Utilizing Community-Based Alternatives to Traditional Sentencing

The expert testimony, research, scholarship, and lived experience collected by the Commission revealed the following:

• Over the past few decades, there has been a rise in the number of “problem-solving” courts in the nation, which include community courts, drug courts, and domestic violence courts (Porter, 2010). One study defines “problem-solving courts” as courts that “seek to address a different set of problems, from systemic concerns such as exponential increases in criminal caseloads, growing jail and prison populations, and decreasing public confidence in justice, to individual-level problems like drug addiction, domestic violence and community disorganization” (Porter, 2010). Specifically, “community courts” focus on “improving public trust in justice, the importance of restorative justice, and involving the local community in identifying the major problems to be addressed” (Porter, 2010).
• Many communities around the country have developed successful community justice models. These models include:
  • The Community Service Sentencing Project by the Vera Institute in New York, as described in the book “Sensible Justice: Alternatives to Prison” (Anderson, 1998)
  • The Prisoners and Community Together program in Indiana (PACT)
  • The Midtown Community Court, as described in “Dispensing Justice Locally: The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court” (Curtis, 2001)  
  • Bronx Community Solutions, created with the cooperation of the Center for Court Innovation, which actively utilizes alternative community service programming. In 2005, it was awarded a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice (Bronx Community Solutions)
  • Red Hook Community Justice Center, as described in “A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center” (Lee, 2013)
• In 2013, the Center for Court Innovation released a study of the effectiveness of the Red Hook Community Justice Center (Lee, 2013). According to the resulting report, the Red Hook Community Justice Center provided substantially different outcomes than its comparable downtown criminal court (Lee, 2013). “Compared to the downtown criminal court, the Justice Center increased the use of alternative community or social service sentences (78 percent at Red Hook versus 22 percent downtown); decreased the use of jail as a sentence (1 percent versus 15 percent), and decreased the proportion of misdemeanor defendants who “walk” (receive a sentence such as a fine or time served) without any ongoing obligation (20 percent versus 63 percent)” (Lee, 2013).
• The same report also described a substantial decrease in recidivism among adults. “Case processing at the Justice Center reduced the probability of re-arrest within a two-year period by 10 percent, or 4 percentage points (36% v. 40%). The 10 percent reduction in re-offending is comparable to other proven criminal justice interventions, many of which are of longer duration” (Lee, 2013).
• As written in Senate Bill 5, Missouri Statute § 479.360 now requires every municipality to file “its certification of its substantial compliance… with the municipal court procedures set forth in this subsection” (SB 5, 2015). The procedures to be adopted and certified include the requirement that “[t]he municipal court makes use of alternative payment plans and community service alternatives” (SB 5, 2015).

These findings prompted the Commission to draft several calls to action for alternative, community-based sentencing options and greater access to holistic social service provisions as a means of re-establishing community trust and input into the municipal court system.

To that end, the Commission issues the calls to action below.