Abstract
Community Courts (CCs) provide an alternative to the mainstream, punitive criminal justice process. In this model, legal professionals collaborate to provide rehabilitation for recidivist participants. CC programs worldwide usually use conventional metrics of recidivism and legal compliance to measure the individual and program success. However, it appears there is a need to consider the programs’ impact on crime victims and their level of involvement when evaluating success in these courts. Incorporating victims into CC processes might help fulfill the goal of enhancing the community’s involvement in the program. In addition, victims’ involvement could benefit the participants during their rehabilitation process by developing a deeper understanding of the consequences of re-offending on society. Based on 80 in-depth interviews conducted in 2018–2023 with professionals and participants of five CCs in Israel, this study uncovers the existing mechanisms and identifies shortcomings in the current victims’ integration practices. Drawing upon the insights derived from the empirical data, this article discusses a critical gap: while CCs are based on community justice principles, crime victims, central to the community, are excluded from the assessment process, undermining both rehabilitation and systemic effectiveness. In addressing these aspects, this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on victim-centered justice.
Keywords
Introduction
In recent years, specialized courts, also known as problem-solving courts, have emerged across various jurisdictions as an innovative response to addressing the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behavior (Nolan, 2009). These courts represent a paradigm shift in criminal justice administration, aiming to reduce recidivism by targeting the root causes of offending behavior (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005) while simultaneously addressing challenges within traditional (mainstream) criminal justice frameworks. Unlike other problem-solving courts, CCs focus on addressing the diverse needs and challenges of specific communities (Lee et al., 2013).
CCs emerged in the United States as a targeted response to neighborhoods experiencing endemic crime (Johnstone, 2001), focusing on specific community characteristics through participatory justice mechanisms (Malkin, 2003). These courts primarily adjudicate low-level offenses, though some handle more serious cases. While CCs vary according to local needs, the ‘community’ component remains a strong characteristic across all models (Casey and Rottman, 2005; Lang, 2011; Lee et al., 2013). This component involves collaboration with community resources and engagement in identifying and prioritizing problems, proposing solutions, and developing comprehensive local policy through resident participation (Gal and Dancig-Rosenberg, 2017; Lang, 2011; Lee et al., 2013). Another principle in various CC models worldwide emphasizes participants’ (defendants’) accountability. Treatment and rehabilitation programs emphasize community restitution, based on the understanding that participants who committed offenses have caused harm to the community and must therefore make amends. Participants who fail to complete community restitution as part of their rehabilitation program are viewed as not taking responsibility for their actions, and the CC will impose appropriate sanctions, including program termination and transfer to a mainstream court (Lang, 2011; Lee et al., 2013).
Success metrics constitute a core operating principle of CCs (Porter et al., 2010). Most programs undergo evaluation studies examining recidivism reduction, with varying criteria and methodologies across programs. Current measurement parameters encompass several key aspects: the reduction in repeat offending and overall crime rates, alongside decreased crime levels in program neighborhoods; the cost comparison between programs versus incarceration; defendants’ and stakeholder perceptions of procedural justice; level of defendant cooperation; and the usage of alternative sentencing measures (McCoy, 2003).
Program success typically manifests when these metrics surpass standard court benchmarks (Rempel et al., 2003). Within Israel’s CC framework, individual ‘success’ is specifically defined as the completion of all five rehabilitation stages (Gal and Dancig-Rosenberg, 2024). The first stage involves participants and staff building rapport while developing an individualized treatment plan. The second stage emphasizes stabilization through engagement with various support services. In the third stage, participants actively pursue their treatment objectives and demonstrate measurable improvement. The fourth stage focuses on participants practicing to maintain their progress with reduced external support while continuing therapeutic work. The fifth stage prepares participants for post-program independence through life skills development, culminating in graduation.
This definition of success refers to the formal program completion rather than longer-term outcomes such as post-program recidivism, which may be evaluated separately. The Probation Service recommends completion based on risk reduction assessment relative to the rehabilitation plan tailored to the participant (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). Whether program completion should define success, as currently determined, has been empirically and conceptually challenged. Alternative metrics examine participants’ functioning or criminal involvement over time post-procedure, regardless of program completion status, as even non-completers may avoid future criminal charges (Ben-Dror et al., 2025; Maruna and LeBel, 2003). Focusing solely on conventional metrics risks overlooking achievements significant to participants and program evaluation. This perspective first emerged in Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal’s (2022) ‘Many Shades of Success: Bottom-up Indicators of Success in CCs’. Their qualitative study analyzing interviews with Israeli CC professionals highlighted the need for a more flexible, comprehensive understanding of success. Their findings suggest success exists on a continuum rather than binarily. Various indicators beyond program completion may demonstrate meaningful participant progress over time. In recent work, Ben-Dror et al. (2025) reviewed metrics for understanding success from the viewpoint of participants. Some participants complete the program yet reoffend, while others achieve significant progress despite early departure.
Building upon this previous work, the need to broaden our understanding of success becomes evident when considering community rehabilitation and victims’ needs as evaluation parameters. Victims, who constitute both direct and indirect participant communities, often present diverse post-victimization needs like safety, long term support and acknowledgment of their harm (Wemmers et al., 2023). This raises fundamental questions about the role of victim participation in the process (Wemmers, 2008). This article examines the integration of crime victims’ needs into the assessment framework for evaluating both individual and systemic success in CCs. It explores the extent to which victim involvement should influence success evaluation and considers whether a CC process can be deemed successful without victim participation. In addition, it analyzes how accommodating victims’ needs should factor into measuring program effectiveness.
