RSI staff show off their green thumbs at the Conservatory

Recently, the RSI staff had its annual Holiday Gathering. After enjoying a lovely lunch, we spent the remaining part of the day at the Garfield Park Conservatory. We explored and discovered interesting flowers and plants. We even encountered some fish along the way. You would never know that it was freezing cold that day!


Procedural Justice in Community Court Improves Legitimacy of the Law

by Jennifer Shack, Director of Research

New research that examines the role of procedural justice in community court affirms what we in the ADR field have assumed all along: the presence of procedural justice benefits both the participants and the courts. A study of the experience of offenders and residents with the Red Hook Community Court in Brooklyn, NY, found that both groups saw the community court as a legitimate authority because of its respectful and fair treatment of all the parties involved and not by falsely lulling, or co-opting, the community into accepting an inherently unjust system.
A community court is a type of problem-solving court that focuses on quality of life offenses, such as public urination and violation of open container laws, and community safety issues. In these courts, the court, social services agencies and the community collaborate to address the offenders’ underlying problems and compensate the community for any harm done.  According to the researchers, one purpose of these courts is to improve the legitimacy of the law in the eyes of the community through procedural justice – the perception that the legal process is fair.
We in the ADR field see procedural justice as an important benefit to participants that can make the experience of ADR processes superior to that experienced in traditional legal processes. To some of those who view the legal system through an anthropological lens, however, procedural justice may not necessarily be a positive part of the justice system. They theorize that authorities can use procedural justice to fool participants into believing that the process is good for them when it is in fact bad. In essence, they can use the appearance of a fair procedure as an inexpensive way to co-opt them, while in fact providing outcomes that are to their detriment.
The research, described in “Tell It to the Judge: Procedural Justice and a Community Court in Brooklyn,” (Avram Bornstein, et al, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, November 2016), sought to determine which of these perspectives was true for the community court by asking two questions:
  1. Does procedural justice encourage legitimacy by treating people respectfully or by providing more favorable outcomes?
  2. Does procedural justice encourage false consciousness among community residents? That is, are authorities using it to co-opt the community?
To answer these questions, the research team interviewed 100 neighborhood residents and 200 offenders who were referred to community court. The Red Hook community was one in which the police had a zero tolerance policy and often stopped residents for minor infractions, or simply because they suspected drug possession. This led residents to mistrust the police and to see their behavior as disrespectful and unfair. This contrasted sharply with their opinion of the judge and staff at the community court, whom they saw as caring and fair. They also saw the outcomes of community court as more lenient and more helpful, as compared to the outcomes of traditional court. In the Red Hook Community Court, outcomes included providing services to the offenders, such as GED classes and drug treatment. The community members contrasted this with the exclusive use of punishment in traditional court.
The research team concluded that both groups gave legitimacy to the community court because of the respectful treatment of the offenders, but were mindful of the fairness of the outcomes as well. When they compared their experience in community court to their experience with both traditional court and the police, they saw the community court as more legitimate and compassionate. According to the researchers, this disproves the theory that procedural justice is simply a useful tool for authorities to co-opt citizens.
While this research may not surprise those of us in the ADR field, it is good to examine one’s beliefs from time to time, and to test one’s assumptions. I’m happy to report that in this particular context, our beliefs have been upheld.

RSI Board Of Directors

Terry Moritz, President
Prof. James J. Alfini
Marc Becker
Hon. Morton Denlow (ret.)
J. Timothy Eaton
J. Bradley Fewell
Mitchell Marinello
Raven Moore
Hon. Stephen Pacey (ret.)
Brian Roche
Hon. James Sullivan (ret.)

RSI Staff

Susan M. Yates, Exec. Director
Brittany Bartholomew
Bridget Crawford
Matthew Flores
Mariah Heinz
Olga Kordonskaya
Kevin Malone
Ashlee Patterson, Editor
Jennifer Shack
Eric Slepak 


Kane County’s Child Protection Mediation Program is Gaining Steam!

Last month, we shared that the court rules for our Child Protection Mediation program in Kane County had been approved by the Illinois Supreme Court. Since then, we have continued to work towards developing the program. Our extensive outreach, inviting potential volunteers to apply for training, resulted in lots of applications. Now trainees have been selected and the two-day training will be conducted on January 20-21, 2017.


Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program winding down

Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program announced that it will accept its last enrollments at the end of this month.  The program was created in 2009 in response to Nevada’s collapsing economy and the housing market crash. In 2015, the Legislature repealed the program, citing a recovering housing market and fewer participants. Advocates of the program, however, are working to create a bill that keeps it alive and running. The program will formally end on June 30, 2017.


In her first Just Court ADR blog post, RSI's Resource Center Director Ashlee Patterson shares that mediation techniques can provide a lens for self-reflection.


How Can We Help You? RSI offers a clearinghouse of information on and also responds to requests for information. Do you have a question about court ADR?


If you enjoy reading about the monitoring and evaluation efforts in our foreclosure mediation programs, or our monthly research update, please consider making a donation below to support this and the other work RSI is doing to strengthen justice through court ADR.
 RSI Site

RSI thanks JAMS and the JAMS Foundation for their support of this publication.

Copyright © 2016 Resolution Systems Institute, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address:
11 E. Adams, Suite 500    
Chicago, IL 60603
unsubscribe from this list
update subscription preferences
view this email in your browser
Not a subscriber yet?
Subscribe here.

This email was sent to <<EMAIL ADDRESS>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Resolution Systems Institute · 11 E. Adams, Suite 500 · Chicago, IL 60603 · USA

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp