admin

March 18: Deadline For Reentry Mentoring Grants

by

Community involvement in the Reentry Process is critical to the success of a reentry court. Our guest post, on the importance of Mentoring in the Reentry Process, was written by Pat Nolan , of the “Justice Fellowship”:

Prison Fellowship has found that having a mentor increases the beneficial impact of the other programs they participate in. Ex-offenders need healthy relationships even more than they need programs. A mentor is there to help them think through the myriad decisions that confront them—where to live, how to get a job, where to get medical care. Even mundane things like obtaining a driver’s license or a state ID. Mentors also hold offenders accountable for staying on the right path and help them get back on their feet when they falter.

It’s great news that the grants just issued by the BJA’s Office of Justice Programs are meant to be used to help build the capacity of local communities to match returning offenders with a mentor. There were 507 applications for the first round of grants, and we anticipate even greater demand for the $15 million available this year. The mentoring grants are the only source of funding currently available for community- and faith-based groups under the Second Chance Act; so, be prepared for stiff competition.

The announcement from BJA has excellent step-by-step instructions, an invaluable checklist and a comprehensive syllabus of articles about mentoring. My hat is off to Gary Dennis and his team at BJA. They have done a terrific job establishing this grant program in a way that is understandable to those of us who are not in government service. [For the full article see: Justice Fellowship]

Mansfield, Ohio: A Collaborative Model

by

Mansfield, Ohio, a small community of fifty thousand presents an extraordinary example of collaboration between county court and probation services, and state prison and parole agencies.  Almost all returning county prisoners, have been intentionally interned at one of the two in-county prisons and upon release from prison, monitored by the Richland Reentry Court. Judges’ Henson and Deweese operate the Reentry court in tandem, each holding court once a month for some 150 participants.  The Ohio “Judicial Release Program” as practiced in Mansfield, over the last ten years, is a hybrid of county and prison based reentry models that has proven its worth in a formal evaluation conducted by Professor Jeffrey Spellman, of Ashland University.

The reentry process actually begins at the time an individual is sentenced (sometimes as early as arraignment).  The court makes its sentencing decision based on risk/needs assessment tools. Whenever an offender is sent to prison under the “Judicial Release Program” for a period of six months or more, the offender can be recalled by the reentry court  for continued county-based supervision and treatment. When the offender is returned to the community depends on the court’s decision at a “Prison Reentry Hearing”, that  considers the prisoner’s conduct, as well as,  participation and success in prison rehabilitation programs, while being closely monitored by the Richland County Reentry Court Coordinator.  Once returned to the community, the reentry court’s treatment, rehabilitation and monitoring (facilitated by  parole, probation and community policing staff) work together with the returning offender.

The Reentry Court has a second facet, for offenders who are released under the state parole authority’s jurisdiction. These offenders typically are convicted of more serious offenses, but are also monitored and serviced by the reentry court. One of the most fascinating aspects of the court, is that the Reentry Court Judge sits alongside a Parole Commissioner  on the bench, (though each has final authority over a different segment of the reentry community).  It appears, that given the right environment (as in Mansfield), county and state reentry authorities can create innovative and successful  collaborative relationships. (Article on Richland Reentry Court)

For more information, contact: David Leitenberger, at [email protected]

NCSL Provides Overview of 2009 Sentencing Data

by

The National Conference  of State Legislatures has published an overview of “Significant State Sentencing and Corrections Legislation in 2009”. The easy to follow summary provides a review of new sentencing laws for every state in the nation. Though brief, this  snapshot of sentencing reform across the nation points to increasing efforts at prison and jail reform. It’s also an excellent place to begin a review of reentry court legislation nationwide.

Find the data at: NCSL 2009 Sentencing Review

2011 Budget Maintains Reentry Funding

by

While the details are just coming in, the prognosis for Reentry Programs under the proposed 2011 budget released Feb.2,2010 is good. Proposed Reentry Funding may actually increase over 2010 expenditures. Specifically, funding of $144 million is proposed for  Department of Justice’s Reentry Services. including continued funding of $100 million under the Second Chance Act, and $30 million for a Drug Rehabilitation Housing Program for offenders returning from jails and prisons.

Further details on 2011 Reentry Funding will be added as they are announced.

Senator Coburn Memo lays out Reentry Funding

by

A memo from Senator Tom Coburn’s office (rep, Ok ), provides a comprehensive picture of Department Of Justice (and other departments) reentry funding.  The memo’s purpose was to expose duplicate funding within the federal government, but in doing so lays out a comprehensive  picture of available federal funds for reentry purposes.

[Note: A valuable document for those researching reentry court funding streams; in particular,  DOJ’s $520 million  Byrne JAG Funding and Department of Labor’s $100 million plus funding for ex-offender reentry):

Second Chance Act

Funded at more than $100 million in FY 2010, the Second Chance Act funds offender-prisoner reentry programs.

DOJ is responsible for allocating $100 million, which breaks down into the following amounts:

· $37 million for grants for adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects,

· $15 million for grants for mentoring and transitional services,

· $10 million for reentry courts,

· $7.5 million for family based substance abuse treatment,

· $2.5 million for evaluation and improvement of education at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities,

· $5 million for technology careers training demonstration grants,

· $13 million for offender reentry substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration, and

· $10 million for prisoner reentry research.

There are a number of other programs, both within DOJ and at other agencies, which also make money available to states and localities for the purpose of facilitating prisoner reentry, as outlined below.

Department of Justice’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative

DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs-Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the Prisoner Reentry Initiative ($11.7 million in FY 2008), which provides funding to states and federally recognized tribes to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies. It targets individuals 18 or older that have not been convicted of a violent or sex-related offense and assists them with returning to their communities after periods of incarceration.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the following DOJ programs are also able to be used by states and localities to fund prisoner reentry efforts. (All below was excerpted from CRS Report RL34287.)

· DOJ maintains formula grant programs outlined below that provide assistance to states or local units of government according to legislatively mandated formulas; this funding can be used for offender reentry purposes at the state or local unit of government’s discretion. In addition to these programs, the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program can also be used by states to support offender reentry activities and initiatives.

· Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The COPS program does not expressly authorize funding for offender reentry purposes; nevertheless, under its broad community policing mandate, OJP has used this grant program on occasion to fund pilot offender reentry programs.

· Weed and Seed. The Weed and Seed program can also provide funding for state offender reentry programs. …Offender reentry programs can [qualify for this funding] because funding can be used to provide supervision for ex-offenders in the community, as well as to develop support services. In addition to participating in the [Prisoner Reentry Initiative] program, Weed and Seed is currently collaborating with the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation to create volunteer-driven offender reentry initiatives in communities.

· Juvenile Justice Grant Programs. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers a number of grants that can be used by states and units of local government to provide aftercare services (i.e., offender reentry programs) for juvenile delinquents who are returning to their communities from residential placement (i.e., prison).

· The National Institute of Corrections (NIC). Within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, NIC provides assistance for state and local corrections agencies. …NIC’s offender reentry-related support typically covers programs focused on preparing offenders for offender reentry while they are incarcerated. Specifically, the Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement works to advance the employability of offenders and ex-offenders, which is also duplicative of numerous efforts at the Department of Labor

Department of Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorized this competitive grant program combines two previous demonstration projects, the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) ($108 million in FY 2010) and the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders (RRYO). PRI, funds faith-based and community organizations that help recently released prisoners find work when they return to their communities.

In addition, DOL maintains two programs that provide incentives for companies to hire ex-offenders. The Work Opportunity Tax Credits program provides up to $2,400 in tax credits to companies for every former offender they hire, and the Federal Bonding Program allows companies who cannot obtain bonding or insurance from their own providers to bond ex-offenders for up to $25,000 for up to six months.

According to CRS, various Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services programs may also be used to provide support for offender reentry education efforts, duplicative of efforts at the Department of Justice, including the following:

· Lifeskills for State and Local Inmates Program;

· the Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders programs;

· Title II of the Workforce Investment Act, Adult Education and Family Literacy;

· The Perkins State Grant Program;

· HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program;

· Programs through HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA) and the Office of Community Services; and

· HHS’ Young Offender Reentry Program.

[Download: Council of State Government’s Federal Reentry funding list]

California’s Non-Revokable Parole Goes into Effect

by

Today, Non-revocable Parole goes into effect in California. Some five thousand non-violent, less serious offenders will be released with a single condition of parole; that they submit to a search when requested.  Part of a multi-phase prison/parole reform package, some question whether releasing former offenders without services, rehabilitation, or accountability will increase or decrease the rate of recidivism in California. [Click: Non-Revocable Parole]

$15 Million for Non-Profit Organizations’ Reentry Mentoring

by

‘The Bureau of Justice Assistance has released an RFP to non-profit organizations for mentoring projects, under the “Second Chance Act” mission, of ” providing services and programs to facilitate inmates’ successful reintegration into society”.  BJA will make $15 million available to non-profit organizations for up to $300,000 per grant for a period of up to 24 months. No matching is required but 25%  in-kind contributions are encouraged.

The application deadline is March 18,2010.

Each proposal must include the following program components:

  1. Mentoring offenders during incarceration, through transition back to the community, and post-release.
  2. Transitional services to assist in the reintegration of offenders into the community.
  3. Training regarding offender and victims issues.

Click here for the application: “Second Chance Act Mentoring Grants to Non-Profit Organizations”

Reentry Court Note: These funds should be available to reentry court partners in the non-profit community

NCCD: Prison and Jail Alternatives Could Save Nation $10 Billion

by

In a publication issued on January 10, the National Council of Crime and Delinquency  found that,”as a nation, we can save an estimated $9.7 billion dollars as an initial installment on ongoing and significant annual savings by changing how we handle a portion of the lowest-level offenders in our systems. As of 2008, there were 413,693 men and women incarcerated for nonviolent, nonsexual crimes that don’t involve significant property loss. The vast majority of these could be eligible for effective and cost-saving sanctions such as drug courts, electronic monitoring, or work release programs.” Click here for NCCD document, The Extravagance of Prison Revisited.

California’s Conflict with Federal Courts Shines A Light On Prisons

by

California’s prison dilemma is perhaps the most severe in the nation. Critics claim that twice as many prisoners are crammed into the state’s prison as is acceptable. A federal judicial panel has agreed with that assessment and demanded that the state come up with a plan to release 40,000 inmates over the next two years, as a necessary step in solving the problem of inadequate medical and mental health services.

Last week, the judges accepted  Governor Schwarzenegger’s offer to resolve the conflict (previously rejected by the legislature), but the judges postponed the effective date of their order pending U.S. Supreme Court consideration of it. Among other provisions, the governor’s plan would, allow some prisoners to be transferred to county jail, reduce penalties for some property thefts, allow expanded home detention, and in a more recent proposal (highlighted in his state of the state speech) transfer prisoners to privately run prisons (Details of Court Decision)

Without getting into the minutia of California’s prison disaster, it is instructive to the nation, and  points to an overwhelming need to take a fresh look at how we sentence, incarcerate, and release inmates from our jails and prisons. In California, there is $45 million dollars alone, available through Federal Cal EMA funding (largely federal stimulus funds), to explore ways to use probation based courts to keep offenders out of prison in the first place, and an additional $10 million available to investigate ways the courts can, for the first time, be part of the prison reentry process. These funds are clearly the tip of the iceberg, with $100 million in “Second Chance Act” funds and perhaps another $300 million in federal funds available nationwide (and that’s likely only the beginning of the reentry funding stream). Clearly, these are extraordinary times that offer both probation and prison-based reentry courts once in a life time opportunities, to provide innovative alternatives to failed prison policies.

California Leads with $10 Million in Reentry Court Funding

by

California has committed itself to  the largest prison-based reentry  demonstration project in the nation’s history. The RFP  released today through the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) provides $10 million in Federal stimulus funds for the Parolee Reentry Court Program to be administered by the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Parole Reentry Court Program, will provide between $1 and 1.5 million for two and one half years for up to seven prison-based reentry courts.  The demonstration grants will be open to jurisdictions that have well defined and implemented drug and mental health courts. Priority will be given to jurisdictions serving large numbers of  parolees and those with higher risks of recidivating.

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 the Corrections Agency will decide who is elligible for the program,  once a prisoner is assigned to a Parolee Reentry Court, the reentry court judge and team ( with the assistance of a team based parole officer) will have final say  until termination from the program.

Of Note: the program requires no matching funds from the court or local jurisdicition and retired judges may be contracted to preside over the reentry court.

Applications must be filed by March 1st. (For more information, see: Parolee Reentry Court Program)

Ten Reasons to Build A Reentry Court in 2010

by

The Reentry Process is nothing new to the Drug Court Practitioner. Drug court has always been a reentry mechanism; a seamless process for returning the drug offender from arrest and criminal adjudication , through community-based rehabilitation and monitoring, to the offender’s reintegration into the community. What is different in 2010, is the immediate need to expand drug courts into next-generation comprehensive reentry/drug courts. Consider the following reasons to expand your drug court into a reentry/drug court in 2010:

1.       There has been a sesmic shift in the nation’s attitude toward imprisonment and prisons. The entire nation seems desperately focused on the prison problem, and its financial and social costs,  New, untested (or tested and failed) reentry systems are positioning themselves as reform champions and therefore, recipients of prison reform funding (leaving the courts out in many instances).

3.       The Drug Court has been tested, evaluated, and analyzed over the past twenty years on an unparalleled scale. The scientific community has concluded that the drug court provides the most effective means to rehabilitate, hold accountable, and reintegrate the “high risk”, non-violent, drug involved offender back into the community. ( Doug Marlowe: A Sober Assessment of Drug Court). Reentry courts are, in fact, Drug Court models.

4.      The federal government  appears to recognize the success of the Drug Court model, when they encourage programs providing “evidence-based practices”, such as the seamless transitioning from custody to community, and graduated sanctions and incentives. Drug courts in large part pioneered those practices.

5.       The “Second Chance Act”, and other federal and state initiatives specifically emphasize the need for community-based “task forces”, that work collaboratively in integrating the offender into the community and sharing resources and funding streams to make the process truly a community-wide effort. Most Drug Courts have been engaged in community-wide collaborations since their inception.

6.       Reentry/Drug courts represent the future of the drug court field; a next  generation, comprehensive drug court that works with “high-risk, non-violent, drug involved offenders. The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), have  endorsed drug court on four separate occasions, since 2000, as the lynchpin of future court systems, emphasizing their effectivenesss in dealing with issues such as “recidivism”. (see CCJ Resolution 22/COSCA Resolution 4)

7.       Rather than re-inventing the wheel, the nation’s Reentry Reform Movement can take advantage of over two thousand drug courts already in existence. The court-based mechanisms that insure accountability, the trained personnel, the structure and community relationships are already in place. Decision-makers, from drug court practitioners,  to state drug court coordinators, to policy makers in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches need to be made aware of this, evidence-based, scientifically proven and cost-effective alternative.

8.       Probation or Jail-Based Reentry Courts (sometimes called Pre-entry Courts) represent the simplest solution to prison-overcrowding and reentry issues. The best way to deal with jail-overcrowding and reentry issues, is not to sentence the non-violent, high-risk drug offenders to prison in the first place, but  place those who would otherwise go to prison, under state court and probation jurisdiction, in next-generation, comprehensive reentry/ drug courts (see Reentry/Drug Court Model)

7.       Although somewhat more problematic ( as jurisdiction typically lies with the executive branch), prison-based reentry courts are being piloted in many states. Relying on innovative structures such as split-sentencing, or collaborative  sentencing systems that engage the returning offender in a seamless transition into the community, they appear to be an effective means  to hold ex-prisoners accountable as they engage in the reintegration process. (see Ten Prison-Based Reentry Models)

9.      While federal funding for drug courts increased substantially this year, state and county funding is being cut back in many jurisdictions. Reentry funding  on the other hand is expanding rapidly. The “Second Chance Act” alone, increased its funding four-fold to $100 million plus over last year. With an almost zealous intensity, state and federal authorities are determined to reduce funding for prison and prisoners, while seemingly intent to increase funding for prison alternatives and  reentry reform at an  increasing rate in the coming years.

10.    The impact of drug courts have been limited to little more than 5% of drug-involved offenders. It’s time for drug courts and their practitioners to step up and assert their place in the reentry process ( and in “reentry task forces” being formed in their communities), as the proven, and most successful approach to the “high-risk”, non-violent, drug-involved offenders that populate our jails and prisons. The opportunity to do so may not come again.

$20 Million SAMHSA/BJA Grant For Joint Drug Court Strategies

by

APPLICATION DUE DATE:  All applications are due by 8:00 p.m. eastern time on February 11, 2010.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMHSA ), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment ( CSAT ), in collaboration with U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs ( OJP ), Bureau of Justice Assistance ( BJA ), is accepting applications for FY 2010 grants to enhance the court services, coordination, and substance abuse treatment capacity of adult drug courts. The purpose of this joint initiative is to invite applicants to submit for consideration one comprehensive strategy for enhancing drug court capacity, allowing applicants to compete for access to both criminal justice and substance abuse treatment funds with one application. This effort is a unique opportunity for demonstrating effective ways of weaving federal funding sources to create comprehensive service approaches – in this case a system of a comprehensive support in an Adult Drug Court setting.

Under this program, grantees will receive two separate awards; BJA will fund the drug court component and CSAT will fund the substance abuse treatment component. A total of up to 31 grant awards of up to $625,000 ( $325,000 in SAMHSA substance abuse treatment funding and a one-time $300,000 in BJA drug court grant ) will be made to each grantee in FY 2010. Thereafter, SAMHSA will make annual awards, up to $325,000, per grantee for each of the remaining two years of the grant period.  The annual SAMHSA continuation awards will depend on the availability of funds, grantee progress in meeting project goals and objectives, timely submission of required data and reports, and compliance with all terms and conditions of award. [BJA/SAMHSA application]

Reentry Court Note: Funding for drug courts should be available for probation or jail based reentry courts.

