Court-Based Realignment | Reentry Court Solutions

Judges and Post-Sentencing Discretion

Posted on April 15, 2013 by admin

April 15, 2013

Recently there was a tragedy in Colorado that exposed the vulnrbility of the judge in sentencing matters. A violent and mentally ill offender was sentenced to 8 years in prison and an additional 4 years for assaulting a prison official. That same offender killed two men within a month of his direct release into the community from administrative custody (solitary confinement). One of the men murdered was the Director of Corrections, Tom Clement (photo image on left). That single parolee has temporarily slowed the movement in Colorado toward prison reform.

The issue faced by the courts and judiciary in sentencing offenders, is whether they should remain involved with the offender until he or she completes both the sentence and post-sentence supervision. If you are the sentencing judge or a judge involved in post-sentecing decision-making, you may come to regret a decision that the public comes to see as a mistake.

It is one reason that judges are reluctant to engage returning offenders from prison or reduce prison terms as allowed by statute. Judges can and should be a part of a process to move an offender from prison into post-prison rehabilitation and supervision in the community. But the agencies and institutions responsible for preparing the prisoner for release and the the supervising authority in charge of the offender once released must have the resources, expertise, and commitment to make the post sentence release work for the community, the court and the offender.

To put it simply, if the sentencing process, the custodial experience, or the release process are seen as inadequate, the court and judge maybe be vulnerable to a backlash that could cost the judge his or her job.. It is that reason, among others, that hold many judges back from releasing offenders early or getting involved in post sentence supervision of offenders.

In the case of the alleged Colorado murderer. he was recognized as someone with a serious mental problem and a danger to the community. His mental illness and violent tendencies were so severe that he spent the last two years of his sentence in isolation. There are unanswered questions at this time as to the nature, intensity and quality of the treatment and services provided after he was sentenced, and the lack of transitional housing and intensive supervision when he was released [there is some issue as to the court and/or judge's error in sentencing the offender, but any court/judge error was not post-sentence]

This issue goes far beyond the tragedy in Colorado. Many states (including West Virginia, where judges have new discretion under prison reform legislation) allow their judges to alter prison terms or add supervision terms to released offenders.California has put in place one of the most progressive sentencing and prison reform processes in the nation. Offenders who are sentenced on non-violent, non-serious offenses to prison, actually serve their sentences in county jail. If the sentencing judge wishes to, he or she can maintain jurisdiction over the offender while in custody and reduce the custodial term and/or order probation supervision for the offender when released into the community

Even though this discretion exists, over 80% of California’s eligible offenders are sentenced to straight custody, with no probation or supervisory term attached. Judges are clearly reluctant to accept discretion to resentence or reduce a prison term or attach probation and/or other continuing judicial supervision.

It is unclear whether different custody conditions or treatment would have made a difference in the Colorado case. But the involvement of the court in post-sentencing is a fundamental change that should not be abandoned because of the court’s fear of reprisals. It is only through the courts effective partnering in post-sentencing systems, that we can provide the improvement in sentencing outcomes we so desire. I’ll have more to say about this issue on next weeks website (see 12 part article on sentencing systems).

Cal. Repub introduce bill to roll back Realignment

Posted on March 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.

The easy part of prison reform

Posted on February 11, 2013 by admin

Feb.10,2013

According to the Sacramento Bee, “Gov. Jerry Brown had his “Mission Accomplished” moment…… He believes “victory should be declared” in the state’s prison overcrowding crisis” He was also quoted as saying”California’s prison health care system is now a model for the nation,” and that any further reduction in state prisoners would endanger the public’s safety.

Clearly the Governor has much to be proud of. He had pushed through the legislature, AB109, a bill that reduced prison populations by about 50,000 prisoners in a year, and fought successfully for Proposition 30, making billions of dollars available to counties impacted by Brown’s transitioning of responsibility for non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex-offenders to the counties. Still, what has been accomplished is the first part, the easy part of prison reform, More complicated and critical reforms have not begun to be addressed.

State prisons still house offenders who could do better in their own communities, even if it means spending additional time in county jail. AB109 was intended to encourage alternatives to incarceration, but relatively few counties are accepting that challenge, Instead most are expanding and/or building new jail facilities. Somehow, we must encourage counties to spend more of their Proposition 30 money on alternatives to prison rather than jail substitutes for prison. One obvious reform would be to encourage judges to sentence AB109 offenders to spit sentences (offenders who must be housed in jail, even though the offense is defined as a prison offense), so that the court could supervise their jail conduct and rehabilitation in the community. More than 80% of AB109 offenders sentenced to jail receive a jail sentence that cannot be reduced or transferred to community supervision.

While Governor Brown’s prison reform limits those sent to prison to more serious offenders, it ignores the doubling of prison sentences for serious offenders over the past twenty years. Why assume that the legislature’s response to sensational crime with ever increasing penalties is rational or justified. Why assume that the labyrinth of sentencing law and enhancements make sense or are necessary or appropriate.

Then there are the obvious reforms that almost everyone supports, but for some reason are almost never implemented. Drug, alcohol and mental health treatment, education, and job training while the offender is in custody, is almost universally supported by the public. Half-Way Houses or similar Institutions, that allow the offender to transition to the outside, while continuing under custodial or other substantial supervision are also favored by most. Finally, continued oversight of the offender while in the community, under the care and supervision of the court and supervisory agencies (through AB109 split sentencing or reentry courts) is a necessity for most successful prisoner rehabilitation.

It’s easy to see that the governor has done well in beginning the prison reform process in California. Stopping now, without continuing and expanding its scope, providing resources, assistance, and supervision to those coming out of custody, will surely set the incarcerated up for continued failure and and a return to custody.

New Study Supports California Realignment Reform

Posted on February 4, 2013 by admin

Jan. 28, 2013

From a press release by CSG:

“A study has been released by the Council of State Governments, entitled The Impact of Probation and Parole Populations on Arrests in Four California Cities” (click on image on the left for a PDF copy). The study attempts to answer a question that to date has been a matter of speculation among law enforcement and corrections officials everywhere: to what extent do people on probation and parole contribute to crime, as measured by arrests?

Researchers at the CSG Justice Center collected and matched more than 2.5 million arrest, probation, and parole records generated between January 1, 2008 and June 11, 2011. Collecting and analyzing the data required the efforts of 11 independent agencies, including four local police jurisdictions, four county probation agencies, two county sheriffs’ departments, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Among the most notable findings in these four jurisdictions:

The majority of all adult felony and misdemeanor arrests were of people who were not currently under supervision. People under supervision accounted for only 22 percent of total arrests.
Whereas people under probation and parole supervision accounted for one out of every six arrests for violent crimes, they accounted for one out of every three drug arrests.
During a 3.5 year period in which total arrests fell by 18 percent, the number of arrests involving individuals under parole supervision declined by 61 percent and by 26 percent for individuals under probation supervision.”

It is argued that the 3.5 year study, immediately preceding the implementation of California’s Realignment Reform (starting in October, 2011) provides evidence of Realignment’s success. This preliminary information should encourage the legislature to move forward with rational prison reform, the simplification of the state’s sentencing laws, and the reduction in the extraordinary prison terms for violent crimes (that have doubled over the past thirty years).

On the other hand, sceptics of realignment, argue for an independent study of realignment, commissioned by the legislature, to determine the true effect of realignment ( see article by Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee). To my mind, it is too early to come to any definitive conclusions, but that data should continue to be collected, while California moves forward with prison reform.

Longer sentences are not necessarily better

Posted on January 28, 2013 by admin

Jan. 28, 2013

Last week, I presented the Center for Juvneile and Criminal Justice Center’s Lizzie Buchen, whose article, “For real prison reform, look beyond the non, non, nons”, argued that research coming out of the PEW Center of the States, supports the position that longer sentences are a major reason for the explosion in prison populations and the enormous cost of keeping prisoners locked up. (PDF of the PEW article, “Time Served; The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms”)

This week, Lizzie Buchen, follows with a second article, that argues for a California Sentencing Commission; “Even for violent crimes, longer is not always better” She writes,

“For the offender, longer is certainly not better: As the years go by, inmates often become more distant from their families and communities, less employable, and more deeply ingrained in prison culture (becoming “institutionalized”), all factors that hamper reentry”.

Finally, I would argue that the public’s hunger for safety (1000 sentencing bills passed by the legislature over the past three decades), is a serious problem that we need to come to grips with. How long is enough? Why does California have an almost impenetrable web of sentencing law. California’s sentencing grid is a constantly changing labyrinth of overlapping, entangling, and bewildering law that is truly understood by the few who have taken upon themselves the task of enlightening the criminal justice field. These are unacceptable circumstances that need to be addressed by the governor and the legislature, through a Sentencing Commission, that can rationally and reasonably review, clarify and simplify our maze of sentencing laws.

Disagreement on Impact of FBI statistics

Posted on January 28, 2013 by admin

Jan. 28,2013

The FBi’s release of California crime statistics unleashed charges from both pro and anti-realignemnt advocates. Each side claimed that the statistics supported their position as to the effect of realignment reform upon crime in California. A January 24th LA Times article articulated the positions of both sides.

“The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation said that statistics released by the FBI, show a 7.6% increase in homicide and double-digit increases in burglary and auto thefts the first half of 2012 when compared to the first six months of 2011″.

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, on the other hand, found there was “ no connection between those changes and places with the proportion of “realigned offenders,” individuals who would have gone to prison in the past but are now the wards of counties. In fact, crime rates dropped in five counties receiving a disproportionate share of those new prisoners.”

And so the argument as to realignment and its impact upon crime levels continues. With conservative and many law enforcement agencies decrying the return of prisoners to county supervision and custody, as a danger to public safety. And so-called reformers and human-rights advocates arguing that realignment is working, and where there are problems, they are caused by the government’s reluctance to take the reforms further and to provide the resources and support required for such a major shift in prison policy.

California prison terms for violent criminals more than double

Posted on January 21, 2013 by admin

In an article published by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Center disputes Governor Brown’s argument that all those who could safely be released from prison had already been released. The Center relies in part on a recent study by the Pew Center for the States (click on image on the left, to obtain a PDF of the PEW article, “Time Served; The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms”)

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, relying on PEW data, argues that ” California offenders who committed violent crimes can now expect to serve 7 years in prison — in 1990, they would have served less than 3. Looking at people who committed murder, those who were released in 2009 served an average of 16 years; now, they can expect to serve more than 50 years. This lengthening of sentences for violent crimes is a major reason California’s prisons are overflowing and will continue to do so. In 2009, nearly 100,000 of the state’s prison inmates were doing time for violent crimes, a number that will only grow as the exit door continues to recede.”

It would appear that Governor Brown’s suggestion to the rest of the nation, that they consider California as a model for Penal Reform, may be a bit premature. While the Governor’s realignment plan and funding are an important start in California’s Penal reform process, it would appear that we have a long way to go before we can describe the California Penal System California as a model.

Cal satisfied with reform, though 8900 in Private Prisons

Posted on January 14, 2013 by admin

Jan. 14, 2013

Governor Brown has made his position clear. He will take the issue of whether additional prisoners should be released, back to the Federal Courts. The question to be answered is whether California has he done enough to satisfy the courts, by reducing the number of prisoners by 43,000 inmates over the last 15 months.

Governor Brown claims that medical concerns, the basis of the federal court order, have been satisfied both by medical facility improvements and by substantial reductions in the number of prisoners. Brown has attacked the courts as meddling with the internal affairs of California. Reform advocates on the other hand, argue that California hasn’t done enough to reduce the number of inmates, and that even a reduction by an additional 13,000 inmates as the court order demands, is only a first step in enacting necessary prison reform in California.

A related issue is the number of California prisoners in private prisons. According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, “State prison reports show that since November, California has been increasing the number of inmates shipped out of state. Brown last year said he intended to end the state’s contracts with private prison operator Corrections Corp. of America as a way to save money. A July research brief for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, reports that the state currently spends more than $426 million a year to buy space at prisons operated by the Tennessee-based company. (The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contends the spending is much lower: $316 million.) The number of out-of-state inmates has run from a high of 10,000 in 2010 to a low of 8,500 last October. State prison population reports show it rose to more than 8,900 in late December”

This is a “hot button” issue for many prisoner advocates, as private prisons, located outside the state, make contact with family and community difficult at best.It remains to be seen whether the courts will lift their demand that California reduce its prison population further or whether Brown will succeed in staving off further prison reductions. But the issue of whether California has gone far enough to reduce its prison population, will continue to be a highly charged issue.

