This video clip shows the San Francisco Reentry Court (SFPRC) using positive reinforcement and pro-social activities, and relying on participants to help one another, in achieved extraordinary results, reducing the number of San Francisco parolees, returning to prison by over 80%.[California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Dec 2010-Sept. 2011]
Feb.20,2012
If there is one principle generally accepted in prisoner reentry reform, it is that collaboration between criminal justice partners is critical. Certainly, that has ben the finding of researchers evaluating the importance of collaboration in drug courts as well as other problem-solving courts. The research suggest that we leave stakeholders out at our peril.
A recent Harvard Law School article, (“Designing a Prisoner Reentry System; Hardwired to Manage Disputes”,123 Harv. L. Rev. 1339 (2010) makes this very point, in advocating for “Reentry Court” as the better way of dealing with returning prisoners. The truth is that the Courts may be at the table as reforms are designed, but they are largely absent as collaborators in reentry reform itself.
It is suggested by some, that the courts don’t belong in the reentry reform structure; that prisoner reentry is an executive function and not a judicial one, that the courts have little or no jurisdiction or statutory authority to be part of the process, and more pointedly, that involvement of the courts would violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. On more practical grounds, they argue that courts are too expensive, involving too many stakeholders, resources, and personnel. Finally, it is argued that there is no need for the courts, as the needed reforms are already being implemented, by the required partners: Corrections and the larger Community (with its many resources and institutions, including religious and non-profit organizations).
Somehow, those arguments are less than compelling, when considered against the reality of prison recidivism. Corrections have been a disappointment in their attempts to rehabilitate the returning prisoner. According to that same Harvard Law Review article quoted above, “Approximately six out of ten prisoners released from prison this year will be rearrested within two years [2008]”. Even where Community has been included as a partner (with all its resources), there is little reason to expect substantially better results. The federally funded SVORI project (Serious & Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) was the largest demonstration project of its kind, distributing over $100 million in grants, to 16 sites in 14 states nation-wide, providing comprehensive, coordinated services to prisoners, both pre- and post-release. Evaluation results after the two year demonstration period (2004-2006) are generally characterized as having little impact, showing minor improvement in re-arrest rates, but higher re-incarceration rates.
Given the weakness of existing prison reentry reform models, there is a great deal to gain by bringing the courts into the evolving collaboration between Corrections and Community. Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court have already proven the effectiveness of judicial involvement in collaborative criminal justice systems. Shouldn’t the courts be part of one of the most critical reforms in the history of the criminal justice system — the return of the prisoner to their community? It’s time to bring the third “C” – Courts – to Prison Reentry Reform.
Feb. 13, 2002
Something caught my eye as I was reading newsclips from around the nation. A small item from the Watertown Daily Times (NY). It read:
A Watertown man was sentenced to state prison Thursday after admitting in Jefferson County Court that he violated his Drug Court contract. Paul L. Arndt Jr., 44, was sentenced to 11⁄3 to 4 years in prison for violating terms of the substance abuse rehabilitation program that is designed to serve as an alternative to incarceration. He was referred to the program in April 2009 after admitting he violated probation. He was sentenced to five years’ probation in August 2007 after pleading guilty in May 2007 to fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property for taking radiators that had been stolen from a Watertown business and selling them at a Syracuse recycling center. Information about how he violated Drug Court was not available.
Putting aside the issue of whether the probation violation in question was a particularly serious or dangerous one, I would suggest that sending a drug court participant to prison for a substantial term is almost never good criminal justice policy, good use of government funds, or good rehabilitation &/or treatment strategies . There are more than a few drug courts, that quickly fail drug court participants and spirit them away for substantial prison terms. It may be time to revisit the rationality behind such scenarios. Unless the new offense is one involving violence or the threat of violence, is prison ever a sensible response to a drug court violation?
I have suggested in a recent article (see:”Front-loading court interventions”) that “judges may use their jurisdiction to sentence the felon to prison as part of a court-ordered treatment program, with the understanding that the offender is to undergo treatment before being returned to court for re-sentencing”. The idea is an old one, first described in a monograph written in 1999 by myself and present NADCP CEO West Huddleston (see “Reentry Drug Courts”); Front-loaded prison reentry programs (involving short custodial terms and a return to court supervision and treatment), are a last resort after the offender has committed serious and multiple violations of a drug court’s requirements.
