admin – Page 6 – Reentry Court Solutions

California Realignment: Will the Courts help create Balance?

June 18, 2013June 18, 2013 by admin

The Best Of: The following article. published on April 15, 2012, describes the critical part the court can play in the development of balanced sentencing plans under California’a AB109 Realignment Reform.

Reading dozens of articles over the past six months on how California’s AB109 Realignment is being implemented is not for the faint of heart (see Facebook collumn on right for exemplars). An ACLU report complains that counties that historically sent the highest percentage of offenders to prison are being rewarded with extra resources to jail those returning, and additional funds to build or expand existing jails( click here for Mercury News Article on ACLU Report). Prosecutors, Sheriffs, and law enforcement in general decry the very existence of AB109; that non-violent offenders can be returned to the community without a terrible price being paid by law-abiding citizens (click for Law Enforcement concerns in Butte County). Probation offices and non-profit organizations (including community based agencies and religious institutions) generally favor giving individual offenders opportunities to engage in community based alternatives to incarceration( click here for article on Monterey County’s community-based initiatives). And so in community after community, county after county, they fight it out, generally law enforcement against probation and non-profit community organizations, with the court often often an uninvolved, yet interested observer.

The courts have an unprecedented opportunity to impact their community’s quality of life. We have operated in a somewhat dysfunctional system, that weighed heavily toward sending offenders to prison. We now have a chance to help create a more balanced and reasoned approach to sentencing and incarceration. One way to accomplish this will be to develop more effective “Special Sentencing Courts” (see “Systemic Approaches to Sentencing”), that make better sentencing, probation, and custody decisions, based on validated risk/needs assessment tools (and other evidence based sentencing practices). More importantly, the courts needs to get involved in their county’s realignment plan, by using their prestige and influence, to help establish a balanced community-wide approach to realignment. Problem-Solving/Collaborative Courts have shown communities that the courts can make a difference, by providing the vision and leadership for important criminal justice reforms. And so it can be with Sentencing Courts and Realignment.

Success will depend on the degree of cooperation and accomodation individual communities are capable of. Once again the court can weigh in on the side of a rational, reasoned approach. Success in the end may start and end with a community’s willingness to provide the returning offender with job, education, and housing opportunites, as well as rehabilitation programs that have scientifically proven themselves. Jailers and probation staff will need to rely on evidence-based risk/needs assessments to determine who really needs to return to jail, and who can be supervised and rehabilitated in the community. And the courts need to provide a sentencing system worthy of the community’s balanced realignment plan. It’s being attempted in a number of counties, and one can only wish them well. And hope that other communities will learn from their example (click here for article on San Diego Realignment Plan).

PEW: The First Survey on Recidivism

June 18, 2013June 18, 2013 by admin

THE BEST OF: This article, published on May 2, 2012, describes a PEW document from April 2011, that provides the data necessary for a comprehensive review of state prison systems. (click on the image on the left for a PDF of that document)

The PEW Center on the States recently released the first ever study on prison recidivism among the states. Released on April 13, 2011, “State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons”, provides state-by-state data on the rate that people return to prison. Nationally, the survey found that four in ten persons return to state prison within three years of their release.

Early Conservative Support for Drug Courts

June 18, 2013June 11, 2013 by admin

June 11, 2013

Richard A. Viguerie, a leading conservative figure, argues for Prison Reform, in an OP ED piece in the New York Times (click on image on the left for article). He argues that “Conservatives known for being tough on crime should now be equally tough on failed, too-expensive criminal programs. They should demand more cost-effective approaches that enhance public safety and the well-being of all Americans”.

While it’s wonderful that the conservative movement appears to support Prison and Sentencing Reform, the law enforcement community and its conservative allies provided key support for alternatives to prison (read: Drug Court) as early as the mid 90’s.

I had the opportunity to observe this phenomenum up close. While I found limited local law enforcement and conservative support for Drug Court in the early 1990’s, the environment began to change by 1994. When I returned to D.C., as the President of the newly formed National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), the political climate had changed, but not necessarily for the better.

The Republican party had taken over the Congress in 1994, and it wasn’t clear that funding for drug courts written into the budget by the Clinton administration would survive. It would take support for drug courts from key republican committee chairs and members, to fund the nascent drug courts. This could be described as a critical point in the drug court movement’s development, when this new innovation could have easily faltered without adequate funding.

I saw my job, as NADCP’s President, to encourage and provide support to drug court judges, D.A.s and others who were willing to visit their Congressional members, both in D.C. and at home. It was their job to convince those Congressional leaders that drug courts worked and deserved federal funding. I contacted Drug Court judges from key states with Republican Chairs or influential congressmen, I encouraged drug court judges to visit D.C.and meet with congressional members, and I made sure that visiting judges had talking points and other information to rely on in private conversations. I had no idea how successful a strategy that was to be.

It turned out that the judges (especially) liked to work the halls of congress and were more than willing to move to the fore in supporting drug court funding and visiting with their members of Congress. Many a judge went to school or belonged to the same social circle or clubs as our state and congressional leaders. Drug Court Judges invited their congressmen and local political leaders to visit their drug court (preferably at a graduation, when they would be given the opportunity to speak at the ceremony, before the media). Many of the important Committee Chairs had drug courts and drug court judges from their jurisdictions advocating for drug court funding. And it didn’t matter much whether they were democrat or republican, liberal or conservative.

While many a new program died that political season, drug courts received there first ever federal funding from a Republican controlled Congress.

Byrne Grant Funding; Then and Now

June 7, 2013June 3, 2013 by admin

June 3, 2013

“The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013” (further described in the Facebook article on the right), would, if enacted, require localities to include representatives of a number of different professions, besides traditional police and custodial agencies, in distributing the largest federal grant earmarked for public safety, known as Byrne JAG grants. As part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Byrne Jag grants provide funds to state and local governments for criminal justice purposes.

Byrne Grants have been around for a long time. As an example of how important these funding streams can be to nascent (and even an established specialty court program), I will describe my personal experiences with the state-wide California Criminal Justice Task Force, tasked with distributing Byrne grants statewide (on the left, a much younger me; circa 1991)

In 1991, I was casting about for funds to support the nascent Oakland drug court. I learned that the federal government distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to California through Byrne grants, and that rehabilitation and treatment of criminal offenders came under one of the discretionary purposes of the Act. I also learned that both local and state wide law enforcement were committed to keeping the funding for themselves. I began to attend yearly hearings held by the statewide Criminal Justice Task Force to request that drug courts be funded. At that time, the Task Force was made up almost entirely of law enforcement professionals The first time I stood to speak at a hearing held in Oakland, I got a puzzled look from the members of the Task Force. But I went back the next year and the next, and encouraged others to speak for drug courts at similar hearings held around the state.

Finally, the Director of the Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP), who also chaired the Criminal Justice Task Force nominated me to be a Task Force member (perhaps as a means of keeping me away from the podium). At that time, few, except those in law enforcement seemed to know when or where the meetings were to be held (although I am sure the official notices of the meeting could be found in some obscure publication). I sent my own notices to those who supported drug court: judges, legislators, county officials, criminal justice and treatment professionals, and many who were interested in starting a drug court in their jurisdiction.

As you can imagine, there was a flood of speakers over the next several years appearing and speaking out for drug courts. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that at least half of the speakers attending meetings while I was on the Task Force, were there to support drug courts. What followed was a $500,000 grant to statewide drug courts in 1995 and two one million dollars grants to follow. When I returned to California from D.C. in 2002, the number of California drug courts had increased from four to over 150. While there were obviously other reasons for the explosion of drug courts in California, the start up Byrne funding was clearly an important funding source to the nascent field, and also a symbol to all that drug courts were here to stay.

Cal. budget modifies prison realignment reform

May 27, 2013 by admin

May 27, 2013

The first major revisions to California’s Prison Reform Act (also known as AB109), have been made as a part of Governor Brown’s Budget Revisions submitted May 14th to the legislature. Among several proposed criminal justice provisions, is a paragraph that could have a substantial impact on the future of prison reform in California (click on image on left for full Budget Revision).

From the brief section on Corrections and Rehabilitation:

“Long‐Term Offenders—The May Revision proposes additional tools to assist counties in managing long‐term offenders. The proposal authorizes CDCR to house long‐term offenders, provided the county agrees to accept an equivalent average daily population of short‐term offenders. The proposal relies on County Parole Boards to make the determination to send long‐term inmates to state prison after inmates have served three years of their sentence in a county jail. Lastly,the proposal establishes a presumption of a minimum level of split sentencing, but authorizes a judge to make an exception if the judge determines that a split sentence is not appropriate.”

California’s Prison Realignment Reform (also known as AB109), was largely about keeping less serious offenders in county jail and under county supervision. Counties and county judges are forced to be more realistic and rational when sentencing offenders to long term county jail terms. Prior to Realignment Reform, it was common for judges to sentence offenders to long prison terms, where the county kept neither jurisdiction, nor financial responsibility for the prisoner’s incarceration. California Realignment Reform is important because it forces county officials to calculate the costs as opposed to the benefits of long terms of local incarceration, steering sentences toward shorter terms for non-serious offenders and the use of alternatives to incarceration.

One possible benefit found in the announced proposal is the final rider to the provision, “the proposal establishes a presumption of a minimum level of split sentencing, but authorizes a judge to make an exception if the judge determines that a split sentence is not appropriate.” Judges have been reluctant to sentence non-serious offenders to split sentences. This provision will encourage judges to use at least minimum split sentencing, allowing for alternative sentencing, probation involvement, incentive-based supervision, and continued judicial supervision.

It is unclear what ultimate impact this provision (if enacted) will have, how it will be administered by Parole Boards, and whether it will have a significant impact on existing realignment reform. Clearly, if it becomes law, it will need to be closely monitored.

Cal Prison Report shows Post-Realignment arrests down

May 20, 2013 by admin

May 20, 2013

A new study conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shows that arrests post-realignment are down compared to pre-realignment. Among the finding released in the report (click on image on the left for PDF of report):

•    Post-Realignment offenders were arrested at a lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders (62 percent pre-Realignment and 58.7 percent post-Realignment).
•    The rate of post-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes is nearly the same as the rate of pre-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes (21.3 percent pre-realignment and 22.5 percent post realignment).
•    Post-Realignment offenders returned to prison at a significantly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders, an intended effect of Realignment as most offenders are ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation. (42 percent pre-Realignment and 7.4 percent post-Realignment)

A Federal Drug Court Funding Restriction

May 6, 2013May 6, 2013 by admin

May 6, 2013

A distinctive article, written by Harold Pollack, Eric Sevigny and Peter Reuter, and published in the Huffington Post was reviewed on this website last week (The Trouble with Reentry Courts…). It described how drug courts, while reaching half of U.S. counties, don’t work enough with the population in greatest need, the high risk drug offender or serious offender with a dependence on drugs and/or alcohol. A recent proposal from the Bureau of Justice Programs (BJA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) may unintentionally institutionalize that unfortunate circumstance.

The most striking feature of that proposal is a restriction that has only been part of the Drug Court Funding Program since 2012: “Note: Applicants must demonstrate that eligible drug court participants promptly enter the drug court program following a determination of their eligibility. A required initial period of incarceration will be grounds for disqualification unless the period of incarceration is mandated by statute for the offense in question. In such instances, the applicant must demonstrate the offender is receiving treatment services while incarcerated if available and begins drug court treatment services immediately upon release (click on image on the left for a PDF of the BJA/SAMSA Request for Proposal).

Knowing that drug courts are intensive programs, specially designed to work with high risk offenders, who often have serious and/or violent criminal histories, the restriction noted above appears ill-advised. We know that the Congress restricts federally funded drug court programs to non-violent offenders (42 U.S.C. 3797u-2).Only Congress can change that ill-advised restriction. To add that, those who serve a term in custody are also prohibited from BJA/SAMSA funding appears to contradict the RFP’s rationale. From the text at page 7; “Grant funds must be used to serve high risk/high need populations diagnosed with substance dependence or addiction to alcohol/other drugs and identified as needing immediate treatment”.

This may be a classic example of unintended consequences. The relatively new provision, admirably encourages jurisdictions to reduce their reliance on incarceration as a response to drug dependence, by prohibiting drug court participants from being sentenced to custody. Unfortunately, it may have a far greater impact on the demographics of the offender class entering federally funded drug courts. Many drug dependent, high risk offenders, will have committed serious offenses (but not violent offenses) and have extensive criminal histories. To most judges, their criminal behaviors cry out for a custodial response. To the more enlightened , they also cry out for involvement in an intensive drug court program. What now appears to be the case, is that that an otherwise eligible drug court participant, if sentenced to drug treatment in custody, may not be transitioned into a drug court program on that same case post custody. Of course, savy, experienced drug court judges will find their way around the restriction. But the principle (so bolded) will have its impact upon the elligibility requirements of a great many drug courts.

Once again, these are the serious, high risk, high need drug dependent offenders that the research says need to be in drug court programs. In the real world, a petty thief, or car burglar, with a long history of similar crimes will almost always receive time in jail as a consequence of their current and/or past criminal behaviors. That might be a day, a week, a month , a year in county jail, or a term in state prison. Under the new grant restriction, an otherwise appropriate candidate would be excluded (unless he met the limited, mandated incarceration exception to the prohibition; see bolded text above).

This restriction will close the door to many if not most serious offenders with drug dependencies, who might face a term of custody. It seemingly precludes a collaborative and hopefully seamless application of proven drug court practices for those individuals while in custody and upon release and transition to a drug court program through probation or parole services.. It is not an effective approach to reducing recidivism or protecting society (these folks will soon be in your community with or without the intensive supervision and treatment provided by a drug court).

An American University Technical Assistance Project Report, “LOOKING AT DRUG COURTS AFTER TWO DECADES”, published in July of 2012, provides an important historical context. Drug Courts need to “continually move to the more difficult populations – defendants whose drug use is fueling criminal behavior and who may have criminal histories that might have barred them from the program in the past.”

[This article is an independent analysis of 2013 BJA/SAMSA grant funding for Drug Courts; it was not written with the knowledge, consultation, or approval of any other persons or organizations]

The Trouble with Reentry Courts……

April 29, 2013April 29, 2013 by admin

April 29, 2013

In the title of this blog and its substance, I am extrapolating on issues presented in an excellent article, “How to Make Drug Courts Work”, authored by Harold Pollack, Eric Sevigny and Peter Reuter, published in the Washington Post (April 26,2013). The issues explored relating to drug courts are almost identical to those facing other problem-solving courts or specialty courts, including reentry courts.

In the Post article, its authors lament that drug courts and other specialty courts are slated to receive $80 million with possibly little to show for it. They point out that although numerous (half of all counties claim to have a drug court), they average only 50 participants. More significantly, too many courts stick to a limited, and political cautious approach to their specialty courts. By that i mean they screen out the serious or violent offender, and work with those who need the intensive specialty court services the least. As Professor Ed Latessa has highlighted in his research at the University of Cincinati; spending money, resources and energy on low to medium risk offenders, whose offenses are non-serious and non-violent is a poor use of limited resources (see in this website: “High Risk Offenders do Better in Half-Way Houses”). As the article’s authors succinctly put it,”Drug courts could be more helpful in reducing crime and incarceration, but only if they become more ambitious and less risk-averse by taking in populations likely to serve real time”.

And here is where Reentry Courts come in. Reentry Courts don’t focus on drug abusers unless they have a serious drug dependency. They do focus on offenders coming out of custody who have served “real time” for serious and/or violent offenses. That is their purpose, whether there is a drug dependency or not. Keep in mind that these offenders will overwhelmingly be released with or without the serious supervision and rehabilitation services of a Reentry Court. What possible sense does it make, to work with those who pose the least risk to society and benefit the least from an intensive intervention like Drug or Reentry Court.

The authors argue that drug courts [and reentry courts by extension] widen the net of formal social control. That “Even if these drug court participants had been incarcerated, many would likely have received short terms, often in county jails, for less than a year”. It is as if fishermen were to pull in their nets and throw the big fish back and harvest the small fish. It is not logical, does not make our communities safer or serve them well. But we continue to keep the small fry, and let the big fish return to the wild.

“Second Chance Act” Celebrates 5th Anniversary

April 29, 2013 by admin

April 29,2013

[The Second Chance Act, administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), within the Department of Justice (DOJ), has provided hundreds of millions of dollars for reentry projects in every state of the union. Below, the National Reentry Resource Center, provides highlights of BJA’s administration of the “Act” (click on image on left for PDF of National Reentry Resource Center Document)]

The Second Chance Act: The First Five Years

This month marks the five-year anniversary of the Second Chance Act, the landmark legislation authorizing federal grants to support programs aimed at improving outcomes for people leaving prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities and reducing recidivism. The bill also funds research and evaluation projects and created the National Reentry Resource Center, a clearinghouse of information relating to prisoner reentry. Through its broad scope and innovative approach, the bill has had a significant impact on all stakeholders: individuals and families in need of services; communities and governments seeking strategies to increase public safety and reduce costs; researchers looking to inform, advance, and disseminate their work; and practitioners interested in enhancing their programs and sharing best practices with others in the field.

The grant program currently funds eight different types of projects: demonstration projects involving the planning and/or implementation of a reentry initiative for adults or juveniles, mentoring services for adults or juveniles, family-based substance abuse treatment for incarcerated parents, reentry courts, programs targeting individuals with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders, funding for state departments of corrections to achieve recidivism reductions through planning and capacity-building, evidence-based strategies in probation supervision, and programs providing training in technology careers. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) manages the juvenile demonstration and juvenile mentoring projects, while the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the U.S. Department of Justice manages all the other projects.

To date, BJA and OJJDP have awarded nearly 500 Second Chance Act grants to state, local, and tribal government agencies and nonprofit organizations across 48 states and the District of Columbia, totaling nearly $250 million. Representing a wide range in geography, size, and program design, the grantee programs display the different ways that reentry strategies can be applied in jurisdictions.

Reflecting the importance of reentry as a process that begins during incarceration, grantees must serve individuals both in pre-release and post-release stages. According to BJA’s latest performance reports on its Second Chance Act grantees, the grantees served more than 11,000 participants in pre-release programs and nearly 9,500 participants in post-release programs from July 2011 to June 2012. The vast majority of participants are assessed as medium or high risk, which is in line with research that shows that focusing services and resources on higher-risk individuals has the strongest impact on recidivism.

Some programs have already seen reduced recidivism rates among the people they serve within the first few years of the grant program. For the Harlem Parole Reentry Court in New York, which has received two Second Chance Act grants, preliminary results from an ongoing evaluation showed that the rate of reincarceration at 12 months after release of 14.7 percent for program participants was 24 percent less than a comparison group’s rate of 19.3 percent. The reentry court serves medium- and high-risk adults in Harlemand offers a combination of intensive case management, parole supervision, judicial intervention, clinical services, and other support services. Furthermore, the program employs the evidence-based practice of graduated sanctions and incentives to promote compliance and accountability.

In addition, Second Chance Act grantees have achieved positive outcomes on a number of other measures, including employment, education, family reunification, and pro-social relationships. For instance, the Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma, a 2010 Adult Mentoring grantee, has found that 74 percent of the participants who received employment development services have since obtained employment.

The positive impact of the Second Chance Act can perhaps be best conveyed by the program participants themselves. Since early 2012, the Council of State Governments Justice Center has interviewed program administrators and participants and shared their individual stories in the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) website and newsletter. The people featured have included: Wade, a Los Angeles man in his fifties whose participation in the Amity Foundation’s mentoring program helped him overcome his addiction to heroin and become a mentor himself; Frankie, a father in New Mexico who enrolled in PB&J Family Services’ program while in prison and received help finding employment and parenting pre- and post-release; and Janelle, a young woman with co-occurring bipolar and substance abuse disorders who found a job and returned to school after receiving treatment from the Ohio Department of Youth Services’ Second Chance Act-funded program in Franklin County. Each of these stories represents the success and promise of the Second Chance Act and initiatives focusing on prisoner reentry across the country.

Also funded by the Second Chance Act, the NRRC has made great strides in advancing reentry work by promoting and disseminating key information for practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and others in the field. In addition to the website and newsletter, the NRRC offers webinars each month. Recent topics have included work release centers, electronic technology in supervision, and the needs of women in the criminal justice system. The NRRC also produces reports and guides to inform reentry work in practical and constructive ways. Its most recent product is a series of checklists with targeted guidance for state corrections departments and policymakers on building reentry initiatives to reduce recidivism.

The Second Chance Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 9, 2008, after receiving bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. The bill authorizes up to $165 million per year in grant funds.

California Struggles to Continue Prison Reform

April 23, 2013April 22, 2013 by admin

April 22,2013

California is being pushed toward furthering prison reform goals by a three judge panel that has just reaffirmed its 2009 order to reduce the prison population to 109,000 o 137.5% of prison capacity. As the result of a far reaching prison reform statute (AB109, passed in 2011), the prison population has been reduced by 23,000 inmates since October 2011. to 119,542 or 149.5% of capacity..

