Reentry Courts | Reentry Court Solutions

1 Year Process Evaluation of 8 Reentry Courts

Posted on March 11, 2013 by admin

March 11, 2013

The DOj is putting money and effort into a project that focuses on the development of court based reentry efforts. One can sometimes get the impression that the courts are not a significant focus in the federal government’s approach to state prison reentry issues. This project shows the opposite to be true.

The National institutue of Justice has released a one year process evaluation of eight Adult Reentry Courts that are sponsored under the BJA Second Chance Act. The National Institute of Justice’s “Evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts: Program Characteristics and Preliminary Themes from Year 1”, was authored by Christine Lindquist, Jennifer Hardison Walters, Michael Rempel, and Shannon M. Carey. The document is the product of RTI International, The Center for Court innovation and NPC Research. (click on image on the left for PDF of evaluation)

The eight reentry court jurisdictions being funded and evaluated are Union County, Arkansas, New Castle County, Delaware, Pinellas County, Florida, Boone County, Missouri, Strafford County, New Hampshire, Stark County, Ohio, Bexar County, Texas, and Norfolk County, Virginia.

The process evaluation will document the implementation of the evolving programs through three rounds of site visits, and be followed by an impact evaluation and a cost –benefit evaluation.

From the I year site visit and process evaluation,

“Several programmatic characteristics were common across most sites, including the emphasis on post-release service delivery, the provision of a breadth of services relevant to the target population (with all sites offering substance abuse treatment and employment services), the use of a case management approach to coordinate and monitor services, the use of court hearings for the purpose of monitoring participants’ progress in the program, the use of drug testing, and a team approach to decision-making regarding sanctions and rewards. In all sites, reentry court participation is used as a condition of supervision, with the sentencing judge retaining jurisdiction over the participant in most sites. Therefore, almost all participants are under community supervision by a parole or probation officer for the entire duration of reentry court participation.”

South Bend leads in Reentry Courts

Posted on December 10, 2012 by admin

The following brief description of the Vanderburgh Reentry Court was printed on this website in 2010:

Nov.1, 2010

South Bend, Indiana has been at the forefront of the re-entry court movement in Indiana. Much of the credit goes to Judge Wayne Truckman, of the Vanderburgh Superior Court, who has been a leader in the development of Reentry Courts at the local and state levels.

The Vanderburgh Forensic Diversion Court, started in 2003, is focused on non-violent offenders who, but for the court’s intervention, would probably be sent to state prison.

The Vanderburgh Reentry Court, started approximately four years ago, sends offenders to prison under a special statute championed by Judge Truckman, that segregates offenders in prison, and typically returns them to the Court for continuing supervision and rehabilitation services within a year of being sentenced to prison.

According to a story in the Courier press.com., the Forensic Diversion Court and the Reentry Court are being watched closely by other Indiana counties as programs to be replicated in their communities.

Ft. Wayne: Indiana’s Systemic Reentry Court

Posted on November 26, 2012 by admin

Nov. 26, 2012

The following article, first published on this website in March, 2010, describes the excellent Reentry Court System that Judge John Surbeck (see: 2012 William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence), developed for Allen County (Fort Wayne), Indiana.

The Allen County Reentry Court has been a leader in the development of the reentry court model since Judge John Surbeck initiated this exceptional program in 2001. the court relies on a host of service providers, including reentry director, treatment coordinator, case managers, mental health specialist, clinical psycologist, as well as, district parole supervisor, probation officer, and judge (though no D.A. or P.D.) to rehabilitate returnees. Since 2006, with the passage of specific reentry court legislation, reentry courts that receive certification from the Indiana Judicial Center, have had full jurisdiction over parolees who participate in the reentry court (see: Indiana Legislation). The Allen County Reentry Court focuses on providing the returning offender with the rehabilitation services necessary to succeed, resourced by the local “Community Correction’s Agency”, and funded by the Indiana State Department of Corrections. The Indiana Parole Agency no longer has formal jurisdiction over the offender, but still works closely with the judge and court, as part of a drug court team, that provides a critical focus for community organizations and services, and the monitoring of the returning offender.