Globally, many offenses processed through CCs involve less severe infractions, sometimes without direct victims, which partially explains why victim concerns have not featured prominently in evaluation research. Nevertheless, even in CC processing lower-level offenses, questions regarding appropriate representation of victim interests remain salient. This approach transcends the narrow focus on direct victims to examine how CCs conceptualize and operationalize community justice principles. This study examines these questions based on qualitative research findings from in-depth interviews with Israeli CCs professionals and participants, including both graduates (completers) and those who withdrew at advanced stages of the CC proceedings (non-completers). The data was collected during a four year evaluation study of Israeli CCs led by Tali Gal et al. (2023).
The article proceeds as follows. We first present the theoretical background of CCs with a focus on the community justice theory deeply imbedded in CC objectives and principles, with emphasis on the distinct operation of CCs in Israel. The next section examines the evolution of victims’ rights and needs within the criminal justice system, both broadly and within CCs and the Israeli judicial system. The following section presents our research methodology, which combines narrative analysis of perspectives from both participants and professionals in CCs, supplemented by triangulation in specific cases. This is followed by presenting our findings and discussion, organized around three primary themes: the marginal role of victims in CCs, conflicts of loyalty, and victims as a means in rehabilitating participants. Drawing on the emergent theme of victims’ peripheral status, we propose that given the developments in victims’ rights over the past two decades, coupled with CCs’ theoretical grounding in community justice principles, systemic success metrics should incorporate victim consideration. Furthermore, insights from community justice scholarship and the practical evolution of victims’ rights suggest that individual success cannot be meaningfully evaluated without examining the perspective of victims, who represent directly impacted community members.
CCs—theoretical background and objectives
The establishment and proliferation of CCs worldwide has been influenced by four theoretical frameworks: therapeutic jurisprudence, procedural justice, law and economics, and community justice (Gal and Dancig-Rosenberg, 2017). These theoretical underpinnings shaped both the development and operational characteristics of CCs, informing their objectives and guiding principles. Each framework contributes unique perspectives to the CC model, collectively they emphasize the importance of addressing local needs and community engagement within the justice system. Here we examine these frameworks, core objectives and operational principles that define CCs, with particular attention to their approach to victims, providing insights into how these theoretical foundations were adapted to local contexts.
Theoretical underpinning of CCs
The theoretical underpinning behind the development of problem-solving courts, including CCs, stems from a widespread disillusionment with the adversarial criminal justice system. This disillusionment emerged from several systemic failures: high recidivism rates, violations of defendants’ rights, inadequate consideration of victims’ needs, and the substantial costs associated with criminal proceedings and their enforcement. This disillusionment, intersecting with developments in legal theory, catalyzed the pursuit of a more effective and equitable judicial model (Martinson, 1974).
Before exploring the theoretical foundations of the Israeli CCs, it is necessary to situate them within the wider framework of the international Problem-Solving Court (PSC) movement. PSCs first emerged in the United States in the early 1990s as an innovative response to the limitations of the traditional adversarial system (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005; Boldt, 2014; Casey and Rottman, 2005). Although the Ten Key Components of Drug Courts (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997; National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), 2018) initially defined the model for drug treatment courts, subsequent scholarship has developed broader frameworks that encompass a variety of PSC models — including mental health, domestic violence, re-entry, and community courts — under a shared paradigm of ‘problem-solving justice’. These models emphasize judicial engagement, collaboration across agencies, individualized justice, accountability, outcome orientation, and community involvement (Boldt, 2014; Lang, 2011; Porter et al., 2010; Wolf, 2007). Building on these principles, the Center for Justice Innovation’s evidence reviews have identified key features common to all PSCs: a specialized focus on target populations, integrated treatment and supervision, judicial monitoring, procedural fairness, and data-driven outcome measurement (Center for Justice Innovation, 2016). Empirical research and multiple meta-analyses confirm that PSCs, when implemented with fidelity, are associated with reduced recidivism, enhanced compliance, and improved participant satisfaction (Mitchell et al., 2012; Rempel et al., 2018; Sevigny et al., 2013; Shaffer, 2011). Positioning Israeli Community Courts within this evolving international model allows for a nuanced understanding of how their guiding principles correspond with, and diverge from, the global PSC framework.
The theoretical foundations underlying the development of CCs can be traced to four significant trends in legal theory. The first is procedural justice which provides practical guidelines for judicial and law enforcement officials in their interactions with the public. Research demonstrates that individuals’ responses to the legal system are shaped not merely by outcomes, but predominantly by their treatment during proceedings (Tyler and Huo, 2002). In the context of CCs procedural justice extends beyond perceptions of fairness; it constitutes a comprehensive framework linking legitimacy, trust, and active judicial engagement. Within the PSC model, and particularly in CCs, the judge’s role is central to realizing procedural justice in practice. Judicial oversight, through consistent and meaningful interaction with participants, conveys respect, reinforces accountability, and enhances participants’ sense of voice and belonging (Burke, 2010; Tyler, 2003). Research across multiple PSC models shows that such engagement increases compliance and reduces recidivism precisely because participants perceive the process as fair and the judge as invested in their progress (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005; Boldt, 2014; Frazer, 2006). In this sense, procedural justice provides both the normative foundation and the operational mechanism that distinguish PSCs from probation-based interventions. Without continuous judicial supervision, the program risks being perceived as an administrative rehabilitation track rather than a court-led process grounded in fairness and legitimacy.
A second trend is the law and economics approach. Through an efficiency lens, the repeated prosecution of similar offenses represents a suboptimal use of criminal justice resources (Tonry, 2017). While traditional approaches rely on severe sentencing as a deterrent mechanism (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011), empirical research demonstrates that extended incarceration yields only marginal deterrent effects (Becker, 1974). This evidence, coupled with high recidivism rates, has necessitated exploring alternative approaches that could enhance deterrence and reduce the economic burden of repeated incarceration (Hora and Stalcup, 2008).