California Governor Jerry Brown (image on the left) has argued that California have complied with the court’s order; that California prisons are habitable and its health care system adequate. The court disagreed. On April 12, the three judge panel,U.S. District Judges Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento and Thelton Henderson in San Francisco and Stephen Reinhardt, of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles — demand that the state reduce its prison population by another 9,500 inmates as per their previous order.The court threatened Brown and other government officials with contempt of court. The Court extended the original deadline for the reduction from June, to December. Governor Brown promised to appeal the courts decision tot the U.S. Supreme Court.

California has been able to reduce its inmate population substantially by keeping low-level offenders in local jails instead of sending them to state prisons (and restricting the ability of parole or the courts to return them to prison). Progress toward meeting the cap has slowed, however, and officials have been reluctant to consider other ways to ease crowding. on the ground that further steps to free up space in prisons would “unnecessarily jeopardize public safety”( Los Angeles Times)..

The judges disagreed. “Releasing comparatively low-risk inmates somewhat earlier than they would otherwise have been released has no adverse effects on public safety. The state could meet the year-end deadline by transferring elderly and ill prisoners to community-based facilities, paroling some aging inmates who are serving terms of up to life in prison but pose little risk, and increasing sentence reductions for good behavior” (San Francisco Chronicle)

I believe that the court is correct. The reduction in prison population by 9500 prisoners can be reached by releasing those who are infirm, aged, or deemed little risk to public safety. But that is just the beginning of our task. If Brown reduces California’s prison population to 109,000, the states’s prisons will still be 137.5% over capacity. California prisons need to reduce their populations below capacity. That will be a good start toward real prison reform in California, where only the serious and dangerous offender is sent to state prison (for a brief analysis as to how this might be accomplished , see on this website: Longer is not necessarily Better)

Tragic Murder of Colorado Corrections Chief

April 7, 2013 by admin

April 8, 2013

It’s been hard to follow the horrific story coming out of Colorado over the past weeks. The Colorado Corrections Chief Tom Clements was murdered outside of his home, by Evan Ebel, a recently released state prison parolee ( see Denver Post article, March 31, 2013)

The story is complicated and continues to evolve, with the arrest of a white supremacist prison ringleader for questioning. But rather than review the evidence relating to the homicide, this might be a good time to look at the possible causes, problems and consequences of the murder of Tom Clements (image at left; Lisa Clements, the widow of Tom Clements, speaks at his public memorial at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, on March 25)

This story id not going away, Governor Hickenlooper has just announced a sweeping review of the state’s prison and parole operations, along with a request of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to investigate parole procedures in Colorado. These are, in fact, appropriate steps to be taken after the shocking murder of the Corrections Chief. But even in this incredibly horrific example of parole gone wrong, there are important lessons to be learned. and they go beyond some of the claims that parolee Ebel was erroneously released four years early on a twelve year term.

I’m not convinced that there was an actual clerical error involved in this case. Apparently the judge did not state that the sentences should run consecutive, so the clerk indicated they would run concurrent (the same time credited for two different sentences). Many states consider that kind of judicial mistake (after all it was the judge who failed to state the offenses were to run consecutive), to be an act of clemency and run the sentences concurrent as a matter of law. But really this is just one of a number of red herrings in this case.

Evan Ebel was seriously mentally ill. He had spent his last two years in prison in administrative segregation (read solitary). He was released directly from solitary onto the streets of Denver with no special preparation, or even half-way house residency. He was a time bomb ready to explode. It most likely would have happened, but with another victim under other circumstances.

Remember few prisoners spend their lives in prison. In Ebel’s case, he was sentenced to an eight year prison term and had four years tacked on for assaulting a prison officer. Prison officials had plenty of notice that Ebel would be reentering society. Everyone in contact with him must have known it was not going to be easily accomplished. But there was an opportunity to prepare for it.

It may be that Evan Ebel was one of those persons who will be horribly violent no matter what is done to prevent it. But there is no information that he received any special prison supervision (except for 2 years of Solitary) as he approached release or when he was released into the community under the supervision of parole officials (though there were apparently therapeutic conditions for parole).