The reentry court process begins when prison inmates are informed by parole authorities that they are elligible for the statutory “Community Transitions Program”, which may release inmates up to six months before the end of their prison term. Judge Surbeck sees the new participants shortly after their release from prison, two weeks later when their “Reintegration Plan” is approved (after a comprehensive series of risk/needs and psychological tests), and every two to six weeks until graduation, approximately one year later. Early electronic surveillance and frequent monitoring visits to the parolee’s residence are an integral part of the program. The program is voluntary, and the court informal, relying on a contingency contract to provide appropriate incentives and sanctions. Parolees who do well can expect substantial reductions in their parole term. The reentry court itself, with its informal structure, focused on its therapeutic and public safety mission, does not hold parole revocation hearings, but passes them on to the state parole agency. Judge Suurbeck reports there are presently approximately 150 participants. Evaluations have shown a 30% reduction in recidivism and substantial financial savings to state and community. [see: Allen County Presentation]

[Note: The Allen Reentry Court also features a statutory "split sentencing" procedure that allows designated offenders to return to the sentencing court's jurisdiction for probation supervision and services once their prison term has been completed.]

contact: jsurbeck1@msn.com

Court Imposes 18 year Sentence for Drug Court Violation

Posted on October 28, 2012 by admin

Oct. 28,2012

I came across the following article in a local newspaper in St.Johns, Arizona (click here):

“After violating the terms of his probation and failing to comply with the Apache County Drug Court Program, Brent Alexander Hargous has been sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections for a term of 18 years. “I am pleased with the sentence. The defendant was given a last chance in drug court and failed. Enough is enough,” said County Attorney Whiting.”

I was taken aback by the idea that a technical violation of Drug Court Rules (apparently failure to go to treatment and failure to return to court) could result in a sentence of that magnitude. Though I know not what the underlying offense was, it’s hard to imagine it to be too heinous, if Drug Court was the community alternative. And since the felon was in drug court, there’s the probability that his failure to follow the rules was the result of a serious drug dependency that he was not able to control.

This brings to mind a serious concern about Drug Court sentencing.. There has to be a sense of proportionality when sentencing felons for technical violations of Drug Court rules and regulations. Residential treatment and even county jai may be appropriate for even serious technical violations. But if prison is required, then let it be a rational and realistic prison sentence. Does Arizona really want to pay for 18 years of imprisonment for a drug court violator. There may be more here than meets the eye. But i hope that Arizona law allows the sentencing judge to return the violator to local control and rehabilitation after a short term in prison.

As discussed in many articles on this website, the use of “Front-End Reentry Courts” ought to be employed in cases like this one. Allowing the sentencing judge to return the felon to court for re-sentencing after a significant and hopefully rehabilitative (6 to 12 months) term in prison, makes sense in every way.

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 Reentry Court: 87% fewer “Return to Prison”

Posted on October 11, 2012 by admin

THE BEST OF: The following article was published on Feb. 4th, 2012. It describes the success of the San Francisco Parole Reentry Court, and opens the door to evaluations and research based on the San Francisco Model.

PDF

The San Francisco Parole Reentry Court (SFPRC) was a statutorily funded pilot project administered by both the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The funding itself, some $1.5 million per county was provided by the federal government through 2009 Stimulus funding. Without going into structural detail here (to be saved for another more expansive article), I’d like to provide general information on how SFPRC was designed and implemented, as well as statistical evidence of its success.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data for the 10-month period that the San Francisco Parole Reentry Court (SFPRC) was fully operational (Dec. 2010-Sept. 2011) established that the SFPRC “return to prison” rate was 1/7th the rate of regular San Francisco parolees (a reduction of over 85% over 10 months). SF’s parolee population had 1365 “return to prison” out of its 1,686 parolees (81% of the SF parole population). The SFPRC had 8 out of 70 parolees return to prison (an 11% rate).

The most important attribute of the SFPRC were its reliance on “the court as rehabilitation community”

The SFPRC team and participants created a rehabilitation community that was a driving force for participant change. The court team encouraged and often joined participants in pro-social activities, treating participants as individuals worthy of respect. The court became a friendlier place; where strangers became friends and sometimes mentors, coffee and pastries were served, rehab sessions and counseling, honor roll meetings and award ceremonies, and other pro-social activities occurred. Participants were also expected to engage in the larger community via volunteerism and other activities (i.e. organizing family picnics).

The corollary principle employed was that positive reinforcement and minimal sanctions, rather than custody would be used to modify negative behavoirs”.

The SFPRC embraced a true paradigm shift, pioneering the use of positive reinforcement in reentry courts; using awards, rewards, and positive, and negative incentives to recognize accomplishments.A tangible example: The courtroom bulletin board displayed the SFPRC Newsletter, awards and certificates, letters and poetry, photos of graduation and awards ceremonies, family and friends, court picnics, and newly inducted Honor Roll members.

Minimum sanctions were used as necessary, almost to the exclusion of custody. This is especially relevant under new state law, where parole sanctions are often statutorily limited to 90 days county jail. SFPRC sanctioned 14 participants for a total of 105 days in jail over the course of the program. During that same period, SFPRC’s 70 participants achieved a 93% attendance rate, though required to attend weekly court sessions (approximately 1200 hour-long court appearances over a 10 month period).

Over it’s 15-month life ( including planning and implementation), SFPRC modeled “a minimalist reentry court for recessionary times”(see: reentrycourtsolutions.com). Though problem-solving courts” and reentry courts in particular are often accused of being wasteful, the relatively resource rich SFPRC was dealing with high-risk, serious and violent offenders, who were ultimatley far more expensive to deal with either in prison or in the community. SFPRC limited itself to a part-time judge, court coordinator, case manager, defense attorney, parole officer and clerk. It used minimal incarceration while achieving a 87% reduction in “returns to prison”. And it successfully engaged long term prisoners, recently returned to society, in rehabilitation through a court-based community.

For a one page summary of the San Francisco Parole Reentry court’s mission, design, and statistical results, see: Final 1-Year SFPRC Report Card

Preview of Cal Parolee Reentry Courts

Posted on September 3, 2012 by admin

Sept. 3, 2012

The California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has published a monograph on California Reentry Courts, “A Preliminary Look At California Parolee Reentry Courts” (click on image to the left for the document). The six county programs began in the fall of 2010 and will complete their evaluation period at the end of 2012. All six counties devised substantially different approaches to the high-risk drug and/or mentally ill offenders. who had violated their parole. The federally funded program is being co-administered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the AOC). Though the programs have not completed their evaluation periods, the AOC sees the potential for substantial benefits coming out of this program.

With California in the midst of enormous sentencing and prison related reforms, Parole Reentry Courts have the potential to provide important information to other California counties struggling to deal with their own high-risk offenders returning from prison. We will be profiling all six of the programs in the coming weeks.

An Overview of a Court-Based Sentencing System

Posted on September 3, 2012 by admin

Sept. 3, 2012: Find below a diagram and descriptive analysis of an Evidence-Based Sentencing System.

A 12 Part Series on Sentencing Systems, can be found to under “SENTENCING SYTEMS” (or by clicking on the diagram below)

AN OVERVIEW OF A SYSTEMIC SENTENCING MODEL PDF

The diagram above can be thought of having two separate phases. The first (from “Plea” arrow to “Custody” arrow) focuses in on the need to effectively categorize, sentence, and track offenders, with a minimum of staff and resources. Tracks are essential to the system as the court will sentence and monitor offenders with very different risks and needs. A sentencing team with a different skill set is required to deal with low risk and diversion participants than with high risk and violent offenders (as a different team skill set would be required for Drug Court as opposed to Domestic Violence Court).

We know from the scientific literature that mixing low and high-risk offenders is counter-productive at best. That same dynamic works in the courtroom. Where possible, it’s best to keep participants with different risk levels apart. It’s also more cost-effective. Why have full staff at every session when you can substantially reduce the number of staff by sorting offenders by risk and need. When you create a participant track with few housing, job, or family issues, experienced staff in those areas can best use their time elsewhere. The savings would be substantial if case managers are designated to be in court once a week for a single track, rather than required to attend daily sessions

The second part of the diagram (from “Front End Jurisdiction” through Front End Reentry Court”) focuses on the potential for an “Early Intervention”. We focus on the front end because almost all states give their courts a window to recall the felon from prison within a relatively short time period (typically 4 to 12 months). Where courts are willing to use their statutory authority, serious and/or high-risk offenders can complete a rehabilitation program over a short jail or prison term and avoid a long prison sentence. The opposite is true for felons sentenced to long prison terms (or even medium terms of 1 to 3 years). In most states, there is relatively little opportunity for a court to exercise authority over the “Back End”, as the felon, typically returns to the community under state supervision.

Decision Making in a Sentencing System

Offender Tracks are normally the province of Probation or other supervisory agencies. When used at all, they reflect internal decisions in determining the level of supervision and treatment appropriate for a probationer. With validated Risk/Needs Assessments available, the final decision as to court related tracks ought to be left to the court, based upon the recommendations of the full sentencing team.

Court tracking is essential to keep offenders with similar risk and needs together, maximizing the opportunities for building positive relationships with the court and participants and limiting the negative consequences of mixing offenders with different risk levels. The court will need to schedule tracks when required staffing and resource personnel are present. Optimally, the only personnel present at all sessions will be the judge, clerk, and court manager. Review below the process and procedures:

a. A risk assessment is completed even before sentencing and optimally before a plea is taken so all parties will have an understanding of the sentencing issues early on. (Ideally, the level of treatment/rehabilitation or appropriate track designation should not be the subject of a plea agreement).

b. An individual may be given the opportunity to accept pre-plea Diversion (often called District Attorney’s Diversion). Once a complaint is filed, the court has substantial control over pre-plea and post-plea felony Diversion, as well as pre and post-plea Problem-Solving Courts. A Diversion or Problem Solving Court judge typically takes a plea, sentences the offender, monitors the offender over the course of the program (including in-custody progress), and presides over their graduation from the program.

c. The lead judge (or a designee) takes the plea in most other felony cases, reviewing the risk/needs assessment already completed, and sentences the felon either to probation or prison (if the offense is violent or the offender a danger to the community). If the offender is appropriate for probation , the sentencing judge will decide whether the felon should be placed in a low, medium or high risk supervision track. Depending on the number of offenders and resources available, there could be sub-tracks within each risk category (when offender’s needs differ substantially in criminogenic attitudes and beliefs, gender concerns, drugs or alcohol problems, mental health issues, housing, job and/or education needs, and family/ parental issues)

1. Low risk offenders; Probation (banked file): Where the offender is neither a risk to society or has special needs, the court might see the offender once, shortly after probation placement, focusing the offender’s attention on probation compliance, and only see the felon again, if there is a substantial change of circumstances (note: Diversion contacts are often as minimal).

2. Medium risk offender, Probation (straight community corrections); Where the offender has a medium risk of re-offending and has special criminogenic needs, the felon would be placed in a track on a regular court schedule. Compliance in this track would require completion of cognitive behavioral and other rehabilitation services, with compliance resulting in substantial incentives and rewards. Compliance will allow the court to back off from contacts with probationers (unless changed circumstances or graduation)

3. High Risk offender, Probation (often a substantial jail term); Intensive supervision requirements might include attending court sessions on a weekly basis (remaining in court until all participants have been seen), a minimum of twice weekly contacts with a case manager, intensive cognitive behavioral therapy sessions, and pro-social activities for at least 40 hours per week (for at least 90 days)

Reducing Prison terms through Front-End Sentencing

The second half of the diagram represents the use of alternatives to prison terms, allowing us to use an evidence-based sentencing system as a means to keep serious (but non-violent) offenders from serving long prison terms.

The front-end of a prison sentence provides the only substantial opportunity a court has to effect a prison term, once a felon is sentenced. Few courts use that statutory authority to return the felon from prison. When used at all, the authority is often applied in by individual judges in a non-systemic fashion.

“Front-End Systemic Approaches” to long prison terms described here present an opportunity to use graduated sanctions rather than immediate prison sentences for serious, but not-violent offenses. Such Front-End Systems can be structured in different ways. Some courts may include non-prison sentences (typically county jail or community corrections programs) as part of an “alternatives to prison” system.

Systemic approaches to “Front-End Alternatives to Prison” might start with a Community Corrections level alternative sentence. With new offenses and/or serious violations of probation, they might move up to a county jail alternative, and finally to a short-term prison sentence in lieu of a long-term prison sentence. Depending on the seriousness of the offense, an offender might start a ”Front-End” Intervention at any of the three levels.

A. Community Corrections Sentence in lieu of Prison: Less often used than other alternatives, this community based alternative to prison (typically residential treatment or correctional housing while an offender receives education, job training or employment), allows the judge to closely follow the offenders participation in a community based program, providing incentives or sanctions as appropriate. With successful program completion, the participant is returned to the community to continue supervision and rehabilitation under court authority. [Note: this alternative can be the first of two used before the offender is ordered to serve any prison sentence]

B. County Jail Alternative: This second tier “Front End Prison Alternative” can better emphasize the risk that the felon has of being sent to prison. Like the “Community Corrections Alternative, the County Jail Alternative allows close monitoring by the sentencing judge, appropriate incentives and sanctions, and a return to the community for further court supervision.

C. Front-End Prison Term: This ought to be thought of as a felon’s last opportunity to avoid a long prison term. Depending on the seriousness of the offense, some jurisdictions will start the Front-End Sentencing process with a prison term (skipping over possible Community Corrections and County Jail level interventions), hopefully reducing a long term sentence to a relatively brief 4 to 12 months in prison, and returning the felon to the community to complete the sentence under court supervision.

Building Community Into Reentry Courts

Posted on August 19, 2012 by admin

[Click on video above, for "Slideshow" of San Francisco Reentry Court Family and Friends' Barbecue]

THE BEST OF: The following article, initially published on Feb. 1, 2009, describes how Community remains the most effective means of behavioral control, and the most important factor in a successful court-based reentry process.

The powerful National Reentry Movement is substantially local government, community and volunteer driven. Reentry Court judges and other practitioners need to accept the notion that they can be a critical part of reentry reform, without being the controlling force.

The Reentry Court is the Drug Court model writ large. But conventional drug court processes and dynamics often stray from the model, and may not work well for a reentry court. Drug courts, for better or worse, are insular creatures of a judicial system, with judicial concerns; finding funding to support court structure, expanding resources to create effective court programs, and often dictating policy to a small group of community-based organizations (non-profit and otherwise). The historical reason for the court’s insularity are, to a significant extent, based on the courts’ fear of being monitored or controlled by outside organizations and individuals.

Our problem, is that an insular/controlling court can negatively impacts the problem-solving court field, (and the reentry court, in particular) by limiting the court’s ability to work within the community. While the courts should provide needed focus and participant accountability, the Reentry Community derives its extraordinary influence and impact from local government, as well as faith-based, fraternal, and other participating non- profit organizations. The federal government, in its ground breaking “Second Chance Act”, has taken an important step toward recognizing the importance of local community.

Let’s not forget that Problem-solving courts work, in large part because they emmulate (often, without realizing it) the most effective means of behavioral control, the communtiy itself. It is when community began to break down in the U.S. (about 200 years ago) that prisons were created, ultimately usurping the function that historically resided in the community ( See: An Introduction To Community-Based Courts).

Therer is an important final justification for looking to community for support, collaboration, and resources. While reentry funds are pouring into our communities from state and federal sources, in a desperate attempt to staunch overcrowded prisons and failed reentry strategies, there is no guarantee that those funds will continue to flow. Community is the most effective and least expensive resource available to the reentry court. Faith-based, fraternal, and othe volunteer organizations, are the foot soldiers of the reentry movement and stand ready to make a major contribution to your reentry court program; committed to restoring and healing their communites as they have from time immemorial. We, in the criminal justice system, need to engage them as equals and partners. The first question you and your court/community may need to ask, is what is your relationship with the greater community, are you an active member of your community’s “reentry task force”, and how can you strengthen the community of intervenors needed to meet the challenge of the returning ex-offender?

[Note: While the document below, was written in 1993, the issue of community-based funding for community-based courts remains unresolved: see Co-Funding Of Community-Based Courts ].

Minimalist Reentry Courts For Recessionary Times

Posted on July 29, 2012 by admin

THE BEST OF: The following article, initially updated on March 21, 2009, is the first article I am aware of that described the danger of over-resourcing reentry courts.

MARCH TWENTY-ONE UPDATE:

Over the past four weeks I have interviewed practitioners from four successful reentry courts, and showcased them as model reentry courts on this website: the Harlem Parole Reentry Court(NY), the Boone County Reentry Court(MO), the Richland Reentry Court(OH), and the Fort Wayne Reentry Court(IN). All displayed what i have described as quasi-minimalist reentry court features (see below), that are non-adversarial and rehabilitation focused, without attorneys on the reentry court team or in reentry court itself; with counsel provided, only when the parole participant has left the reentry court program, and returned to the formal adjudicatory system, whether parole or court based. From my discussions with reentry court practitioners from across the country, I believe that the majority of reentry courts can be described similarly.

A number of jurisdictions that are interested in creating a “parolee reentry court”, find themselves in a difficult dilemma. Either reject the reentry court concept because of inadequate funding, or go ahead and build it, but pare back the conventional problem-solving court model to its bare essentials. It’s clear to me that a comprehensive reentry courts, (with full staffing), capable of working with and consolidating an offender’s state and county matters in a single court, is the best possible solution. But if the necessary funding isn’t avaialble, there is a case to be made for a “minimalist parolee reentry court”, that can reduce court costs, by successfully and lawfully doing without attorneys, reporters, and clerks. Such a “minimalist reentry court”, may mean substantial savings to the court and community, as well as a smaller, more successful, and sustainable reentry court. [Note: a model "minimalist parolee reentry court" team might include judge, program coordinator, treatment specialist, parole officer, and bailiff]

As a consultant, I’ve sat through many team staffings, and ”progress hearings” over the years, with more than a dozen team members present. I often wondered how cost effective or sustainable such court structures would be in the long run. The answer has become clear, as hard times shape the structures of today’s reentry and other problem-solving courts. Many problem solving courts are closing down, while others severely cut back on participation or services. Interestingly, some of our most successful early drug courts had as few as two team members present at pre-court staffings. The smaller, more intimate courtroom environment, encouraged clear, direct, and personal communication, as well as, increased team involvement and participant engagement; established problem-solving concepts that often lead to better outcomes.