Cal. Prop. 30 Guarantees Realignment Funds

Posted on November 12, 2012 by admin

Nov. 11, 2012

The California Criminal justice system received good news last week with the passage of Proposition 30. The approximtely six billion dollars to be raised through proposition 30 will be split between public education and the criminal justice system. (This fiscal year, roughly $850 million will come to counties for prison realignment reform, an amount expected to increase to more than $1 billion next year). Funding in future years will be proportional to state tax revenues (see: Fresno Bee article)

The importance of this so-called “constitutional guarantee” (Propositions can be deemed to be constitutional amendments in California) should not be underestimated. Counties are extremely dubious about state promises of continued funding. Almost fifty years ago, under Governor Ronald Reagan, most mental Institutions were shut down across the state, with the promise that tens of thousands of mentally disturbed patients would be cared for in smaller local facilities (such as board and care homes). The institutions were closed down, but few local facilities were established, creating an enormous problem that lives with us to this day, with many mentally ill living on the streets of California cities.

Those who believed that state funding would be short-lived, tended to favor using the state’s realignment grants to build jail extensions, as it provides a bricks and motor solution to the increased number of ex-prisoners in the community. The “Constitutional Guarantee” of continued financial support provides important support to that segment of the community that want to develop long term rehabilitation based resources for ex-offenders in the community. We’ll watch closely as Prop. 30 impact counties across the state.

The Discretion of Cal Judges in Split Sentencing

Posted on October 28, 2012 by admin

Oct. 28, 2012

I had the good fortune to attend a conference on parole reentry courts put on by the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) last week. The conference dealt mostly with Parole Reentry Courts and was moderated in part by retired Judge Richard Couzens, a recognized authority on California Sentencing Law. I had an opportunity to talk to Judge Couzens about the extraordinary discretion given to California Judges to shape prison sentences under the new AB109 Sentencing Law ( where offenses called triple nons; non violent, non-serious, and non sex offenses, actually serve their prison sentences in county jail).

I had read in the manual,”Felony Sentencing After Realignment”, written by Judge Richard Couzens and Justice Tricia Bigelow, that where the court decided to impose a split sentence, the conditions of the sentence could be “reserved” and both the term or length of the sentence as well as the conditions of ”mandatory supervision” that normally follows a jail sentence, could be modeified at any time by the court. [click on image on the left for a copy of the manual]

The actually language i found in the manual read, “The court could choose to impose a sentence under the provisions of section 1170(h)(5)(B), but reserve jurisdiction to set the actual time and conditions of release at a later time. Such a strategy might be appropriate where the court wants to give the defendant encouragement to complete various custody programs and do well in custody, then set relevant terms when the court determines release is appropriate” (p.10).

I asked Judge Couzins about the court’s discretion to impose later term and conditions, and he reaffirmed my understanding of the law. Which brings me to a dilemma. I am aware that many courts are not using the split sntencing authority presented under Penal Code Section 1170H. But even when they do, they don’t often use the discretion given to them under the law to shape both the jail and supervision segments of the term. Just this week i read an article in the San Jose mercury News that lamented the lack of discretion given judges to shape a split sentence once handed down. It seems to me that there may be sufficient interest in the court’s authority under Penal Code Section 1170H to warrant a separate AOC Conference dealing with the court’s jurisdiction when imposing split sentencing under the new sentencing law.

Santa Clara Realignment: A Collaborative Court Model

Posted on October 14, 2012 by admin

Oct 14, 2012

The Santa Clara Realignment Model: This model builds on a comprehensive collaborative court system, well established in Santa Clara County over the past fifteen years. It probably is closer to an evidence-based “Court-involved Realignment Model” than any other in California. Conceptually, the Model attempts to use the reentry court to separate the high risk offenders (many with histories of violence), from the felons who pose little threat to the community.[click on image on the left for the 2011 Santa Clara County Public Safety Realignment implementation Plan]

Under the leadership of Judge Stephen Manley, Santa Clara County has been able to expand and provide coverage beyond drug offenders to veterans, the mentally ill, parolees and other criminal justice populations, working with over 2000 offenders a year. It was natural for Santa Clara County’s Probation Department to work closely with the county’s Collaborative Court System to assist both supervision and rehabilitation of AB109 Realignment participants:

1. Offenders sentenced as felons under 1170H, (known as triple nons; non-violent, non-serious, non sex-ofenders) are assessed early in the process, so that twelve sentencing judges can determine high risk offenders who need the special attention of the reentry court.

