Joanne Thomas
Life isn’t about can and cannot. It’s about what you’re willing to do.” Three weeks into my new job at the Centre for Justice Innovation, I am observing proceedings in Newark Municipal Court, New Jersey. The judge is speaking to the young man in front of her, who was late to his mandated social service progamme this week and is in danger of going to prison as a result. But the judge’s intention is not to punish, it is to try to help him understand that he makes choices and is responsible for his own behaviour: excuses won’t carry any weight here. This principle of holding people to account for their own actions has been consistent throughout the visits I’ve made over the last few days to projects run by the Centre for Court Innovation in New York. From direct elements of programmes, such as community service in the Bronx and here in Newark, to the language, advice and actions of the judges and other staff, accountability is a common thread that underpins the work of Center for Court Innovation. And the decisiveness with which action will be taken is clear – as those today who aren’t taking responsibility for completing their mandates will have time to consider as they find themselves led into custody through the side door in the court.
But for justice and the work of these projects to be solely focussed on accountability would be an over-simplification, and contrary to the intention of many people I met during my visits, both from Center for Court Innovation and wider agencies. They also provide support to tackle the causes of people’s criminal behaviour. Sitting alongside the accountability measures, every project I visited had an offer of support. In some this was mandated, and I was pleased to see, upon sitting in on one of the group sessions in the Bronx, the level of interaction in such a short time and how much some of the participants valued the chance to be heard. This went some way to counter my initial scepticism around the effectiveness of such a short-term and compulsory intervention. While only a first step, it served as a useful way of encouraging people to think about why they acted as they did, what they could do differently, and what longer-term support was available to help them. All the projects also had a voluntary support offer, including the pre-trial supervised release programme for misdemeanours in Brooklyn, which was over oversubscribed. One thing was clear: people wanted support for the things going on in their lives, even if they found engaging with it difficult.
Despite these two common themes around accountability and support, on the surface the projects I visited were all very different. One was a community offer within a criminal court, one a distinct community court, one a single judge within a court, and one had no court at all but was a gun-crime prevention programme. Reflecting upon what made each successful and unique led me to realise the third and vital principle underpinning the projects’ work: the involvement of the community. The causes and types of crime vary between communities. The histories, people and resources vary. So the responses must vary too. From Red Hook Community Court, who spoke of involving local people from the outset in clarifying what their issues were and designing the appropriate solutions, to Crown Heights Save Our Streets Work, which recruits members of the community as violence interrupters and outreach workers, every programme worked to this key principle. As ever, I was reminded that the solutions to communities’ problems lie within these communities. And only by enabling them to take responsibility and giving support where appropriate can we really find appropriate responses to make these communities better places for all.