Numerous states have developed drug court as an alternative sentence of last resort before substantial prison terms are ordered. Governors such as Christy of New Jersey and Deal of Georgia are calling for special drug courts to give the offender a last chance to succeed. Reentry-Drug Courts, (or simply Reentry courts) need to be put in place for the high-risk offender, where a short prison or other custodial sentence is a last resort (typically one to six months), before a long prison term is ordered.
Remember, the best way to reduce prison recidivism is not to put an offender into prison in the first place. But if there is no viable alternative to prison, use it in a rational and graduated manner, with a brief stay that holds out the promise of rehabilitation and an early return to the community.
A book by Professor Kathleen Hale of Auburn university and published by Georgetown University Press in 2011, “How Information Matters”, has recently come to my attention.
It’s an analysis of what it describes as the “Champion” Non-Profit Organization in its field. What does it have to do with reentry courts and court-based reentry systems. The answer is that it does and it doesn’t.
It describes the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) as the best among extraordinary organizations; whose structure, initiatives, strategies, and planning define excellence in the non-profit world. And I cannot agree more. I was there at the beginning of drug courts, as a drug court judge, and am still laboring in the fields, working to fulfill a vision that began for me, as first chair and then founding president of NADCP. In the beginning, we created the “Ten Key Components” and Drug Court Mentor Sites, and planned NADCP’s projects, initiatives and strategies; so I know that my fellow drug court pioneers feel as proud as I am of our accomplishments.
And those who came after us have truly done a superb job, in expanding drug courts and its progeny, problem-solving courts across the nation and around the world. They have built amazing public support for our “Champion” that has translated into much needed funding, and created wonderful new programs such as Veteran’s Courts, which thankfully are there to assist our Veterans in their time of need.
For me, it’s difficult to accept that my quest, the establishment of court-based reentry systems, that can staunch the flow of lives into our prisons, and salvage those that return broken, remains out of reach. I for one, salute all who have worked on our great labor of love, NADCP. But I long for this book’s sequel, the one that shows how we captured the holly grail of criminal justice, and achieved true prison reform through a partnership of the three C’s; Community, Corrections, and the Courts.
Feb. 5
INTRODUCTION
State court or Judicial connections to prisoners and ex-prisoners are much more common than generally believed, among the 50 states. State courts typically have some jurisdiction to intervene in prisoner reentry into the community, but rarely use that authority. Furthermore, relatively few such connections are organized into a systemic program that coordinates court or judicial intervention with community and correctional intervention.
While reentry court may be the best known of court based reentry systems, there are other systemic connections that exist between the court and prisoner/ex-prisoners, that have a substantial impact themselves or hold the potential for such an impact.
The “Court Jurisdiction Chart” is designed to help you analyze whether your state has the potential for a Court-Based Reentry System (or Judicially Supervised Reentry System) and/or Reentry Court [Note: the chart is explained below]
[An explanation of this chart can be found in the full article; click here:Judicially Supervised Reentry Interventions]
Feb.4
The San Francisco Parole Reentry Court (SFPRC) was statutorily funded pilot project administered by both California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The funding itself, some $1.5 million per county was provided by the federal government through 2009 Stimulus funding. Without going into structural detail here (to be saved for other more expansive articles), I’d like to provide general information on how SFPRC was designed and implemented, as well as statistical evidence of its extraordinary success.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data for the 10-month period that the San Francisco Parole Reentry Court (SFPRC) was fully operational (Dec. 2010-Sept. 2011) established that the SFPRC “return to prison” rate was 1/7th the rate of regular San Francisco parolees (a reduction of 87% over 10 months). SF’s parolee population had 1365 “return to prison” out of its 1,686 parolees (81% of the SF parole population). The SFPRC had 8 out of 70 parolees return to prison (an 11% rate).
The most important attribute of the SFPRC were its reliance on “the court as rehabilitation community”
The SFPRC team and participants created a rehabilitation community that was a driving force for participant change. The court team encouraged and often joined participants in pro-social activities, treating participants as individuals worthy of respect. The court became a friendlier place; where strangers became friends and sometimes mentors, coffee and pastries were served, rehab sessions and counseling, honor roll meetings and award ceremonies, and other pro-social activities occurred. Participants were also expected to engage in the larger community via volunteerism and other activities (i.e. organizing family picnics).
