admin

Missouri provides sentencing costs

by

Sept. 20

Missouri has taken an important step forward, by providing its judges with the cost of imprisonment when sentencing felony offenders. According to an article in the New York Times, “Legal experts say no other state systematically provides such information to judges, a practice put into effect here last month by the state’s sentencing advisory commission, an appointed board that offers guidance on criminal sentencing.”

Missouri has consistently been a leader in prison reform with such alternatives to prison as “split sentencing” and reentry courts.  This year, in his annual address, the chief justice of Missouri’s Supreme Court, William Ray Price Jr., stated “Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders”. Missouri is only one of many states whose courts are now taking a hard look at the cost of sending non-violent offenders to prison, rather than keeping them in more cost-effective community based prison alternatives (such as pre-entry courts).

Wyoming develops Reentry Court MOU

by

Sept 12

Pat Anderson is the Executive Director of the Wyoming Board of Parole. These days he sometimes resembles a traveling salesman, criss-crossing the mountains and valleys of Wyoming selling the merits of Reentry Courts. I had a chance to talk to him at the Wyoming State Drug Court Association Conference last week, where we co-presented on reentry courts.

Pat believes that prisoners coming home from prison can be best supervised, and reintegrated into their communities through the twenty-one established reentry courts in the state. As Wyoming has limited their drug courts to relativeley minor offenses in the past, its embrace of reentry courts may shift its focus to the high risk offenders where the drug/reentry court will have the greatest impact..

Pat has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with Laramie (Cheyenne), Campbell (Gillette), and Sublette (Pinedalle) Counties and is in negotiations with Fremont and Sheridan Counties. (See a copy of the Wyoming MOU).

Promising Kentucky Evaluation Discovered

by

Sept. 5

“Kentucky Reentry Courts: Evaluation of the Pilot Programs“, by Matthew L. Hiller, Ph.D., Egle Narevic, M.A.S.W., Carl Leukefeld, D.S.W., J. Matthew Webster, Ph.D.,  was first published by the State Justice Institute in 2007. This document, describes the brief success of the Kentucky pilot project, that was discontinued in 2001, because of a lack of funding. Though its findings were based on less than a dozen participants, its findings are insightful and encouraging to new reentry court practitioners and their supporters.

Cal. Judge’s Description Of Reentry Court

by

Sept. 5

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently published  California Judge Richard Vlavianos’ description and analysis of the Reentry Court. The article, “Reentry Courts and Programs”, defines and describes the attributes of the reentry court in an easily understood fashion that will be especially useful to those unfamiliar with reentry court or other problem solving or collaborative courts.

\”Strategies for Addressing The DWI Offender: Ten Promising Sentencing Practices\” , is a compendium of promising sentencing practices first proposed at the National DWI Sentencing Summit at The National Judicial College, March 15-16, 2004.

Asst. AG Laurie Robinson Testifies For “Second Chance Act”

by

Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, Director of the Office Of Justice Programs  (OJP),  testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee  last week. Ms. Robinson has been a champion of innovative communiy-based rehabilitatilon programs, in particular drug courts, during her first stint as Director of OJP during the Clinton Administration. This time around she has championed effective reentry programs and reentry courts. During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee, she stressed the importance of fully funding the “Second Chance Act” at its previous year 2010, $100 million level.

Part of her testimony follows, “In FY 2010, Congress appropriated $100 million to continue the Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Initiative in OJP. This funding level represents an increase of $75 million over the FY 2009 appropriation of $25 million. This $100 million also includes $10 million for research, furthering our goals to support evidence-based initiatives. In FY 2011, the President’s Budget request includes $100 million to continue the Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Initiative.

Last week, Attorney General Holder called for a new approach to dealing with criminals and announced the creation of an interagency working group to focus exclusively on reentry issues. The group will focus on everything from mental health and drug treatment, housing, and job training needs as well as policy recommendations and efforts to enhance interagency coordination at the federal level.

To further these efforts throughout the federal government, the President launched a new Transitional Jobs initiative with the Department of Labor for ex-offenders and low-income, noncustodial fathers who face serious barriers to finding work and keeping work. The majority of returning prisoners are parents and strengthening family ties upon release can help returning prisoners successfully reintegrate into society. Through this program, fathers will be helped to develop the skills and experience they need to move into full-time, long-term employment so they can meet their child support obligations and help provide for their families”

For full text of testimony: Asst. AG Laurie Robinson/July 22

NCSC on “Fathering” and “Reentry” Courts

by

The National Center For State Courts (NCSC) has recently published “ACHIEVING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF REENTRY AND FATHERS’ COURTS“. In it the author, Jane Macoubrie draws parallels between Reentry and Father’s Courts. I found the comparison of interest, especially since I was ignorant as to the existence of “Fathering Courts”. According to the author, there are 81 existing [fathering]courts or closely court-integrated fathers programs” across the U.S. There is even a hybrid Father’s Reentry Court in Washington D.C. The publication points out the significant similarities between Fathers Court and Reentry Court. As the author states, “they both serve individuals who face significant barriers to employment, are unemployed or underemployed, are usually poorly educated, frequently have a criminal background, and may also have physical or emotional illnesses, literacy issues, substance abuse problems, or multiple-partner fertility”.