Two other relevant theories are therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) and community justice, intertwined in the establishment of CCs. TJ aims to enhance the positive psychological impact of legal mechanisms and judicial procedures while reducing their adverse effects on individuals’ well-being (Wexler and Winick, 1996). TJ proposes a paradigm that centers the unique needs of victims, emphasizing their empowerment through meaningful voice in legal proceedings, recognition of their subjective experiences, and ensuring respectful treatment from professionals (Winick, 2008). The development of CCs was significantly shaped by the emergence of the community justice approach to criminal justice (Gal and Dancig-Rosenberg, 2017). Since community justice theory and principles have much to do with victims’ role in CCs, we offer an overview of its main concepts.
Community justice objectives and principles
The Community justice framework has represented a shift in criminal justice thinking, arising during a period when public trust in traditional policing has eroded. It introduces a dual perspective on the community’s role, recognizing communities not only as victims who deserve restoration after crime occurs, but positioning communities as crucial partners in offender rehabilitation. What sets this approach apart is its emphasis on creating sustainable, long-term solutions rather than quick fixes. It prioritizes giving agency back to victims and affected neighborhoods, simultaneously working to reintegrate offenders into the community. Rather than treating crime as an isolated incident between perpetrator and victim, this framework acknowledges the broader community impact and response needed for meaningful change (Clear and Karp, 1998).
Community justice is place-oriented, so that criminal justice strategies should be tailored to characteristics of that place. Community justice also assumes that formal systems of social control are not the main mechanism for creating public safety. This approach views social connections like friends, family and neighbors—to be the main contributor to ensuring public safety (Clear et al., 2011). It aims to restore social capital—creating networks to solve problems better (Putnam, 2000), and use social capital and other strategies to ensure social justice, seeking positive collective outcome as response to crime (Clear et al., 2011).
Community justice is distinguished by three elements that coexist: place-based interventions, commitment to adding value, and enhancement of public safety (Clear et al., 2011). It reconceptualizes victims’ roles, recognizing them as integral community members whose restoration is inseparable from community well-being. Unlike traditional criminal justice, which views crime primarily as a state offense limiting victims’ roles to testimony and advocacy for punitive measures, community justice approaches crime as harm between citizens that affects multiple stakeholders. Thomson (2009) argues that this more moderate approach, incorporating community input, could lead to more effective outcomes than traditional sentencing’s reliance on guesswork. The model is further enhanced by Herman’s (2000) concept of ‘parallel justice’, which advocates comprehensive victim services at the local level, independent of offender prosecution, ensuring support for victims regardless of case outcomes (Clear et al., 2011).
This victim-centered approach marks a critical development in community justice theory, necessitating innovative methods to incorporate victim interests while acknowledging the broader community impact of crime. The emergence of CCs further exemplifies this evolution; community justice is known to be one of the main theoretical frameworks that led to the establishment of CCs distinguishing them from other problem-solving court programs (Clear et al., 2011).
CCs’ objectives and principles
CCs are a variant of problem-solving courts operating within the trial court system. They implement a holistic approach to address complex challenges of defendants, victims, and crime-affected communities (Hora, 2011). Their foundational principle maintains that effective recidivism prevention requires addressing underlying factors leading to criminal behavior, rather than defaulting to incarceration, which merely addresses immediate behavioral manifestations rather than systemic causes (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Their operational framework integrates several core elements: community-stakeholder collaboration, public engagement in problem identification and resolution, evidence-based individualized intervention, alternative sentencing, defendant accountability, and outcome measurement (Lang, 2011).
Evaluation of CCs and community justice
The CC model has faced significant criticisms and implementation challenges. Critics argue that integrating social services within courthouses may weaken community institutions rather than strengthen them. The model’s financial viability has been questioned, with skeptics suggesting that its success in resource-rich places may not be replicable in less wealthy areas. Additional concerns include potential ‘net-widening’ effects, where the courts might unnecessarily criminalize behavior that could be better addressed through informal mechanisms (Clear et al., 2011).
Despite these criticisms, CCs have demonstrated varying levels of effectiveness across jurisdictions, with many evaluation studies indicating meaningful reductions in recidivism (Hornick, 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Ross, 2015). However, some research has yielded mixed results, with certain studies finding no statistically significant impact on reoffending (Grommon et al., 2017). The economic viability of the CC model is supported by cost-effectiveness analyses (Morgan and Brown, 2015). When examining participant perspectives, CCs consistently outperform traditional courts in measures of procedural justice and participant satisfaction (Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo, 2018).
While conventional approaches have relied heavily on quantitative metrics due to their simplicity in data collection and reporting to funding bodies, these numerical evaluations alone prove insufficient for measuring the complex dynamics of community-based interventions. Contemporary research suggests a more comprehensive evaluation framework is necessary to capture the multifaceted nature of community justice programs (Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal, 2022). This transition poses challenges for criminal justice agencies accustomed to traditional metrics, particularly when different communities present varying needs and objectives. The development of evaluation standards therefore requires careful consideration and consultation with stakeholders beyond the criminal justice system, ensuring that assessment methods can effectively measure both the immediate and long-term success of community justice initiatives while maintaining accountability to funding entities at local, state, and federal levels (Clear et al., 2011). This is particularly evident when attempting to evaluate a dual mandate of CCs: serving both individual victims and the broader community impacted by crime (Coscas-Williams et al., 2024). The need to assess these dimensions is particularly crucial when examining how CCs operationalize victim participation, for individual victims and the wider community affected by criminal behavior.