The corollary principle employed was that positive reinforcement and minimal sanctions, rather than custody would be used to modify negative behavoirs”.
The SFPRC embraced a true paradigm shift, pioneering the use of positive reinforcement in reentry courts; using awards, rewards, and positive, and negative incentives to recognize accomplishments.A tangible example: The courtroom bulletin board displayed the SFPRC Newsletter, awards and certificates, letters and poetry, photos of graduation and awards ceremonies, family and friends, court picnics, and newly inducted Honor Roll members.
Minimum sanctions were used as necessary, almost to the exclusion of custody. This is especially relevant under new state law, where parole sanctions are often statutorily limited to 90 days county jail. SFPRC sanctioned just 14 participants for a total of 105 days in jail over the course of the program. During that same period, SFPRC’s 70 participants achieved a 93% attendance rate, though required to attend weekly court sessions (approximately 1200 hour-long court appearances over a 10 month period).
Over it’s 15-month life (planning and implementation), SFPRC modeled “a minimalist reentry court for recessionary times”(see: reentrycourtsolutions.com). Though problem-solving courts” and reentry courts in particular are often accused of being wasteful, the relatively resource rich SFPRC was dealing with high-risk, serious and violent offenders, who were ultimatley far more expensive to deal with either in prison or in the community. SFPRC limited itself to part-time judge, court coordinator, case manager, defense attorney, parole officer and clerk. It used minimal incarceration while achieving a 87% reduction in “returns to prison”. And it successfully engaged long term prisoners, recently returned to society, in rehabilitation through a court-based community.
For a one page summary of the San Francisco Parole Reentry court’s mission, design, and statistical results, see: Final 1-Year SFPRC Report Card
The New York Times published the following article on Sunday, October 8, 2011, on the closing of the highly successful San Francisco Parole Reentry Court. (see: “Parole and Probation Courts in San Francisco are Closing After Budget Cuts” )
The San Francisco Parole Reentry Court was part of a six county statutory pilot program, that gave the San Francisco Superior Court jurisdiction and authority for the first time to determine parole conditions, including rehabilitation and supervision as well as sanctions for parole violations. It was not an easy program to start, because of the reluctance of many to take on the supervision of parolees (an executive function in California and most of the states). As it turns out, we were merely anticipating the inevitable sentencing realignment in California, that would return a majority of prisoners to county jurisdiction.
The SFPRC enjoyed the full support of the San Francisco court until this past summer, when drastic reductions in state funding caused many California Courts to reassess their ability to provide rehabilitation services. San Francisco was one of the worst hit, with over 6 million dollars of debt and prospects of closing down 25 of 63 courtrooms countywide. The court determined that the Parole Reentry court (as well as two smaller reentry courts; a juvenile reentry court and a probation reentry court) would be closed down, because they did not provide a core function of the court. Focusing on what they considered to be their survival as a court, the San Francisco Superior Court decided to get out of the “reentry court” business.
Feb. 4
It is generally thought that the court’s have little recourse or jurisdiction to affect a prison sentence once that sentence has been announced. The truth is, that most state courts have significant jursdiction to alter, amend or modify a prison sentence. Depending on the state, jurisdiction to recall may exist for a period of one month to one year after sentencing.The most obvious purpose of a “front-loaded intervention”, is to order a convicted felon to state prison for an evaluation, assessment, or other purpose, immediately before or after sentence has been imposed.
While this power is found in most state courts, it is most often used by individual judges on a case by case basis. Some courts, in particular drug courts, will use front-loaded jurisdiction to create what can be called a “court-based reentry system” . A recent example of such a court-based reentry intervention occurred in New Mexico, where a drug court judge ordered a program violator into prison (before sentencing) for a sixty day evaluation, to be returned to court, for sentencing (see:Preentry Prison Evaluation used in New Mexico )
Similarly, jurisdiction exists in many states to recall the felon, after sentencing, for re-consideration and potential re-sentencing. The intention to recall may be announced at the time of sentence, or the decision to recall may be discretionary with the judge within the statutory period. This form of preentry intervention is often used to encourage a serious attitude change on the part of a prospective long-tern prisoner.
The judge may use their jurisdiction to sentence the felon to prison as part of a court-ordered treatment program, with the understanding that the offender is to undergo treatment before returned to court for re-sentencing. If the felon is found in compliance, the court will return the felon to a court-based probation program in the community.
