a critical analysis of existing evaluations on community justice initiatives in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Overall the report has found that the rapid expansion of community justice has not been accompanied by a comparable increase in robust and in-depth evaluation studies. The review of research-based literature found a significant lack of peer-reviewed evaluations and a modest assortment of unpublished evaluative documents.

Community justice offers promising local solutions to local problems. Unfortunately, the continued absence of formal evaluations in some jurisdictions leaves questions around what really works in this context unanswered.

15. | P a g e

References

Abuwala, R., & Farole, D. J. (2008). The Effects of the Harlem Housing Court on Tenant Perceptions of Justice. New York, NY Center for Court Innovation.

Berman, G. (2004). The Hardest Sell?: Problem-solving Justice and the Challenges of Statewide Implementation. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Brown, R., & Payne, S. (2007). Process Evaluation of the Salford Community Justice Initiative (Vol. 14). London: Ministry of Justice.

Center for Court Innovation. (2010). Annual Report 2010. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Cookson, A., Gaskarth, G., & Begum, S. (2009). Primary Justice: An Inquiry into Justice in Communities. London, UK: Local Government Information Unit.

Criminal Justice Reform. (2013). Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court: Community Court Team. Retrieved 9 October 2013, from http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/justice_reform_projects/communi ty_court/team/

Durkin, M., Cheesman, F., Maggard, S., Rottman, D., Sohoni, T., & Rubio, D. (2009). Process Evaluation of the Philadelphia Community Court: Executive Summary. Philadelphia, PA: National Center for State Courts.

Eckberg, D., & Podkopacz, M. (2002, November 15). Domestic Violence Court in Minneapolis: Three Levels of Analysis. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Feinblatt, J., & Berman, G. (1997). Community Court Principles: A Guide for Planners. New York, NY: Centre for Court Innovation.

Frazer, M. (2006). The Impact of the Community Court Model on Defendant Perceptions of Fairness. A Case Study at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Grant, K. (2007). Grassroots Rule. Retrieved from http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/journals/insidehousing/legacydata/uploads/pdfs

/IH.070209.022-023.pdf.

Hakuta, J., Soroushian, V., & Kralstein, D. (2008). Do Community Courts Transform the Justice Response to Misdemeanor Crime? Testing the Impact of the Midtown Community Court New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Henry, K., & Kralstein, D. (2011). Community Courts: The Research Literature: A Review of Findings. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

House of Commons Justice Committee. (2010a). Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment, First Report of Session 2009-10, Vol. 1. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

16. | P a g e

House of Commons Justice Committee. (2010b). Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment, First Report of Session 2009-10, Vol. 2. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

Hynynen, S. (2011). Community Perceptions of Brownsville: A Survey of Neighborhood Quality of Life, Safety, and Services. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Initial Evaluation of Reconviction Rates in Community Justice Initiatives. Ministry of Justice Research Summary, 9(09), 1-4.

Justice Education Centre. (2002). Evaluation of the Hartford Community Court. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Judicial Branch.

Karafin, D. (2008). Community Courts Across the Globe: A Survey of Goals, Performance Measures and Operations. South Africa: Open Society Foundation.

Karp, D. R., & Clear, T. (2000). Community Justice: A Conceptual Framework. In C. M. Friel (Ed.), Boundary Changes in Criminal Justice Organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 323-368). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Katz, S. (2009). Expanding the Community Court model: Testing Community Court Principles in the Bronx Centralised Courthouse. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Lee, E. (2000). Community Courts: An Evolving Model. New York, NY: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Llewellyn-Thomas, S., & Prior, G. (2007). North Liverpool Community Justice Centre: Surveys of Local Residents: Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mahoney, B., & Carlson, A. (2007). The Seattle Community Court: Start-up, initial implementation, and recommendations concerning future development. Denver, Colorado: The Justice Management Institute.

McIvor, G. (2010). Beyond Supervision: Judicial Involvement in Offender Management. In P. Raynor & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 215-238). New York: Routledge.

McKenna, K. (2007). Evaluation of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. North Liverpool, UK: Ministry of Justice.

Neighbourhood Justice Centre. (2013). Australia’s first community justice centre Retrieved 9 October, 2013, from https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/njc/resources/f2e755fe-7739- 4285-96a4-897b016ed673/factsheet_-_the_neighbourhood_justice_centre.pdf

Nugent-Borakove, M. E. (2009). Seattle Municipal Community Court: Outcome Evaluation Final Report. Seattle, WA: The Justice Management Institute.

Pearson, D. D. R. (2011). Problem-solving approaches to justice: Victorian Auditor-General’s report. Victoria: Victorian Government.

17. | P a g e

Porirua City Council. (2009). Community Outcome - Porirua is A Safe City Retrieved 9 October, 2013, from http://www.pcc.govt.nz/Community/Community-Outcomes/Community- Outcome---A-Safe-City

Porter, R., Rempel, M., & Mansky, A. (2010). What Makes a Court Problem-solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-solving Justice. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Ross, S., Halsey, M., Bamford, D., Cameron, N., & King, A. (2009). Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (2007-2009). Melbourne, VIC: Department of Justice, Victoria.

San Francisco Community Justice Centre. (2011). San Francisco Community Justice Centre: Policies and procedures manual. San Francisco: Superior Court of California.

Sills, M. (2009). Analysis of the Outcomes of the San Francisco Community Justice Court. Slinger, E., & Roesch, R. (2010). Problem-solving Courts in Canada: A Review and a Call for

Empirically-based Evaluation Methods. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 258-264.

Sviridoff, M. (2000). Dispensing justice locally: The implementation and effects of the Midtown Community Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Sviridoff, M., Rottman, D. B., Weidner, R., Cheesman, F., Curtis, R., Hansen, R., & Ostrom, B. (2002). Dispensing justice locally: the impacts, costs and benefits of the Midtown Community Court: Center for Court Innovation.

Turgeon, C. (2006). Working Together. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Weidner, R. R., & Davis, C. (2000). Benefits and Costs of the Hennepin County Community Court: A Preliminary Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: Institute of Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.

Wolf, R. (2012). The Public Wants to be Involved: A Roundtable Conversation about Community and Restorative Justice. New York, NY: Centre for Court Innovation.

18. | P a g e

Appendix one: Table of studies

19. | P a g e

20. | P a g e

21. | P a g e

22. | P a g e

23. | P a g e

24. | P a g e