CCs in Israel
Currently, 16 CCs operate across Israel’s judicial districts, following the establishment of the first court in Beer-Sheva in 2014 (Gal et al., 2023). They emerged as a pilot program initiated by JDC-Israel and Ashalim, and expanded following government decisions (Dorner Committee, 2015; Government Decision No. 1840, 2016). CC proceedings were formally integrated into the court system through an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act. CCs do not serve specific communities in terms of locality, and sometimes even provide services to neighboring cities. In this sense, ‘place’ as referred to in community justice theory, is manifested with a more flexible understanding of geographical boundaries. Operations are managed by an interdisciplinary team, with oversight from a national steering committee authorized by law (Section 220(17) Criminal Procedure Act). Unlike CCs in other countries, the Israeli CC model is distinctive in its acceptance of cases involving more severe criminal offenses including drug trafficking, physical domestic violence, assault, and fraud cases. 1
Although the CC model is multidisciplinary, it does not operate as a ‘one-stop shop’. Professional services for participants, such as rehabilitation programs, therapy, and welfare assistance, are delivered externally through collaborating agencies rather than within the courthouse. Court hearings are held in standard judicial facilities, under the same security arrangements as other criminal proceedings.
The program’s structural framework consists of five phases, developed and overseen by the probation service. Phase progression, which signals advancement in the rehabilitation process, requires judicial determination based on probation service recommendations and professional consensus (Gal et al., 2023). Program completion is achieved through successful progression through all phases. A defining characteristic of the Israeli CCs, consistent with the broader PSC model, is the central role of judicial supervision. Judges preside over each stage of the process and maintain close, ongoing engagement with participants. Judicial oversight is expressed through regular review hearings and adaptive monitoring: as participants progress through the program, the intensity of supervision decreases, while renewed difficulties or setbacks trigger more frequent judicial involvement. In addition to these hearings, multidisciplinary ‘morning meetings’ bring together the judge, probation officers, social workers, prosecutor, defense attorney, and treatment providers to review cases and coordinate responses. Although the probation officer assigned to each participant delivers detailed progress reports, judicial intervention remains integral to ensuring accountability, fairness, and procedural legitimacy. This structure distinguishes the Israeli CCs from probation-based rehabilitation programs and aligns them with the procedural justice principles that underpin PSCs.
Within the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, there is an indirect amendment to the Victims’ Rights Law 2001 (No. 16) anchored in a temporary provision. The amendment anchors the rights of victims of sex offenses or serious violence to voice their position prior to transferring the participant to CC. In addition, any victim can request to be notified if it is decided to transfer the case to CC, and the burden of information transfer is on the prosecution.
Crime victims’ rights and needs
Given that CCs are grounded in theoretical frameworks of procedural justice, TJ, and community justice, it is crucial to understand how they conceptualize victims’ needs and rights and to establish victims’ current procedural standing in these proceedings. Current scholarly discourse focuses on portraying the scope and implementation of victims’ participatory rights, examining their independent standing across various procedural stages, and determining optimal points for victim input (O’Hara, 2005). Contemporary understanding recognizes prosecutorial and victim interests may not always align, necessitating distinct consideration of victims’ perspectives (Doak, 2008). In recent years, victimology has identified diverse characteristics and varying needs among victims. Moving beyond the perception of victims as a homogeneous group with uniform needs, there is growing recognition that victims significantly differ in their opinions, desires, perceptions, and life circumstances (Dancig-Rosenberg and Yosef, 2019). Traditional perceptions of victims as weak, passive, unknowledgeable, or culpable for their own victimization (Mueller, 2017), have been replaced by an alternative paradigm that seeks to amplify their voice and agency in accordance with individual needs and preferences.
Criminal offenses evoke profound moral responses from victims and communities, which require formal recognition within judicial proceedings. The sentencing phase engages multiple stakeholders—victims, community members, and offenders—as both interested parties and intended recipients of its message. Whiteley (1998) conceptualizes sentencing beyond social control, viewing it as a communicative process conveying moral imperatives to the offender. In the case of CC—where in successful cases the sentence does not include incarceration—it raises the question of the message to the community, victim and participant.
Both victim and community perspectives necessitate providing victims with opportunities to voice their sentencing concerns within the criminal justice framework. There are several compelling reasons for including victims’ voices beyond the message received by stakeholders: First, victims serve as unique information providers, offering insights about the offense’s impact that are unavailable from other sources. Second, victim participation increases system legitimacy by enhancing victim satisfaction and improving public perception of the justice system. Third, it validates legitimate moral reactions to harm (Whiteley, 1998). This reasoning is true regardless of their stance on sentencing severity—whether advocating for leniency or severity. The authentic voice of victims who choose forgiveness or seek lighter sentences deserves equal consideration (Dancig-Rosenberg and Pugach, 2012). Positive victimology theories argue for moving beyond the traditional deficit-based view of victimization to recognize victims’ potential for positive transformation and growth (Tyra-Ya’ara, 2015).
Since the State has exclusive authority over criminal law enforcement (Stuntz, 1996), it bears responsibility for addressing victims’ needs through the provision of both preventive and therapeutic services (Pugach and Tamir, 2017). Though victims’ rights have gained formal recognition in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, over the past two decades, victims’ actual participation is increasingly limited due to the rise of abbreviated and efficient-oriented judicial procedures (Coscas-Williams et al, 2024). CCs, through their inherent community-based orientation, may offer an additional pathway for meaningful victim engagement and consideration, while fulfilling the state’s obligation to address their needs and rights.
Methodology
This Article is part of a series of publications derived from a comprehensive evaluation study of CCs in Israel led by Gal et al. (2023). Previous studies examined success in CCs through multiple lenses: investigating bottom-up indicators of success based on professional perspectives (Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal, 2022), analyzing success narratives of program completers (Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal, 2024), and evaluating success metrics of program participants (Ben-Dror et al., 2025).
The findings in this article are based on semi-structured in-depth interviews following a standardized guide, enabling systematic cross-analysis of interviewees’ detailed responses (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000), with twenty-three participants, and fifty-seven interviews with professionals in various roles across five judicial districts. Nine participant interviewees dropped out of the CC program, voluntarily or by court staff decision, 2 and fourteen completed it. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 65, with the majority between 40 and 50. Seventeen of the participant interviewees were Jewish and six were Arab. The main underlying issues identified were substance use, economic hardship, mental health challenges, and anger management difficulties. Offense types included drug offenses, property offenses, domestic violence, severe violence, cybercrime, and criminal threats. Not all cases involved a direct victim, but in 18 participant cases there were direct victims (complainants). In the remaining cases, participants were involved in drug offenses with no direct victims.
