Research plays an essential role in court innovation. Through research, innovators can evaluate whether new initiatives are successful or not, identify areas for improvement, and document lessons that can be shared with other jurisdictions locally and nationally. The Center for Court Innovation rigorously examines the results of all of its demonstration projects, asking what works, what doesn’t, and why. The Center is committed to an “action research” model, in which researchers develop performance benchmarks in close coordination with project staff and then provide regular, data-driven feedback to identify successes and challenges, and spark changes in practice. The Center also conducts independent research on problem-solving innovations across the country.

Click on any of the following core research areas for a bibliography of our available publications:   Problem-Solving Justice,   Drug Courts,   Domestic Violence,   Community Justice,  Juvenile Justice,  Mental Health Courts

Defendant Perceptions of Fairness at the Red Hook Community Justice Center
In an effort to assess the impact of the Red Hook Community Justice Center on defendant perceptions of fairness, the Center conducted a survey of nearly 400 misdemeanor defendants, who had their cases handled at either the Justice Center or a traditional, centralized criminal court. The goal was to evaluate the effects of court location (Red Hook or the traditional court), defendant background (race, ethnicity, sex and socioeconomic status), the outcome of their current court case (dismissed or required to return to court; required to attend drug treatment or not), and the stage of their case at the time of the survey (arraignment or subsequent court appearance). Structured courtroom observations supplemented the results of the survey and helped to generate richer explanations about why different defendants might have perceived their court experiences as fair or unfair.

read more | more articles

Doug Marlowe is one of the top drug court researchers in the country. In February 2005 he sat down to talk about his findings.

Q: What are some of the most interesting conclusions you’ve reached in your drug court research?
The biggest conclusion from my research is that both the frequency with which clients see the judge for status hearings and the influence of monitoring and sanctions and rewards seem to be critical components of this intervention. And it makes sense. The one thing that really makes drug courts different from everything that had been tried before with drug offenders is that they are a court-run, court-managed intervention. And it does appear to me that the court is a critical ingredient. It’s something that I think is really necessary, at least for certain kinds of offenders.

read more