Fed “Second Chance Act” Funding: $37 Million for Reentry Demos

by

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance  (BJA) released it’s RFP under Sec.101 of the “Second Chance Act”, providing $37 million in funding for Adult and Juvenile Reentry Demonstation Grants on December 22nd, (with an application deadline of March 4, 2010). We can expect more grants to come on line in the coming weeks and months. This year alone, funding under the “Second Chance Act” has increased nearly 400% to $100 million.

Dr. Gary L. Dennis, Senior Policy Advisor for Corrections, at BJA (and administrator of the “Second Chance Act”), advises  that  reentry courts are elligible as applicants for 2010 Reentry Demonstartion Grants. Even so, it may be prudent for reentry courts to accesss critical resources through government agency partners that may be more attractive applicants to BJA; such as  jails, prisons, probation, parole and rehabilitation services (remember that the 2010 “Second Chance Act” provides $10 million for reentry courts alone).

Don’t forget grant applicability to jail-based reentry courts or pre-entry courts

The  recently enacted “Second Chance Act” and other federal reentry legislation recognize the critical importance of keeping the non-violent offender out of prison in the first place. Whether called reentry/drug court, pre-entry court, or jail-based reentry court; a probation-based reentry court that places sentenced felons in custodial programs rather than prison, may access Sec.101 reentry demonstration project funds. [see Reentry/Drug Court Model]

Key Criteria For Reentry Demonstration Project funding:

1. Applicants are limited to state and local government agencies

2. Each grantee must have an active “task force” representing diverse community interests.

3. Applicants must provide description of the role of corrections agencies in reentry

4. Applicants must have a comprehensive, long-term reentry strategy

5. Applicants must provide information on how outcomes will be monitored and tracked

6. Priority  is given to applicants focused on areas with large numbers of returnees

7. Priority given to applicants providing effective case management in reentry processes.

8. Priority is given to applicants using graduated sanctions and Incentives as conditions of release or probation

[see BJA’s Complete Reentry Demomonstration Project Application/Critereia]

$10 Million Reentry Court Funding Passes Congress

by

EXTRA/EXTRA

On Decemeber 13th, Congress appropriated $10 million dollars for Reentry Courts under “Section 111” of the Second Chance Act.  In all, a total of $100 was appropriated under the  “Second Chance Act”.  Additionally the Department of Justice (DOJ)  provided $14 million for reentry initiatives within the Federal Bureau of  Prisons, and the Department of Labor earmarked $108 million for work/training related services. (see Reentry Policy Council press release)

“Second Chance  Act” funding is up four-fold from a year ago.   It should be noted that reentry courts and their community partners may be able to appropriately access far more than the funds made specifically available to “reentry courts”. Much of that money will be available to community based coalitions made up of government, non-profit, and  other community organizations. There may be more than $300 million available during fiscal year 2010 for community-based  coalitons that have a reentry  court as one of its partners.


Pre-entry Courts in the Age of Reentry

by

Pre-Entry Court is a county probation-based reentry court and an advanced next generation drug court, . Typically, non-violent drug offenders are placed on  probation, with a state prison sentence suspended, and the offender ordered to attend, participate, and complete an in-custody treatment program as a condition of probation ( for those legally inclined, “execution of sentence is suspended”).  In essence, rather than dealing with the  offender after they serve a prison term (with all its dibilitating consequences) they are given their last best opportunity to enter a “pre-entry court” (or a “before entry to  prison court”) and avoid a formal prison commitment.

For example,  County Jail-Based Reentry Courts offer the possibility of reducing state prison populations with their extraordinary costs,while providing the serious non-violent offender, the  seamless  monitoring, treatment, and rehabilitative services of  a comprehensive drug court.  (It can be confusing at first, to realize that there are two kinds of reentry courts, one dealing with prison reentry, the other with those returning from extended jail or other probation-based custodial programs.)

Optimally, Pre-entry Courts (typically county-jail based reentry courts)  engage the offender at the time of plea and assessment through sentencing, entry into, and completion from an in-custody rehabilitation program. When released from custodial status into the community, the pre-entry court judge and team continue to monitor the probationer through progress hearings and finally program graduation.

Ultimately, a pre-entry court will be part of a Next Generation Drug Court System, providing comprehensive drug court services  to returnees from jail, other county-based custodial programs,  probation revocations, prison (and more traditional drug court participants, who typically do not receieve  an immediate custodial sentence). The emergence of fledgling  pre-entry courts, while focused mostly on those with substance abuse problems, is an important development in criminal justice reform, and arguably the best way to reduce both prison over-crowding and prison reentry failure, whether offenders are drug involved or not. [for a unique example of a pre-entry court, see Dallas SAFPF Reentry Court]


© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team