After these in-depth interviews were conducted it was apparent that victims had little interaction with CCs. This situation led to ethical and technical difficulties in contacting victims. Technical difficulties arose primarily due to incomplete or missing records of victims’ contact details. In some cases, prosecutors indicated that they did not have direct contact information for the victims and had not communicated with them directly. In domestic violence cases where victims were aware of the CC proceedings, the relationships between participants and victims appeared potentially fragile. Therefore, it was decided not to approach the victims directly to avoid potential harm or adverse effects. Due to these ethical considerations in interviewing victims directly (Israeli Association for Victimology, 2023), data about victims’ participation was collected through multiple sources: program participants, professional staff who worked with them, and additional criminal justice practitioners involved in CCs.
Professional staff interviews were conducted in two distinct ways. Some professionals were interviewed generally, without reference to a specific case. In 11 cases, professionals were identified and interviewed specifically in relation to particular participants in the study. In these latter cases, while professionals primarily discussed specific participants, they also drew comparisons from other cases. Throughout this Article, when a professional’s comments pertained to a specific interviewed participant, this connection is explicitly noted.
Interviewed professionals represented various roles within the CCs, including CC coordinators (6), CC prosecutors (8), CC defense attorneys (9), CC probation officers (16), and CC social workers (8). Several professionals were interviewed regarding more than one participant and more than once, offering insights into the operation and challenges of the program from multiple perspectives. In addition to the fact that professionals across all relevant roles were interviewed, it was not possible to obtain an approval to interview CC judges directly. Under the ethical regulations applying to members of the judiciary in Israel, judges are required to obtain prior authorization from the Israeli Courts Administration before participating in research. Such approval was not granted for this study despite submitting a formal request, and therefore interviews with judges could not be conducted. Nevertheless, insights concerning judicial reasoning and practice were indirectly reflected through the accounts of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other professionals who interact with judges in the course of Community Court proceedings.
This multi-faceted data collection strategy enabled thorough analysis of victim-related aspects within CCs while adhering to ethical research standards. 3 In selecting interviewees, we sought several cases involving formal crime victims (complainants), to ensure comprehensive examination of victim-related aspects. In selecting non-completing interviewees selection criteria focused on participants demonstrating extensive program involvement, either maintaining participation for twelve months or longer, or achieving significant milestones through advancement to Stage 3 or beyond. 4
The research paradigm adopts phenomenological assumptions (Creswell, 2007), suggesting that to understand a phenomenon, one must learn about it from those who participated in it (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Shkedi, 2007). We sought to hear experiences, insights, and lessons from interviewees regarding the place and participation of victims in CCs. Some interviews were conducted online or by phone, because of COVID-19 restrictions, according to interviewees’ preferences (Gailloux et al., 2022). Interviews were audio-recorded with interviewees’ consent and stored securely. Interviewees received no compensation for their participation. To protect interviewees’ privacy, we used pseudonyms and carefully obscured identifying details where identity disclosure was concerned.
Findings and discussion
Several recurring themes emerged from the interviews. Not a single interviewee indicated that they believed the program’s approach to victims fulfilled its potential. It is evident from these perspectives that integration of victims is deficient, the exclusive emphasis is on the participant’s interests and needs. Interviewees attest that due to the strong connection with participants, a conflict of loyalty emerges, making it difficult for them to view the victims of the offense as an independent objective. This is compounded by the fact that participants arrive with numerous difficulties and complex social marginalization, which raises the question of who the actual victim is.
Victims’ marginal role in CCs ‘We could definitely do more to help victims’
While CCs are unique in centering participants in the process, their theoretical foundation also aims to strengthen communities by addressing community needs and problems, including those affected by crimes—the actual victims. Ideally, victims would be significant not only in participants’ rehabilitation processes but also as an end in themselves, being part of the community. This theoretical perspective was reflected in the various narratives. Currently, victims do not have a significant part in the process, as mentioned by interviewed professionals and participants. The impression is that in some cases, the question of victims’ integration prompted personal self-criticism from professionals about how they operate or about the current structure of the process, which does not do enough for victims. In the minority of cases where victims were addressed within the process, this consideration stemmed from a perspective that victim forgiveness is a beneficial component for the participant’s rehabilitation process. In most cases, it appears that there is insufficient awareness and attention to the procedural rights granted to victims under the Victims’ Rights Law, as well as to their interests, desires, and needs as subjects in their own right.
Whose job is it? The blurred lines of responsibility toward victims in CCs
Several professionals interviewed expressed that working with victims fell outside their professional scope, primarily due to limited contact or role-based prioritization. As The domain of victims is more with the probation officers, who know the participants more individually. . . . I have less to say about it from a professional perspective. I simply don’t meet victims . . . We don’t really know how to deal with [victims] . . . I think we distance ourselves or don’t want to know, but maybe we should get to know the perspective and experiences of victims.
Despite the assumption that probation officers maintain contact with victims, most interviewed probation officers, like I feel that [victim involvement] is not something that gets enough attention within the program. We’re not enough ‘there’ in my opinion, managing to think about how.
Notably, professionals did not identify prosecutors as the primary custodians of victims’ rights and needs, despite this being their designated role under Israeli legislation.
Crime victims in cases of violent offenses
Despite the direct harm caused, victims of violent offenses received minimal attention within the CC process. Six of the participants interviewed were charged with violent offenses, outside the domestic context, with only two instances where victims were mentioned. In the rest of the violent offense cases, interviewees reported that victims did not take part, or that they ‘don’t know’ the extent of the involvement of the victims.
