1. INITIAL COMMUNITY COURT RECOMMENDATIONS
Professor/Attorney Jonathan Scharrer provided a report to the committee, summarizing
the 6 months of work of the community court advisory committee. He thanked the
members for their work and their willingness to talk with him. The summary
presentation is attached.
He provided a comprehensive review, including:
The history of the work:
An exploration of the requirements of Supreme Court Rules for a courtroom;
The attributes of restorative architecture ("designing space and designing justice");
Possible offenses for the pilot project, stressing that the community court not serve
those already in diversion programs and
that efforts not be duplicated;
Process design, including philosophy and referral points;
Initial implementation as a specialty court with links to the Community Restorative
Court and peacemaking circles;
Service array;
A list of tasks of the community court coordinator; and
Data collection and evaluation.
Scharrer suggested that the time it will take to potentially get a variance for Supreme
Court Rules could be used to pilot the community court, think through a community
service hub, and strive for a non-hierarchical and non-adversarial process and space.
Discussion ensued. Ideas included:
Allow community organizations to make referrals;
Use the theory of change rather than a logic model;
Explore blended funding;
The importance of a community advisory board with direct connections to decision
makers early in the process; and
Distinguishing the community court from the community restorative court.
There was discussion of using the community restorative court peacemaking circles as
a process required by a judge, and who might be in the circles, particularly if a victim did
not want to participate. Committee members who visited the Avondale Court indicated
they use a circle of peers and that has been successful. Others spoke of a
representative of a victim being included, and the community at large as a victim.
Scharrer spoke of a blended process with two different restorative pieces. He said that
the Office of Justice Reform and the Community Court Coordinator could develop a
process.
There was discussion of the potential referral process and concern that there could be a
program with no participants. Models and guidelines for referral would need to be
developed.
Chair Pellebon indicated that Scharrer would present this report to the Community
Justice Council on September 28th. He will them complete a full written report by the
end of the year. Clark Bernhardt said the slide deck and report would be sent to the
Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of grant reporting, and provided to leadership of
the Office of Justice Reform as a guide for the work going forward.
Chair Pellebon thanked committee members, Jonathan Scharrer, and county staff for
their efforts.