The key hurdle in creating a hybrid “parole reentry court” with fewer personnel, is the very fact that it’s unconventional. But a Parole Reentry Court, by its very nature is a minimalist court. Proceedings related to parolees, while evidentiary in nature, are informal, do not involve county jurisdiction (which would require counsel), nor demand the same panoply of procedural and due process rights as a conventional court (see: Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 1972, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 1973). Truth is that there are less than a dozen states that require counsel at “parole revocation hearings”. Clerks and Reporters are not required either, as a written decision setting forth the facts and reasoning upon which it is based, are typically written up by the hearing officer. (Note: the fewer personnel engaged in the legal process, the more resources available for direct services for the returning parolee)

The clear purpose of the minimalist Reentry Court is to provide an informal and therapeutic enviroment, where the focus is on the rehabilitation and reintegration of the returning parolee in the community. Some may be uncomfortable with the idea of an informal problem-solving court without counsel present. But participation in informal courts is typically voluntary, with “parole revocation hearings” passed on to parole authorities, once the participant has been terminated from the reentry court program. California has recently set up a pilot “Parolee Reentry Courts” program, where parolees will be referred by parole authorities to the reentry court, admitted only after the parolee voluntarily accepts the program, and the court agrees. The parolee can opt out at any time, (even after a violation), to be returned to the jurisdiction of the parole agency. Ultimately, this model may be an interesting option for those communities with limited funds, a commitment to a reentry court, but also to “revocation hearings” with counsel present. One of the most fascinating aspects of the nascent reentry court field, is the many innovative and pragmatic models being developed. The minimalist “Parolee Reentry Court” continues that tradition. [see examples of quasi-minimalist reentry courts below: Harlem Parole Reentry Court; Ft. Wayne Reentry Court; Richland County Reentry Court; Boone County Reentry Court]

Whether a “minimalist reentry court” is effective, economical or lawful is an open question. If you have a comment, please share it with us.

Using Reentry-Drug Court as a counterweight to long Prison Terms

Posted on July 22, 2012 by admin

THE BEST OF: The following article, published on Feb. 13,2012, uses a Watertown sentencing as an example of how drug court can be used to keep the prison population down, or increase it.

Something caught my eye as I was reading newsclips from around the nation. A small item from the Watertown Daily Times (NY). It read:

A Watertown man was sentenced to state prison Thursday after admitting in Jefferson County Court that he violated his Drug Court contract. Paul L. Arndt Jr., 44, was sentenced to 1¹⁄₃ to 4 years in prison for violating terms of the substance abuse rehabilitation program that is designed to serve as an alternative to incarceration. He was referred to the program in April 2009 after admitting he violated probation. He was sentenced to five years’ probation in August 2007 after pleading guilty in May 2007 to fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property for taking radiators that had been stolen from a Watertown business and selling them at a Syracuse recycling center. Information about how he violated Drug Court was not available.

Putting aside the issue of whether the probation violation in question was a particularly serious or dangerous one, I would suggest that sending a drug court participant to prison for a substantial term is almost never good criminal justice policy, good use of government funds, or good rehabilitation &/or treatment strategies . There are more than a few drug courts, that quickly fail drug court participants and spirit them away for substantial prison terms. It may be time to revisit the rationality behind such scenarios. Unless the new offense is one involving violence or the threat of violence, is prison ever a sensible response to a drug court violation?

I have suggested in a recent article (see:”Front-loading court interventions”) that “judges may use their jurisdiction to sentence the felon to prison as part of a court-ordered treatment program, with the understanding that the offender is to undergo treatment before being returned to court for re-sentencing”. The idea is an old one, first described in a monograph written in 1999 by myself and present NADCP CEO West Huddleston (see “Reentry Drug Courts”); Front-loaded prison reentry programs (involving short custodial terms and a return to court supervision and treatment), are a last resort after the offender has committed serious and multiple violations of a drug court’s requirements.