Crime victims in cases of property offenses
Among the interviewed participants, nine entered the CC for property offenses, with seven of them described as serious. Within this group, victims were mostly sidelined, with only one participant,
Crime victims should be given greater consideration within the CC
A significant number of professionals across various roles in CCs expressed the view that victims should be accorded greater consideration in it. When we maintain offenders in the community, victims are inherently part of that same community . . . We need to carefully consider how to include those victims who are willing and able. While they’re not direct participants in the rehabilitation process itself, we need to determine how to properly acknowledge and incorporate their perspective. At present, this isn’t happening.
I think getting victims involved needs to be a bigger goal for the CC, and we could definitely do more to help victims. . . . We need to find ways to involve them more, so they can see something’s happening with their complaint, give them a voice. I think we’re really missing out because our participants do relate . . . They don’t just stand and read out ‘I’m in treatment, I want to move up to level 4’—sometimes they say, ‘I made mistakes in life, I hurt people’ . . . if a victim was there, they could really connect.
Lots of our participants have victims that are kind of abstract—they’re just ‘society’. Maybe we need to think about this more too how to connect what we’re already doing, to the actual people, or to the kind of harm that happened in the offense.
While many professionals expressed general support for expanded victim participation, when discussing specific cases, some indicated that circumstances often diminished the perceived necessity for enhanced victim involvement, like
Crime victims in cases of domestic violence
Domestic violence cases represented the one area where victims received somewhat more attention in CCs process, though still with significant limitations. Five of the interviewed participants entered the CC process due to domestic violence offenses, and in one case, domestic violence surfaced as a contextual factor. The involvement of victims in domestic violence cases was also addressed by professionals interviewed regarding victim involvement in the process generally and was regarded by some of the participants as individuals who affected their process. Many professionals referenced domestic violence as a category where victims receive different consideration than in other proceedings and certainly deserved such distinct treatment. Professionals directly addressed the distinction between the role of victims in domestic violence cases versus other offenses in CCs as I maintain contact with all complainants throughout the process. Not all victims initially understand what the CC process entails, and some are hesitant about their partner or ex-partner participating. We provide close support between court sessions . . . , in addition to the probation service’s involvement.
[The victim] accompanied him, we would see her at hearings occasionally, she came to the final hearing . . . The social worker supported her in some aspects, as did [the probation officer]. She would also come to community events with the children. I got to see her several times. Sweet and very gentle and very quiet.
This limited victim engagement in practice was also expressed directly by some of the professionals as I simply don’t meet with victims . . . With all the recent women’s murders and everything that’s been happening, [a colleague] told me how deeply it affected her that we primarily work with the offenders or defendants, and we barely know the other side. We don’t really know how to handle this; it always feels outside our comfort zone.
While crime victims in cases of domestic violence are occasionally addressed and consulted, interviewees noted that this engagement primarily serves to benefit the participant’s rehabilitation process or to provide indications of their progress. Beyond this, there were ambivalent notions of meaningful consideration of victims’ needs and rights.
Conflicts of loyalty—‘holding the stick from both ends’
Beyond the marginal position of victims within CCs, analysis of professional’s narratives reveals pronounced loyalty conflict. Many of the practitioners expressed regretted that there was not enough consideration for crime victims, but their statements indicated that this reality stems from building loyalty and closeness with participants that makes it difficult to keep in mind the needs of victims.
Meaningful relationships with participants and the conflict of loyalties in CCs
Several professionals highlighted the program’s significance and uniqueness in its focus on offenders, while expressing concern that directing resources toward victims might compromise the close relationships they develop with participants. CCs are a system that’s oriented—and I say this as a positive thing—toward helping offenders . . . Though I think victims also need to be represented, especially in a process that seemingly doesn’t end in punishment . . . The first people I want to help are the human beings who are our participants, and they end up being more important to me than the systems.
Because we develop such a close connection [with participants], sometimes I feel we forget, I forget about the victims and that there are people who were really hurt in the end. But sometimes it makes me forget, because we’re so involved in [participants’] lives and we want to help them . . . sometimes I forget there are people here who were really harmed, people who were hurt, who are paying the price for this.
One of my lecturers once used this definition of ‘holding the stick from both ends’: if you’re on one end of the stick, you need to constantly hold their vulnerabilities, sensitivities and misery and where they need help . . . On the other end of the stick, there was an offense, there was an act they did, sometimes even very serious acts, very severe acts of violence.
Loyalty conflicts persist despite professionals’ recognition of victims’ importance
Professionals’ own descriptions of their perspectives on victims demonstrate that loyalty conflicts do not stem from personal attitudes or lack of empathy, but possibly from structural tensions in the CC framework. Most professionals reported that their perception of victims had not changed since they began working in CCs, and they had always believed victims should have a meaningful position in the process. ‘It’s part of my personality, I’m quite connected [to the place of victims]’
The fact that professionals with strong support for victims’ rights and needs still fail to meaningfully involve them in CCs might reveal that the problem is not individual perspective but systemic loyalty conflicts. Rather than being a matter of personal attitudes requiring change, the evidence suggests that well-intentioned professionals become caught in structural conflicts that force them to prioritize participants over victims.
Blurred lines between victims and participants
The loyalty conflicts professionals experience are intensified when the distinction between victims and participants becomes blurred. Professionals emphasized participants’ difficult backgrounds, complex life stories, and sometimes even the underlying trauma. Similarly, the interviewed participants shared their own experiences of victimization and many described issues of poverty and debt, social marginalization, and lack of support (Ben-Dror et al., 2025).
Some professionals addressed this blurring as a source of their loyalty conflicts. Sometimes it’s because the people who come to us are truly on society’s margins, the most unfortunate of the unfortunate, . . . the matter of who is the victim—becomes a bit blurred.
