admin

Reentry Court Grant Opportunities for County Jails

by

June 6th

The recent pubication of BJA’s reentry court RFP presents a variety of important options to the reentry court field.

Perhaps one of the most important facts to remember is that the grants are available to county jail as well as prison returnees.

County Sheriffs who may be facing an influx of prisoners to local jurisdictions (ie, California), should consider how $500,000 grants would lighten their burden. They can use the funds to provide services in custody, while inmates are in transitional housing, and/or when they are living in the community.

In that regard, it’s important to note who may apply: “states, units of local government, federally recognized Indian tribes, and non-profit entities that target adult populations.”

At a time when rehabilitation funds are drying up, this is an extraordinary opportunity to access as much as three years of federal funding for local alternative sentencing.

Each day this week, at least one new article will be published, focusing on a critical aspect of  the Reentry Court RFP

Remember, the RFP deadline is June 30th.

Philly Federal Reentry Court Provides Legal Services

by

A report distributed to Philadelphia federal district judges in December of 2010 on the Supervision to Aid Re-entry (“STAR”) program, described the regional reentry court as a highly successful model for the federal judiciary. Among the reports special points of interest was an innovative use of legal interns to provide legal services to federal probation participants (there is no parole, only probation in the federal system):

  • A continued  partnership with the Philadelphia Bar Association and local law schools, which provide participants with free legal assistance for issues such as credit repair, traffic court, license restoration, child custody, and business development assistance.
  • A successful credit restoration project, enabling dozens of participants to correct errors and deficiencies in their credit history

CA Courts looking to BJA Reentry Court Funding

by

EXTRA/EXTRA

The Bureau of Justice Programs is moving forward with plans to provide grants of $500,000 each, for up to three years to Reentry Courts, under 2011 “Second Chance Act” funding. In California and elsewhere, where states are moving swiftly towards a county-based parole reentry and/or revocation system, local jurisdictions should seriously look at the potential for three year funding of their reentry/revocation court efforts.

Please keep in mind that the Reentry Court Grant Application must be filed by June 30th.

California Courts gird for new parole role

by

Extra/ May 22nd

According to reliable sources, California Courts are expected to take over a substantial part of parole revocation responsibities come July 1,2011. It appears that Governor Brown is going to proceed with the portion of legislation he signed last month (AB109) that gives counties (and presumably court systems) responsibility to deal with offenders who violate their parole. What is not known is how much responsibility will be delegated and how much discretion courts will have in fullfilling those responsibilities. What is known is that Governor Brown has arranged for the County Courts to receive a total of $40 million to set up structures to handle  parole revocations.

Those in California, with reentry responsibilities may be obligated to work with the county courts in dealing both with new less serious felony offenders and those who violate their probation and/or parole. It is an open question whether the six county California pilot parole reentry courts will be used as a state wide models for dealing with high-risk offenders. Six-month data on the pilot parole reentry courts is expected in June and will likely have an impact as to whether intensive supervision and rehabilitation, now provided in the Pilot projects, will be favored by the state, its agencies, or the Administrative Office of the Courts.

While it is unclear what the final perameters of the courts parole responsibilities will be, it would be prudent for California Courts and county agencies to begin planning for their new responsibilities. Though this is a difficult time to consider major reform, County courts may have discretion to structure a sentencing system that tracks offenders from sentence through incarceration (assuming the offender is kept local) into probation and finally reintegration into the community. Rather than come up with a piecemeal approach, now is the time to think systemically, in creating a multi-track structure to deal with less serious felony offenders who are sentenced for up to 3 years  (but kept local) to high risk parolees who may be supervised by the courts, both out of prison and after a parole revocation. [Note: Consider the extraordinary opportunity  that BJA Second Chance funding, ( $500,000 grants potentially for 3 years) could mean to your reentry/revocation court]

The following suggestions are provided:  Options for a California Reentry Court System

BJA 2011 REENTRY COURT RFP!

by

EXTRA/ May 17th

The Bureau of Justice Administration has issued their 2011 “Second Chance Act”, Reentry Court RFP. Up to $500,000 grants will  be issued and depending on resources may be available for an additional two years. Fifty Pecent will be required in match grants, but only 25%  in cash, as 25% may be provided in kind.

The deadline for this grant is June 30th.

[Stay tuned for more details]

 

SAMSHSA makes Reentry Court Funding Available

by

Breaking News: Grant Deadline:June 6th

$4.4 million will be made available under this grant, with up to $400 thousand made available to individual jurisdictions.

This new grant program combines the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) drug court and offender reentry treatment services programming and funding with its mental health diversion and systems transformation programming and funding.  The grant program is open to all criminal justice and family/child dependency courts, as well as reentry courts.