Numerous states have developed drug court as an alternative sentence of last resort before substantial prison terms are ordered. Governors such as Christy of New Jersey and Deal of Georgia are calling for special drug courts to give the offender a last chance to succeed. Reentry-Drug Courts, (or simply Reentry courts) need to be put in place for the high-risk offender, where a short prison or other custodial sentence is a last resort (typically one to six months), before a long prison term is ordered.

Remember, the best way to reduce prison recidivism is not to put an offender into prison in the first place. But if there is no viable alternative to prison, use it in a rational and graduated manner, with a brief stay that holds out the promise of rehabilitation and an early return to the community.

Front End Reentry Court Training; at NADCP Conference

Posted on May 5, 2012 by admin

May 5, 2012

A spcial training session focusing on the effectiveness of Front End/Preentry/Early Intervention Reentry Courts will be held on May 30th from9:00AM to Noon at the NADCP Conferendce in Nashville, Tennessee (SB-1; Bayou C)

[for conference registration information; May 30 - June 1: click here]

If you are interested in how Front End Reentry Courts could work in your jurisdicition and state, this is your opportunity. The training will be led by Judge Jeff Tauber (ret.), NADCP President Emeritus and Judicial Fellow in Reentry Courts and Evidence Based Sentencing. Practitioners from both the Dallas and Akron Reentry Courts, as well as national experts, will provide insights and practical information as to how Front End Reentry Court work in your jurisdiction and across your state. (At left, see Dallas Judge Bobby Francis and his SAFPF Court graduates)

Find the description for the training in the Conference agenda below:

FRONT-END REENTRY COURTS; A HALF DAY TRAINING (May 30, 2012; 9AM-12 Noon)

The states are looking for ways to reduce long term prison sentences. A number of state courts have developed effective “reentry courts” based on limited state jurisdiction that exists at the front end of a prison term. Called Front End, Preentry, or Early Intervention Reentry Courts (depending on your locality), they capitalize on the courts ability to recall prisoners for resentencing within the first several months of a prison sentence (typically less than six months). These programs provide a seamless transition between in-custody treatment, court supervision, and community rehabilitation.

Learning Objectives:

a. Learn how Front End Reentry Courts have used existing jurisdiction and authority to create comprehensive reentry courts that combine the control of a prison sentence with the promise of court supervision and community reintegration.

b. Learn how prison and community- based supervision and rehabilitation are coordinated in a seamless fashion that successfully reintegrates offenders into the community at a fraction of the cost of long term prison sentences.

You will receive first hand information on:

1. Jurisdictional issues in starting front–end programs; program development both in and out of prison, levels of contact between court and prisoners, and sentencing structure.

2. What happens in prison ( jail or a community corrections facility); what do the participants get out of brief custodial term, is there treatment, rehabilitation, and/or educational services while in custody, is there judicial oversight and/or incentives?

3. What triggers a recall to the court for resentencing, what level of compliance is required for the prisoner to be allowed back into the court and community. What does the post prison court program look like and who has jurisdiction. What success have Front End Programs had?

[Note a separate single workshop on Front-End Reentry Courts will be held on Thursday, May 31st, from 10:30 to 11:45 at the NADCP Conferernce. It will be Workshop A13: Governor's Ballroom D, the first workshop of the conference]

California Needs Systemic Approaches to Sentencing

Posted on March 26, 2012 by admin

Mar. 25, 2012

An ACLU Report (described in two articles in the Face Book Column on the far right), points to the failure of California’s Realignment Plan (under AB109), to provide incentives to counties that reduce the numbers of persons incarcerated in county jail. The report describes the state’s dismembering its Prison-Industrial Complex, while supporting the development of a Jail-Industrial Complex. It’s argues that counties that develop successful “alternatives to incarceration”, and/or send a small percentage of non-violent offenders to prison are penalized as proportionally larger funds are provided to counties that have neither adequate jail facilities or effective alternatives to custody. The counter argument is a simple admission that counties that have not used alternatives in the past and relied heavily on state prison to house less serious offenders, need immediate resources to build an infrastructure capable of working with the returning offenders, both in and out of custody (on the left; a systemic sentencing circle, JTauber, circa 1999, National Drug Court Institute Monograph Series, No. 3, “Reentry Drug Courts”)