Significantly, this publication poses an additional question of some importance to the Problem-Solving Court field. Is the accelerated proliferation of problem-solving courts into distinct specialty courts dealing with limited populations an issue that needs to be addressed?

DOJ Resource Site on “Reentry”

by

The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has long provided resources and assistance across the nation to “reentry ” efforts. It’s signature website, simply labeled “Reentry“, contains information on existng state and federal resources, as well as other  state and national activites, related to “Reentry “. It’s site map provides a review of national efforts being provided in all fifity states and territories. Although, not always up to date, this site provides an excellent overview of federal efforts and resources dedicated to the “Reentry” issue.

Indiana Leads With Reentry Court Rules

by

State involvement and leadership in the reentry court field appears to be a requisite for successful programs. No state has been more active in establishing a state presence in the reentry court field than Indiana, where they have established court perameters through “Reentry Court Rules“.

As described in the July 12th issue of the Indiana Court Times, “in 2006, the General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing local courts to establish reentry courts (IC 33-23-14). The Indiana Judicial Conference Board of Directors adopted reentry court rules in 2008, and IJC began certifying reentry courts in 2009. There are currently six certified reentry courts in Indiana. The Judicial Conference established the Problem-Solving Courts Committee in 2006 to support the innovation of judges at the local level. The committee’s mission is: “To encourage the broad integration of the problem-solving philosophy into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law and to encourage judges to take a proactive role, using a non-adversarial, coordinated strategy to problem-solving while creating an environment where participants are encouraged to take responsibility for change.” Judge John Surbeck of Allen Superior Court [Indiana’s first Reentry Court Judge] serves as chair of the fifteen member committee.”

Indiana sets out definitive rules for certification of Indiana’s Reentry courts. For those reentry courts that are not certified, the state provides

“A reentry court that is not certified by the Indiana Judicial Center, and an applicant whose plan of operation does not comply with requirements for certification under these rules is not entitled to receive a favorable review or recommendation from the Indiana Judicial Center on any application for funding of services from state, federal, or private funding sources.” (Sec.13)

Clearly Indiana is creating financial incentives for courts to conform to state standards and become certified. It’s the onlycase I know  of a state judiciary attempting to dictate the structure and and procedures used in reentry court. To my way of thinking, it is an important option available to states, committed to establishing effective state-wide reentry court programs.

For additional information about reentry courts, please contact Mary Kay Hudson, Problem-Solving Court Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center,[email protected].

Grant Support For States With Reentry Courts

by

The following was taken from a 6/29/10 Press Release:

“The Public Welfare Foundation has granted the Center for Effective Public Policy (the Center) and its partner, Northpointe Institute for Public Management (Northpointe), funding to support “Strategic Planning Capacity Building for Prisoner Reentry Under the Second Chance Act.”  This grant award will  support the development of strategic plans and provide assistance directly to the states that support essential planning.  This grant award will increase the capacity of states to create better strategic plans that lead to more effective implementation efforts, ultimately increasing the likelihood that each jurisdiction will be able to impact the success rates of people returning home.”

$9.5 Million awarded to Cal “Parole Reentry Courts”

by

Seven grants from the California Emergency  Management Agency (Cal EMA) were recently awarded to Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. In all, $9.5 million in Federal stimulus funds will be distributed to Parolee Reentry Court pilots to be coordinated by the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In doing so, California has committed itself to  the largest court based prison reentry  demonstration project in the nation’s history.

The Parole Reentry Court Program, will provide funding to each county for up to two and one half years  All the awardees have well defined and implemented drug and/or mental health courts. Priority was given to jurisdictions serving large numbers of  parolees and those with higher risks of recidivating. All pilot reentry courts will be expected  to use risk/needs assessments in their implementation and adopt research tested evidence based practices throughout their programs.

For California, with its overwhelming prison overcrowding and reentry problems, this project marks a remarkable change from business as usual. For the first time, ex-prisoners  will be under the jurisdiction of the California Courts. While a parole officer will initially will decide who is referred for the program,  once a prisoner is accepted by the Reentry Court judge, that judge with assistance of the reentry court team ( including a parole officer) will have final say until termination from the program.

25% OF Americans Say Prisons Do Good Job

by

” Angus Reid Public Opinion” has just released a poll of Americans that finds among other things that:

  • 75% of Americans polled disagree with the statement that “the prison system in the U.S. does a good job at helping prisoners become law-abiding”
  • 72% support alternative penalties other than prison for non-violent offenders.