Boone County, Mo. is an example of a jurisdiction that has uses its front-loaded court jurisdiction to send drug dependent violators to prison for a period of up four months for treatment, to be returned to Judge Chris Carpenter’s Reentry Court (or what some describe as a Preentry Court), for further probation rehabilitation and monitoring in the community. Columbia, Missouri’s “Reintegration Court” is considered a Reentry Court, as it provides a comprehensive rehabilitation program, focused on the whole individual, his/her risk of recidivism, and relies on evidence based practices after the prison term. (see: Columbia Missouri)
The above are just some of the existing variations in the courts’ use of a brief and immediate prison term, to be followed by recall to the court for sentencing or reconsideration of a sentence previously imposed. They are considered here because they are generally thought of as a successful rehabilitation strategy (and in the case of Boone County, a Reentry Court Program), designed to get the offender’s attention, assess their suitability for probation, and give them one last chance to change their behavior before a substantial prison sentence is imposed. It should be seriously considered on the program level as an alternative to prison, and as a way to reach out to large numbers of offenders that otherwise would be on their way to long prison terms.
Feb. 4
Drug Courts have only recently begun to meet their potential, by concentrating on the rehabilitation and treatment of the high risk offender, who otherwise would be sent to prison. The article belows, shows how one Oklahoma court is trying to use front-loaded prison treatment in lieu of long prison terms. It appears that atleast some of the prison terms imposed require the successful completion of a drug treatment program in prison (or other custodial setting) before the court will return the felon to a community-based program and probation supervision. The sentence appears to describe a Court-Base Reentry System (probably drug court based )and possibly a “reentry court”.
(Stillwater, Okla.) — A four-time convicted drug offender from Cushing was given a 10-year prison term Friday for possessing substances with intent to manufacture methamphetamine at a Cushing apartment with three co-defendants.
Savannah Colette Hilbert, 27, who was already on probation for methamphetamine possession, has been jailed on $100,000 bond since her arrest in September by the Payne County Sheriff’s Office.
Although she was ordered into prison Friday, District Judge Phillip Corley told her in court that he would suspend the rest of her sentence on her successful completion of a drug treatment program while incarcerated.
One of her co-defendants, Christopher Sean Ward, 36, of Cushing, who was also already on probation for methamphetamine possession, was given a seven-year prison term on Dec. 13 for his role in the case. He has been jailed on $100,000 bail since his arrest.
Associate District Judge Stephen Kistler told Ward that he would suspend the remainder of his sentence on his successful completion of a drug treatment program in prison.
Another of her co-defendants, David Jesse Baxter, 26, of Cushing, who also was on probation in an earlier methamphetamine case, was placed on 15 years’ probation on Dec. 2 by Kistler, who ordered him to enroll in and successfully complete the Payne County Drug Court program. He had been jailed on $100,000 bail.
Another co-defendant, Luke Patrick Danyeur, 30, of Yale, remains free on $35,000 bail pending his preliminary hearing on Jan. 12 in the methamphetamine case.
All four were alleged to have possessed — at an apartment in the 500 block of E. Moses Street in Cushing — crystal drain opener, liquid drain opener, Coleman fuel, iodized salt, methamphetamine, a cold medication containing pseudoephedrine, an instant cold compress containing ammonium nitrate, and three lithium batteries with intent to use those substances to manufacture methamphetamine on September 26.
According to court documents, Hilbert was convicted in 2008 of three charges of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, once in 2004 and twice in 2008.
She was ordered to serve 120 days in the Payne County Jail, to be transported to inpatient treatment when a bed was available, and then to serve 15 years of probation.
Last March, Ward was placed on five years’ probation with an order to enroll in and successfully complete the Payne County Drug Court program, for possessing methamphetamine in 2010 and 2011, both in Cushing, court records show.
In 2010, Baxter was placed on five years’ probation for possession of methamphetamine in Perkins with intent to distribute in 2008, court records show.
Feb.4
A pre-sentence evaluation is often used to give an offender, a failed drug court participant in particular, an opportunity to see what a substantial prison sentence would be like. The program described, appears to be part of a court-based reentry system, probably a drug court. In this instance, a New Mexico judge, ordered resigned State Public Regulation Commission member Jerome Block Jr., to serve 60 days in prison while being evaluated (see: article in Santa Fe New Mexican )