[It should be noted that there are elligibility requirements that limit the use of these funds to court programs that have been in existence at least one full year]

To learn more about this opportunity, you are encouraged to participate in the free webinar hosted by SAMHSA on Tuesday, April 26, from 3 to 5 p.m. EDT. CALL: 1-888-453-4221 (Access code 676520 and then press #) LOG INTO: htttps://jbsinternational.webex.com (Meeting number: 572 187 472 / password: samhsa)

Second Chance funding for Reentry Courts in Doubt

by

April 25th

Reflecting a reduction of 17% for all Department of Justice programs, the Second Chance  Act for 2011 has been reduced to  $ 83 Millon from the $100 million budgeted for the Act in 2010. There is no word yet, whether there will be new funding for “Reentry Courts” as there was in 2010, or even continuation funds for Reentry Court programs that were funded under 2010 programs.

“Discussion on Reentry Courts ” Published

by

Practitioners, Academicians and Policy makers met at  a seminal “Focus Group”, at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals Conference in Boston, in June of 2010, to discuss critical issues surrounding the implementation of Reentry Courts in the U.S. Sponsored by the Bureau f Justice Assistance (BJA),the focus group itself, was  planned and co-facilitated by NADCP President Emeritus Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.), Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center for Court Innovation (CCI), along with BJA staffer, Jacqueline Rivers. The most experienced reentry court practitioners from around the country were brought together in an effort to discuss the effectiveness, feasibility, limitations, obstacles, and successes  of Reentry Courts. The Publication itself, a Conversation about Strategies for Offender Reintegration, was writen by Robert Wolf and published by CCI.

CA Omnibus Bill AB109 Redefines Parole

by

Aril 5, 2011

On March 17th, the California legislature passed  AB 109, the most far-reaching criminal justice legislation in many a generation. Among other startling changes, was the transfer of authority over parole revocation from the State Board of Parole to the individual County Superior Courts, while parole itself would become agencies of the counties, and thousands of state prisoners would be returned to County jails to finish out their sentences. Clearly, this bill will not be favored by everyone, but it is a step in the right direction, a return of less serious prison offenders to the counties they came from.

The governor has not signed the bill as of yet, and the provisions of the bill will not be implemented unless state funding for County parole responsibilities is provided to counties. It is an open question as to how the bill might effect the six pilot parole reentry courts presently being implemented and evaluated across Califiornia.


“Thinking For A Change” in Reentry Court

by

March 25th/ Part 4

The information found in the previous article is important and can be read in full through their links. They are well-written descriptions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. (see also; Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: A Review and Discussion for Corrections Professionals, Harvey Milkman, Kenneth Wanberg, NIC 2007 ). In this short description of one “Thinking for a Change” training (T4C), they provide a backdrop for my reentry court team’s four day  training (taught by Juliana Taymans, one of the co-authors of T4C )

I wasn’t one of the trainees, but audited most of the training for twelve San Francisco case managers held in my courtroom.. I can say that it was well worth the time, effort, and resources involved. My impression was that the trainees thoroughly enjoyed the material and mastering the skills involved, which included problem-solving in their own lives. While the curriculum could not be used for everyone (as it appeared to require some level of introspection and sophistication), it certainly could be effective with a large cohort of parolees.
The lessons were formal (often read verbatim from a training manual), emersing participants in role playing, film  and other engaging techniques. It should be noted that the number of trainers required (initially 2 per group), the number of group participants (10-12), the number of sessions required (20-22), and  the length of sessions (1 hour or more) make delivery of this therapy somewhat problematic. But I found the techniques taught  grow on me (surprisingly finding myself using them in my everyday life). We intend to begin at least three group sessions for parole reentry participants in April. We’ll let you know how it  all works out.
Thinking for a Change (T4C) is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for offenders that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills. NIC makes available the T4C offender program materials plus a curriculum for training program facilitators. NIC also can assist agencies in training staff to facilitate the program ( National Institiute of Corrections on Thinking for a Change)

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

by

March 28th/ Part 3

It is a recognized principle of Evidence Based Practices that “the most impactful programs at changing criminal behavior and reducing recidivism are cognitive-behavioral and behavioral interventions. (Andrews, 2007; Aos, Miller, and Drake,2006; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey and Landenberger, 2006: and Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson, 2007)”. see Implementing Evidence-Based Practices, Carey, 2010, p.9.

“Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a treatment that focuses on patterns of thinking and the beliefs, attitudes and values that underlie thinking. CBT has only recently come into prominence as one of the few approaches to psychotherapy that has been broadly validated with research, although it has been used in psychological therapy for more than 40 years. It is reliably effective with a wide variety of personal problems and behaviors, including those important to criminal justice, such as substance abuse and anti-social, aggressive, delinquent and criminal behavior” (Preventing Future Crime with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy by Patrick Clark NIC)

New Analysis of Harlem Parole Court

by

March 21, 2011

We first provided a description of Harlem’s Administrative Parole Reentry Court in May of 2010. Since that time, an evaluation of the program has been published by the Center for Court Innovation (CCI), authored by Zach Hamilton, Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court.

Last week, a new description of the Harlem Court was published by CCI, “TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE REENTRY COURT MODEL: THE HARLEM PAROLE REENTRY COURT“. Authored by Chris Watler, Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center and Bryn Herrschaft, researcher for the Center For Court Innovation, this powerpoint presentation present new information and data on the effectiveness of the Harlem Project.

Conservatives Latch onto Prison Reform

by

march 13th

The results are in, the ride over. The only thing that liberals and conservatives appear to agree on is prison reform. It’s hard to argue the issue when everyone has adopted one side of the argument. As commented on in this website many a time, everyone is for prison reform these days, with hardly a squeak from prison guard unions or District Attorneys’ offices. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, “Conservatives latch onto prison reform” describes the depth of the adoption of criminal justice reform by conservative leaders and advocacy groups.

What that means to those who have fought for reform for a very long time, is that the stars are aligned in the heavens, and it’s time to push hard for real prison reform. That means, not only returning prisoners to their communities with alternative community-based sentences, but keeping offenders out of prison in the first place, with Pre-Entry Courts that provide an alternative to prison. Reentry courts, for returning high risk offenders, will clearly  be a part of that reform package.

Yes, it’s time to demand reform, but it must be effective reform. If we mess this up, we could be waiting a very long time before we have another oppotunity. Everyone seems to favor alternatives to prison, but little is said of what alternatives we speak, their efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. Our greatest fear shouldn’t be that we will send prisoners home to poorly funded prison alternatives and find they don’t work. One thing worse that underfunding prison alternatives, is building a criminal justice system on the rotting structure of the exisiting one. Clearly reform needs to be built from the ground up, rather than funding existing programs that have never proven their worth, or worse, been found to be counter-productive. Reform has to be built on sound scientific evidence, based on decades of unassailable research, and memorialized in such publications as the Center for Effective Public Policy’s “Implementing Evidence-Based Practices” (see Cont: Evidence Based Practices Point the Way).

Cont: Evidence-Based Practices Point the Way

by

March 8th: Part II

The most succinct definition, taken from perhaps the best and most cogent publication on “Evidence Based Practices (EBP) in the Reentry Field, is as follows, ” Evidence Based Practices: The application of empirical research to professional practice” (p.7). This is an important definition to keep in mind, because it opens the door to  new concepts and applications, based on scientific research that will enhance, ground, and even empower your reentry court (or other reentry program).

The monograph from which the definition is taken, written by Mark Carey and Frank Domurad of the Carey Group, and described in an earlier post, deserves a second reference. “Implementing Evidence-Based Practices (Revised, January 2010), published by the Center for Effective Public Policy, under a grant from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is the best publication I have found on the application of EBP to Prisoner Reentry. As opposed to the many conceptual and intellectual descriptions of what EBP is or may be, this document breaks the concepts down to their basic elements (and can be read in  less than an hour). Though part of an eleven “coaching packet” series, put out by the Center for Effective Public Policy, in my opinion this monograph is the most useful and grounded of the series. (The following eight principles are fully described on pages 10-16 of the monograph)

Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions

1. Assess actuarial risk/needs.

2. Enhance intrinsic motivation.

3. Target Interventions.

a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.

b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.

c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, culture,

and gender when assigning offenders to programs.

d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months.

e. Treatment: Integrate treatment into sentence/sanction requirements.

4. Skill train with directed practice (use cognitive behavioral treatment methods).

5. Increase positive reinforcement.

6. Engage ongoing support in natural communities.

7. Measure relevant processes/practices.

8. Provide measurement feedback.

New Monograph on Employment in Reentry

by

The Berkeley Center of Criminal Justice has recently (November, 2010) published a comprehensive monograph entitled, “Reaching a Higher Ground: Increasing Employment Opportunities for People with Prior Convictions”. The publication provides “eight guiding principles” that provide a broad framework to “improve the employment prospects of people with prior convictions as well as ways to benefit our communities, increase public safety, and achieve cost savings at the local and state levels” (p. iv). The focus of this report is on California, and the information and discussion reflect current laws, policies, and practices in the state.

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team