[The PDF can be found here]

Reentry Court Literature Review

by

Alexandra Lampert, a former judicial fellow with the San Francisco Superior Court Collaborative Courts’ Program, and now attending Stanford Law School, has recently completed a literature  review on reentry courts.  It is informative, providing summaries of a number of articles and evaluations in the reentry court field [Reentry Court Scholarship and Evaluations]

Reentry Court Axiom: Smaller “Margin Of Error”

by

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored Reentry Court “Focus Group”, held in Boston, June 1, arrived at what might be described as a “Reentry Court Axiom”,  that “the greater the risk of  a particpant re-offending, the smaller the “margin of error”, for reentry court practitioners, to get it right”. Reading a transcript of the “Reentry Court  Focus Group” proceedings left me with the strong impression that, while the Reentry Court are largely based on the drug court model,  high-risk offenders returning from jails and prison, would pose a greater challenge than other  participant groups to date.

This conundrum was spelled out in the presentation of Dr. Douglas Marlowe, NADCP Director of Law, Policy, and Science, when he described the above mentioned, “Reentry Court Axiom” and the need to be diligent in the application of “evidence based practices” (see: Dr. Marlowe’s comments).  Other practitioners/experts in the field came to seemingly diferent conclusions. Judges Steven Manley of Santa Clara County , CA, and Chris Carpenter, of Boone County, Mo., agreed that the reentry court population would have to be treated differently than other populations, and that they presented a special challenge for the reentry court professional. But they concluded that allowances woud have to be made to keep the high risk offender in the reentry court; in effect lowering the bar required of reentry court particpants to stay in the program.

After reviewing the transcript, the seeming conflict resolved. Both Dr. Marlowe and the practitioner/experts agreed that this would be a more difficult population, one that would require “evidence-based practices” to be applied faithfully and diligently. But within those “practices” resided the flexibility (and  even necessity) for “lowering the bar”, by applying intermediate sanctions to  non-violent probation/parole violations.  Innovative intermediate sanctions, applied swiftly and with certainty, will allow the Reentry Court  to keep the offender in the community, without violating the participants’ parole/probation, or sending the participant back to prison.

I came away from my co-facilitaiton of the focus group (with Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center  for Court Innovations), with an understanding of the difficulty of effectively dealing with the Reentry Court population. But also with the belief that Reentry Court is our last best opportunity  to stem the flood of offenders returning to our prisons. [Reentry Court Focus Group Transcript. June 1, 2010]

Supreme Court to hear Cal Prison Case

by

The U.S. Supreme court has agreed to hear an appeal of  Schwarenegger v. Plata, where a three judge appellate panel found  California to be denying prisoners adequate medical and mental health care, in violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the U.S. Constitution. The Appellate panel ordered the State of California to reduce its prison population (now at approximately 150,000) by 40,000 prisoners, by December, 2011 (AP story).

In a similar vein, another recent news story told the sad tale of state’s reducing and in some cases eliminating prison based drug and other treatment/rehabilitation based programs (AP story). One can only hope that these programs are being cut back because of states’ intent to release drug dependent offenders, to be provided treatment and rehabilitation services in their communities. As unlikely as that may be, it will be incumbent on all to be vigilant and proactive in maintaining and expanding treatment both inside and outside of state prison walls.

NIC: An Important Reentry Court Resource

by

The dilemma for the Reentry Court field is that there is a relative dearth of specific information and scientific literature on Reentry Courts. Some are so disheartened, that they are prepared to put off developing a Reentry Court till research based guidance is provided. I would suggest that it’s far better to make use of relevant research materials and evidence based practices available to the reentry court field now, than wait for specific reentry court publications that may arrive too late to be of use. This is especially true, as the “drug court” that reentry court is modeled after has already been intensely evaluated and shown to be the most effective modality, in dealing with the high-risk offenders, those offenders who are overwhelmingly  leaving our jails and prisons.

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has been an important resource for correctional reform information since 1977. Over the past decade, the NIC has dedicated itself to providing state of the art tools for jurisdictions interested in improving  ” offender reentry” from jails and prisons into their communities. While it’s publications and web-based tools are rarely reentry court specific, they  do provide important and relevant research based information that can be applied to your reentry court program. Importantly, the NIC has adopted an early intervention model, that focuses on the offender’s seamless reentry from the time of sentence (and by inference, the time of arraignment).

The NIC “ TPC Reentry Handbook (Transition from Prison to Community) was developed  [in 2008] as a resource for a broad range of stakeholders involved in improving transition and reentry practices (p.3)”. The National Institute of Corrections and project partner the Urban Institute developed its “Transition from Jail to Community” project (TJC) with a similar purpose, with its  TJC Implementation Toolkit coming on line just last month.  According to the NIC blurb, “This web-based learning resource guides local criminal justice agencies and community-based organizations through implementation of the TJC model, in whole or in part.”  It would appear these publications and web-based tools ought to be part of every reentry court’s library.

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team