Victims as a means of rehabilitating participants
Several professionals viewed crime victims primarily as a means for improving the participant’s condition or assessing their rehabilitation progress, rather than treating victims’ rights and needs as a distinct priority.
I asked [Eli] about restorative justice . . . but he didn’t want to. He said ‘these are offenses I committed when I was using drugs, I have nothing to say about it’ . . . I remember an elderly person whose house he had just broken into, and he described how truly destabilizing and frightening it was, someone entering your home when you’re elderly people, it really hurt them and affected them for a period afterward . . . Eli didn’t want contact with that victim.
We start thinking about restorative justice when the offender expresses discomfort and guilt from the fact that they harmed someone. And they can’t live with the feeling of having hurt someone, that’s where a healing process begins with the victim, if there’s willingness to do such a process. With [Yitzhak], he was focused on himself, he wasn’t concerned with harming others . . . I wouldn’t do any process with a [participant], . . . if it doesn’t come from them, the offender needs to have a burning desire for it.
Even when professionals recognized the importance of victim involvement, they framed it primarily in terms of participant benefit. If we’re talking about victims within the family or neighbors, I’m sure it can contribute. . . . If it’s someone whose house was broken into, I don’t know how much the process changes for that addict if he knows exactly [that] person . . . I don’t think knowing the specific victim would make him stop using drugs.
In some of the domestic violence cases, victim contact seemed also instrumentalized. We meet with the complainant, work with both partners, and gather information from her because it’s crucial for our risk assessment . . . In other types of cases, we typically don’t get involved.
Regarding
Although
Only two interviewees addressed viewing crime victims as a distinct priority. Just as an example, I’m accompanying a [participant] who came in following severe domestic violence. As part of the process, we maintain contact with the victim, meeting with her periodically, real monitoring, how she’s doing, if there’s harassment from the offender, meaning the attention to the victim is ongoing.
While there is an attempt to determine ‘how she’s doing’, it remains unclear whether this represents independent consideration of her needs in the process or merely gathering information that might reflect the participant’s rehabilitation progress. [Incorporating victims] still doesn’t receive enough attention truly in relation to the victim as a person, and how this wonderful and healing process might perhaps, . . . have a positive impact on the victim too.
Study limitations
Caution must be exercised about drawing general conclusions from narratives that can be understood within the established research framework, and with existing knowledge about CCs in Israel. A notable characteristic is the program’s unique admission threshold, which encompasses offenses of greater severity compared to other programs (Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal, 2022). The findings must be contextualized within the distinctive features of the Israeli criminal justice system. In addition, the program’s array of services offered to participants is intrinsically linked to Israel’s comprehensive national social security infrastructure, which provides certain welfare services. Furthermore, the analysis must account for Israel’s distinctive legal framework regarding victims’ rights (Beloof and Pugach, 2014). While Israel currently lacks a centralized Victims’ Rights Commissioner’s Office (though one is being established), various statutory mechanisms and institutional arrangements address victims’ rights and needs. These include specialized units within the Israel Police, the Public Legal Aid Office, and the State Attorney’s Office, each operating under specific directives and protocols concerning victim services and rights (Beloof and Pugach, 2014).
However, as evident above, CCs have not yet systematically incorporated victim-related considerations into their operational framework. In addition, there is currently no standardized referral mechanism for restorative justice processes or other complementary procedures in Israel. Nevertheless, state-subsidized restorative programs do exist within the juvenile justice system, and legislative proposals are pending to extend similar interventions to adult offenders. Consequently, the generalizability of these findings warrants further investigation through comparative research in other jurisdictions. These considerations not only highlight areas for future scholarly inquiry but also underscore the importance of considering jurisdictional and systemic contexts when evaluating CCs.
A methodological limitation concerns the demographic composition of the study. The research did not achieve gender parity among participants, nor did it systematically examine how gender dynamics might influence victims. Similarly, the study’s scope did not extend to an analysis of ethnic variables or their potential impact on victims. Both gender and ethnicity of professionals and participants likely constitute factors in shaping victims’ role and needs in CCs, suggesting important avenues for future research.
In addition, an ethical and practical limitation emerged regarding interviewing victims directly. In the current structure of Israeli CCs, victims generally have limited or no interaction with the court process, making it ethically and practically challenging to contact them. Approaching them directly could risk breaching confidentiality or causing potential harm in sensitive cases such as domestic violence. Consequently, victim-related data was collected indirectly through participants and practitioners. This limitation reflects the current state of the Israeli CC model, which has yet to establish systematic mechanisms for integrating and engaging victims. Future research, following institutional and procedural developments that allow greater inclusion of victims within the CC framework, should be able to address this gap and incorporate victims’ perspectives directly. The value of hearing directly from victims about their needs, preferences, and perceptions regarding the CC process is immense and irreplaceable, offering insights that cannot be fully captured through indirect sources.
Conclusions
The findings reveal a critical gap: while CCs are founded on principles of community justice, crime victims—integral to that community—are largely absent from the assessment framework. This omission not only raises normative concerns, but also undermines both rehabilitation and systemic effectiveness. Rehabilitation might not be considered fully successful if it does not address the harm caused to victims. Accountability is central to justice, and without it, the transformative potential of CCs is weakened. Systemically, if CCs aim to foster community justice, excluding victims contradicts their purpose. Bridging this gap is essential to maximizing their impact.
Bridging the gap between the theoretical foundations of CC and the marginal role of crime victims in individual participant assessment and systemic evaluation, requires multiple coordinated changes: first, understanding the theoretical influence of community justice principles on CC structure and goals; and second, determining their practical implications.