2.Probation often refers parole violators (triple nons released from prison on Post Release Community Supervision; PRCS) to the Parole Reentry Court for closer supervision and rehabilitation, even before filing a petition to revoke. Using a retired treatment judge as the AB109 Revocation Hearing Officer, the Court retains PRCS offenders for special attention, while referring others to the Parole Reentry Court or other alternative to jail (if not to jail itself).

3. Finally, parolees supervised by parole officers, are turned over to the Parole Board for revocation hearings and sanctions (to be taken over by the Realignment Revocation Officer come July 2013). Parole currently sends a significant number of high risk parolees to the Parole Reentry Court for supervision and rehabilitation services.

There are over 200 AB109 participants among the three categories of AB109 offenders presently being supervised by a reentry court (with some estimating the number to double over the next year).

The 2012 Santa Clara County Realignment Implementation Plan is expected to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors shortly.

San Francisco Realignment : A Well Resourced Traditional Model

Posted on October 8, 2012 by admin

Oct. 8, 2012

The San Francisco Model: San Francisco has adopted a model that places almost all the responsibility for AB109 realignment participants on social services, criminal justice, and community agencies. The courts have almost no role in this model, except for the court’s tradition adjudicatory role of sentencing offenders and hearing revocation petitions.The City & County of San Francisco Public Safety Realignment & Post-Release Community Supervision 2012 Implementation Plan was passed on June 1, 2012. [click on image on the right , for a copy of the plan]

The San Francisco Model is one that clearly takes a community based approach to felon rehabilitation, with the city and county of San Francisco providing special resources to deal with the offender. San Francisco has a large, highly experienced and educated cadre of intervention specialists, both in the community, as well as in social service, public health and criminal justice agencies. They are using the court in a strictly traditional fashion, solely in its adjudicatory role. (Interestingly, as of March 30, approximately 2/3 of felons sentenced for new offenses under 1170H of the Realignment Statute, were sentenced to jail, without community supervision)

Probation has taken the lead in developing the Implementation plan, as is required by statute, with Chief Probation Officer Wendy Still chairing the Community Corrections Partnership. Prisoners returning to the community under Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) are pre-assessed at their prison facility approximately two months before returning to San Francisco. Once released under PRCS, offenders are screened at Probation’s new Community Assessment and Social Services Center, a one stop hub, where participants have their housing, drug and alcohol treatment, health, psychological, job, education, and other needs assessed and allocated. Probation has also created a special team to provide supervision and case management to the participants.

The Sheriff’s Department has the resources to assess and provide additional services to AB109 felons in custody. A special Realignment Pod is being prepared for participating felons.There are plans for prisoners to be returned to the jail two months before their prison term ends, for a pre-release process to prepare the felon for release into the community..Similarly both the Public Defender and District Attorney’s Offices have resources to work with this special population. Finally San Francisco has a wealth of non-profit and other community organizations that are enthusiastic about assisting the reintegration of this new population into the community.

The San Francisco Realignment Plan is a traditional realignment plan in regards to the role of the court, relying on the community itself and relevant government agencies to successfully rehabilitate those placed in jail as felons under 1170H, or those returned to the community under PRCS. What makes this plan noteworthy, is the commitment of the community and the resources available to accomplish their mission.

[next week: the Santa Clara Realignment Model

San Joaquin County: A Hybrid Realignment Model

Posted on October 8, 2012 by admin

Oct.1, 2012

The San Joaqun Realignment Model: The Probation Department takes the lead in assessing, reporting, monitoring, supervising, and rehabilitating offenders. A probation based system where the court plays a key supporting role. The court reduces its footprint, by dealing mostly with those cases and individuals where it will have the most impact, only directly involved when the offender has committed a substantial supervision violation [click on image on left for 2012 Report]

California’s Realignment Mandate (under AB109) is to move prisoners and prison offenses from state institiutions to county supervision. The Head Probation Officeer of the County, is by statute, Chair of the Communtiy Corrections Partnership, responsible for setting up a countywide AB109 sentencing system.

The courts are free to follow their traditional role of sentencing offenders to prison (even though most will serve their terms in county facilities) and dealing with revocations when they arise. By my reckoning the majoirty of counties are following that conventional approach (resulting in widespread expansion of jail facilities across the state). At the other end of the spectrum are counties who are creating comprehensive court-based sentencing systems, that to the extent possible, are involved with the offender from the time of plea through sentencing and community supervision ( Santa Clara County, works with over 2,000 participate in its Comprehensive Collaborative Court System).

Somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, between the conventional hands off approach and the comprehensive court-involved system, is San Joaquin County. San Joaquin County is in dire financial circumstances, with a population of approx.700,000 (400,000 in the city of Stockton alone) with a serious drug and gang problem. It doesn’t have the financial resources that would allow it to develop a more Comprehensive Court Sentencing System.

Instead San Joaquin county is creating a hybrid sentencing system, that combines the more traditional sentencing/probation model,with intensive court-based interventions when its community corrections system requires it. The conceptual heart of the San Joaquin model is that the court is there to assist, motivate, and serve the community-wide reentry process, not to drive the process.

Under the leadership of newly appointed Probation Chief Stephanie James, the Communtiy Corrections Partnership has taken the lead in creating a framework for the sentencing system. A county- wide probation-based plan was approved by the County Board of supervisors on Sept.25, 2012. [click here: San Joaquin County Public Safety Realignment Plan]

The Court already has a substantial and successful collaborative court presence, with at least five existing collaborative courts (Parole Reentry Court, Drug Court II/Proposition 36, DUI Drug Court, Dependency Drug Court, among others). While the court could be involved earlier and more intensively (as with its drug courts), it instead limits its reentry interventions to those cases and individuals where it will have the most impact.

The court receives pre-plea assesssments and sentencing reports from Probation, but in most cases does not become directly involved in the offender’s supervision, until their is a substantial violation. Along with an existing Parole Reentry Court (for parolees with parole violations), a Post-Release Supervision Court (Compliance Court) is planned for those felons who have serious drug problems that result in supervision violations, as well as, a Violent Offender Reentry Court for those high-risk violent offenders who have violated their Supervision. This Hybrid Realignment Model is an alternative to a comprehensive Court-Based Sentencing System [see: "A Model Court-Based Sentencing System"].

Court-Based Realignment Recommendations

Posted on September 9, 2012 by admin

September 9, 2012 PDF

POTENTIAL SENTENCING SYSTEM REFORM IN CALIFORNIA COUNTY

I have set out possible sentencing reforms, based on the “Twelve Part Series on Evidence-Based Sentencing Systems” that may be relevant to a California County’s Realignment Process.

SENTENCING AND MANDATORY SUPERVISION UNDER PC 1170(H)

Start the risk assessment and classification process at plea or sentencing if possible, so the judge can make the most appropriate sentencing decisions.
Create a seamless process for offenders, with a designated sentencing judge and staff monitoring and supervising offenders through the entire sentencing period.
Develop court tracks that reflect probation classifications based on risks/needs assessments, and tailor appropriate court involvement and contacts to that data.
Where appropriate, hold court hearings for in-custody offenders to encourage compliance with a rehabilitation plan through continued court monitoring.
Use the court’s jurisdiction to motivate offenders to do well in their program by providing substantial incentives keyed to an incentives guideline.
Have all newly released offenders, on “mandatory supervision”, meet with the judge for a brief interview, to set goals and remind the offender of program rules.
Use custody as a sanction of last resort, relying on increased rehabilitation and treatment requirements, as well as, community service to correct misbehavior.
Take advantage of the latest scientific findings, using evidence based sentencing practices to engage the offender in pro-social activities and cognitive therapies.
Create a technology system able to share data and information, reducing the need for team member’s personal presence, but maintaining court’s presence/influence.
Look to probation, other government agencies, and community for partnerships.

POST RELESE COMMUNTIY SUPERVISON

Involve the court early, if only as a symbol of the system’s new found solidarity and commitment to work together, with the judge assisting in the process.
The court should be considered an important resource in the reentry process, and while not directing the rehabilitation plan, assisting probation and the community.
The court should briefly interview the offender returned to the county, to remind the offender of the court’s interest, support, and concern.
A Reentry Court. authorized by statute at the time of the revocation hearing, may become involved as a community and probation based option even before a violation occurs, in a way, similar to the process defined above under 1170 (H).

California Realignment: Will the Courts help create Balance?

Posted on July 15, 2012 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).

Reentry Court Solutions

Information and resources for reentry courts and court-based reentry systems

Category Archives: Court-Based Realignment