This is one of those occasions when one particularly horrible crime can destroy the momentum toward prison and parole reform. Stop all reform because there has been a horrible crime. To few consider that there are horrible crimes committed whether we release some offenders early and/or apply alternatives to prison to others. In Colorado, the statistics suggest that prison reform was working. Crime has plunged by 30% over the past four years, but that fact is likely to be buried in the lamentations over this terrible crime. The irony of the matter is that Tom Clements was the leader in efforts to reform the corrections system and reduce the number of prisoners in Colorado prisons.

There will likely be many scape goats in this story before it goes away; from prison officials to mental health counselors , judges, to court clerks, parole officials to parole officers, and on up to the governor. It may be best to remember that there will be horrible crime that we cannot prevent, and that ultimately it is society’s job to reduce those crimes to an absolute minimum, but we won’t ever be able to stop them all. And that locking people up for longer and longer prison terms, or keeping them in solitary confinement for long periods is a fool’s answer to a very complex problem.

BJA Second Chance Grant Announced

April 1, 2013 by admin

April 1, 2013

From the National Reentry Resource Center:

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance released the Adult Co-Occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders Second Chance Act grant solicitation. State, local, and tribal governments are invited to apply for this funding to improve outcomes for adults with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders through the provision of appropriate evidence-based services and treatment both during and after incarceration.

To download this solicitation, click on the image to the left

Letter of Commendation to Senator Paul

April 1, 2013 by admin

NOTE: Last week, I wrote of Senator Rand Paul’s support for the “The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013″ and his positions on other criminal justice issues (see article immediately below). Here is the letter i sent to him (as promised), for publication, and your consideration.

April 1, 2013

208 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Paul,

I am writing as a retired California Judge, and editor of a small internet site focused on prison reform (“reentrycourtsolutions.com” ).

I wish to commend you for your co-authoring of “The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013″, a federal prison reform bill, with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. I was heartened by your position against federal mandatory sentencing in that bill as well as your position that too many offenders are being sent to federal prisons for terms that are out of proportion to the offenses committed.

As someone who favors prison reform, I sincerely hope that you will continue to speak out on criminal justice and prison reform issues. I believe that your positions on these and other criminal justice issues are placing you at the forefront of those concerned about the ascendance of oppressive practices that threaten out constitutional rights and threaten our personal liberties.

Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.)

Editor, Reentry Court Solutions

Senate Bill to modfiy Mandatory Minimums

March 25, 2013March 25, 2013 by admin

Two sentators, Leahy of Vermont, and Rand of Kentucky, have introduced far-reaching legislation, “The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013”. The bill, if passed, gives federal judges greater latitude in making sentencing decisions. Ultimately, this could be the beginning of the end of “Federal Mandatory Minimums”.

What is so extraordinary about this effort is not that Democratic Senator Leahy has introduced the bill, or that it is bipartisan effort, but who the republican co-sponsor of the bill is. Rand Paul has been making a name for himself, taking libertarian stands on everything from filibustering the use of drones within the U.S., to adocating for non-custodial sentences for marijuana users . His championing of flexibility for federal judges’ sentencing, should be a clear sign to the right that this is a safe position to take in the battle over prison reform.

Paul is quoted as saying “Our country’s mandatory minimum laws reflect a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which undermines the Constitutional Separation of Powers, violates the our bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money without making them any safer. This bill is necessary to combat the explosion of new federal criminal laws, many of which carry new mandatory minimum penalties.”

I could not have said it any better. Alllies sometimes come from the strangest places. I am going to write him a letter, thanking him for taking his position on federal manatory minimums. This might be a good use of your time as well. I’ll release mine, when the next edition of RCS is published, next Monday,

Cal. Repub introduce bill to roll back Realignment

March 25, 2013March 25, 2013 by admin

March 25, 2013

Senaor Morell (R-Rancho Cucamonga), introduced a bill last week that would substantially alter the realignment reform Plan currenty in place in California. Republican leaders in the state Senate and Assembly had included Morrell’s bill as part of a 13-point plan to reform “realignment. The Assembly Public Safety Committee voted Morell’s bill down March 12 on a party-line vote.

Among other substantial modifications, was a change in the law that would allow those with a three year sentence or greater, to be sent to State Prison. It isn’t strain see how that modification would devastate the current realignment’s intent to keep less serious offenders under county supervision, and financial responsibility with the county. The provision alone is a major reason that state prisons populations have been reduced by over 40,000 prisoners over the past two years.