California needs to deal both with the lack of adequate jail resources, while creating incentives for counties to develop alternatives to incarceration. One way to accomplish that, is to develop effective risk/needs assesssment tools that can distinguish between those who are a violent and/or high-risk offenders and those who do not pose a danger to the community. Risk/Needs Assessments, once validated, provide an scientific basis for determining the risk of offenders to the community. Working with such tools, a county’s criminal justice system ought to be able to create a systemic approach to the convicted offender, that provides appropriate sentencing tracks that reflect an offender’s degree of risk as well as their criminogenic needs. In the future, counties that develop effective sentencing systems, used in the supervision and rehabilitation of felons, that reduce the jail population, ought to receive substantial financial incentives from the state ( California already has a successful state program that rewards probation departments for reductions in probationer recidivism)

We have developed evidence based practices for the sentencing of offenders (based on voluminous research), but are still reticent to apply those practices where they will do the most good, in making sentencing decisions. Rational approaches to sentencing that provide different levels of supervision, treatment, rehabilitation, and assistance for felons are attainable and in effect in some states and jurisdictions (more on that later).

Help!!: Do you have Front-End Reentry (Recall) Jurisdiction

Posted on March 18, 2012 by admin

Mar. 19,2012

If you’ve been reading the blogs on this website, you probably figured out I’m a proponent of “Front-End Reentry Court” (FERC). And you probably know that Front-End jurisdiction already exists in most jurisdictions, and with FERC there’s little reason for conflict with corrections, parole or other agencies over control of exiting prisoners, and finally that it costs relatively little to incarcerate someone in jail/prison for 4 months as opposed to four years. But the most compelling of arguments for FERC, is that its “the best way to reduce recidivism by keeping the offender out of prison (or at least limiting the prison term substantially).

As President Emeritus, and advisor to NADCP’s Board of Directors on Reentry Courts, I was asked to follow-up on a paper I wrote several years ago on existing reentry court models (Ten-Prison Based Reentry Court Models). I had a very limited idea of where contacts between the courts and prisoners or ex-prisoners existed. Without that information, it seemed difficult for anyone to formulate a realistic strategy for using the courts to reduce recidivism and/or prison populations.

Over the past several months, I’ve contacted some forty-five states (give or take) and asked where those points of contact were. (See: The Importance of Jurisdiction in Court-Based Reentry). Looking at the data, a pattern became apparent. There were relatively few states that gave their courts jurisdicition to supervise offenders coming back from prison, but many (and i believe most) gave their judges authority to recall an offender within a statutory period of time for resentencing. Some courts were doing this on a case by case basis, while others were using short term prison sentences systemically, to do treatment and/or assessments.

I wrote up what I learned in a Chart that distinguishes between front-end (preentry), split-sentence, and post-prison reentry-based systems (including reentry courts). Now I’d like confirm and edit the information I have, finalizing the chart for publication.

Please click here for the DRAFT COURT-PRISON CONNECTION CHART . Review the information from your state. Email or telephone me with any mistakes there may be as to your state or any jurisdIction described. Add any reentry court or court reentry system you think may be omitted or misidentified. Help create a comprehensive CHART for all court-prison connections exisiting in the U.S. I will make the final corrected document available on this site, so that we all can understand the current status of court-based reentry systems in the U.S and their potential for prison reentry reform.

I’d especially like to know if your state gives its judges FERC jurisdiction: to recall a felon from prison for resentencing, after a brief prison term (typically 3 months to 1 year), to be returned to the local community for court supervision (possibly further incarceration): jtauber@reentrycourtsolutions.com

NADCP convenes “Reentry Court Standards” Committee

Posted on March 11, 2012 by admin

Mar. 12, 2012

Twenty experienced criminal justice practitioners and policy makers met at NADCP offices in Alexandria Virginia over the past weekend, to review best practices and procedures of Reentry Courts across the nation. The three day session was led by NADCP Board “Reentry Court Committee” chairman, Keith Starrett, (depicted in picture on the right). Judge Starrett is the Federal District Court Judge in Hattiesburg, Mississippi and runs the first Federal Reentry Court in in the nation, established over six years ago (click here for additional information)

The committee was also led by Justice Ray Price of the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge J. Fulton of the Norfolk VA reentry court, and John Marr, a pioneer of the reentry court movement. The committee made substantial progress in laying out the major concepts of Reentry Courts and will continue to work on the document in the coming months. It’s expected that there will be a session on “Reentry Court Standards”, presented at the NADCP National conference in Nashville on May 31st (the NADCP Conference runs from May 30 to June 2; more on that shortly).

Reentry Court Solutions

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

Category Archives: Reentry Courts