The importance of addressing the implications of community justice theory in Israel’s CCs is expressed through the loyalty conflicts: while professionals enter their roles with established commitments to victim rights and meaningful participation, they find themselves unable to implement these values within current structural constraints, they are concerned that addressing victims will come at the expense of (defendant) participants’ central place. This indicates a pressing need for professional discourse regarding victims’ place in CCs, aiming to examine how victims can contribute both to the participant’s rehabilitation process and to the social benefit derived from CCs’ operation. As part of this social benefit, victims should not only contribute to the process, but also benefit from it on a personal level, given their legal rights and by virtue of often being those who initiated the process. After all, these courts are founded on community justice principles, and victims are a crucial part of that community. The concern is that CCs are missing a chance to not only do more for victims because it might be the right thing to do—but are missing the purpose of community courts in enhancing community justice, therefore missing an opportunity to fully utilize the capabilities and potential of CCs.
Assuming the theoretical framework described is valid, several practical implications warrant consideration. The first two implications focus on professional capacity building. First, there is the necessity of implementing structured professional development programs that emphasize managing a diverse spectrum of victims’ needs and expectations, recognizing that victim perspectives and desired outcomes could demonstrate significant variation. Second, there is a need for a uniform policy framework regarding victims’ role in the CC process, with focused attention on different offense types. Any revision of the CC framework must ensure active judicial involvement as a structural precondition for integrating victims’ rights and voices into the process. Judicial supervision serves as the mechanism through which procedural fairness is realized — balancing rehabilitation with accountability, and participants’ needs with those of victims.
Beyond professional and framework development, the third implication involves structural and legislative reform to regulate victims’ status in this special process, beyond what is currently specified in the Criminal Procedure Act. As indicated by interviewees, victims are not always aware of the nature and characteristics of the program, and therefore, they may not know to request to be informed about it. This raises the question of shifting the burden of requesting information onto the victims. Israel has adopted the practice of victim impact statements, or victim reports (Dancig-Rosenberg and Pugach, 2012), conducted by probation service representatives to assess victims’ positions and circumstances (Beloof and Pugach, 2014). While these assessments traditionally occur post-conviction but pre-sentencing, their implementation within CC proceedings presents challenges. Given that plea agreements in CCs are predetermined and contingent upon participants’ rehabilitation progress, questions arise regarding both the timing and relevance of victim impact statements. In appropriate cases, the feasibility of restorative justice processes should be examined, allowing direct dialogue between participants and victims (Dancig-Rosenberg and Gal, 2013). This avenue was mentioned by some interviewees who noted that they offer participants the opportunity to pursue restorative justice processes, but they are not interested. It is worth considering structured implementation of the possibility to integrate restorative justice processes in CC proceedings.
The last two implications address direct victim support within CC operations. A fourth implementation of community justice goals, imbedded in CCs, might be providing victim support services by CCs. Such accompaniment should focus on victims’ distinct needs and desires. Since CCs in Israel do not operate as a ‘one-stop shop’ victims should not attend or receive services on-site alongside participants, ensuring a clear physical and procedural separation between them.
A fifth implementation regards utilizing a distinct professional responsible for victim involvement. Attention should be paid to the difficulty arising from having the same probation officer providing responses to both the participant and victim in the same case. In this context, judicial leadership plays a decisive role in translating community justice principles into practice. Judges, by virtue of their authority and continuity, are uniquely positioned to guarantee that victims’ rights are protected and that their participation is facilitated in a fair and balanced manner. Ensuring such judicial engagement is essential for transforming victim inclusion from an aspirational goal into a consistent institutional practice. Beyond these structural and professional reforms, a deeper cultural challenge persists. Even within problem-solving and community justice frameworks, criminal courts often retain a traditional emphasis on trial fairness and defendants’ rights as the primary expressions of justice. This conservative orientation, though important for safeguarding due process, may inadvertently limit the development of a genuinely victim-inclusive model of community justice. Recognizing this tension underscores the need for CCs to expand their understanding of fairness to include responsiveness to victims’ needs and rights as integral components of justice.
The recognition that the program does not do enough regarding victims provides a good starting point. This study demonstrates that integrating victims’ needs into both individual and systemic assessment frameworks requires fundamental structural reforms. CCs are founded on community justice principles, yet victims—integral to the community—are absent from the assessment framework, determining individual success (rehabilitation) and systemic success without adhering to all CCs goals. Bridging this gap demands interconnected changes in professional development, policy on victims’ role, structural reform, victim support and a distinct professional representation for victims.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This article is part of a doctoral dissertation, which consists of three articles examining success and crime victims of community courts in Israel. Deep appreciation to Bar-Ilan University President’s Scholarship Program for Outstanding Doctoral Fellows for its support throughout the doctoral research. This research is part of a comprehensive evaluation study of community courts in Israel led by Prof. Tali Gal, Prof. Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg and Prof. Avital Mentovich. This article is part of a series of publications derived from this broader evaluation study (Gal et al., 2023). We extend our appreciation to Prof. Tali Gal for her significant comments on an earlier draft. We are grateful to the participants and interviewees for their contribution to this study. We also thank Christy Alfakes, Tal Benharoush and Yonatan Shulman for conducting some of the interviews. We thank Joint Ashalim for their support of the evaluation research (JDC-Ashalim Grant no. 205085). We are deeply grateful to Prof. Simon Green and Prof. Suzan van der Aa for their helpful comments along the way, as well as their careful reading of the manuscript and active feedback.
Ethical considerations
The evaluation study of the CCs program in Israel, conducted between 2018 and 2023, received approval from the University of Haifa Institutional Review Board. This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law (no number).
Consent to participate
Participant informed consent to participate was written or verbal.
Consent for publication
Not applicable since we used pseudonyms and carefully obscured identifying details where identity disclosure was concerned.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Deep appreciation to Bar-Ilan University President’s Scholarship Program for Outstanding Doctoral Fellows for its support throughout the doctoral research.
We thank Joint Ashalim for their support of the evaluation research, JDC-Ashalim (Grant no. 205085).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statements
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality considerations. The qualitative data contain sensitive information that could potentially compromise the anonymity of the interview participants.