Category Archives: Innovative States

States who have succeeded in promoting, structuring, and resourcing their courts, as a systemic partner in the successful reentry of prisoners back into the community.

California Plans for smaller, less expensive prison system

Posted on by
Reply

April 30, 2012

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has announced its intention to reduce the number of prisons, stop construction of planned prisons, and return California prisoners from out-of-state prisons. They base their plan on the continued reduction in state prison populations (already approximately 22,000), that has resulted from the shifting of less serious offenders from prison to county facilities (see SF Chronicle article on Facebook feed on left)

According to CDCR Secretary Mathew Cate (photo on left),

CDCR’s plan will:

  • Reduce CDCR’s annual budget by more than $1.5 billion upon full implementation, including $160 million dollars in savings from closing the California Rehabilitation Center;
  • Eliminate $4.1 billion in construction projects that are no longer needed because of population reductions;
  • Eliminate $2.2 billion annually that would have been spent had Realignment not been implemented;
  • Return all out-of-state inmates to California by 2016 to bring back jobs and manage offenders closer to home while saving millions in taxpayer dollars;
  • Satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to lower the state’s prison population;
  • Satisfy the federal courts that CDCR has achieved and maintained constitutional levels of medical, mental health and dental care to avoid costly oversight

(For a complete description of the plan and Secretary Cate’s Statement, click here)

The CDCR Plan is not without it’s critics. In a L.A. Times article (click here), Emily Harris of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, said that it’s ”not really a bold vision in any way… the state should be paroling more inmates and easing criminal sentences, which would help lower the prison population further”.

Conflicting Views on California Realignment

Posted on by
Reply

April 23, 2012

Depending on who you talk to, you will get very different views on the success or failure of California Realignement. Known as AB109, the Reform Act has reduced the number of California prisoners by more than 20,000 since its inception in October of 2011. By that definition, it clearly has achieved its intended goal of bringing down California’s prison population to limits set last year by the U.S. Supreme Court . The beds have been removed from prison gymnasiums (see photo on left). The issue being hotly debated across the state is the cost of doing so.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, there has been a reduction in the number of persons who have recidivated in Los angeles County since AB109 began.  ”Before realignment, California had a 67 percent recidivism rate. That means almost seven out of every 10 people we let out came back to us (within a year).” Los angeles County now reports a 25 percent recidivism rate over the initial six month period – or about 50 percent when figured at an annual rate (as reported 3/28/2012).

On the other hand, the Sacramento-based, “Criminal Justice Legal Foundation” (CJLF) claims offenders who now qualify for local jail or treatment under AB109 are already being arrested for new felonies, including violent crimes. CJLF President Michael Rushford said these reports are just the beginning. “Just six months since the rollout of the new realignment law, it is already evident that California has become a more dangerous place for law-abiding people to live and work.(as reported, 4/21/12)

Clearly, there is no consensus as to how realignment is affecting public safety. And it is too early to reach any definitive conclusion. What we do know is that California is slowly reducing the number of non-violent offenders in our prisons and shifting their supervision to the counties (mostly probation). Some believe that except for the recession, Realignment would never have happened. But whatever the reason, it has reestablished community control and responsibility for the non-violent offender and opened a door to a plethora of community based alternatives to incarceration (as reported 12/20/11).

 

 

California Needs Systemic Approaches to Sentencing

Posted on by
Reply

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).

 

 

Held Over 2nd Week: Get To Know the NRRC

Posted on by
Reply

I printed the announcement below because it’s important for you to know about funding opportunities available through the “Second Chance Act”, but also because you need to become familiar with the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC), and its parent organization, the Justice Center of the “Council of State Governments”. Partly it’s because, the National Reentry Resource Center provides the most comprehensive and up to date information on reentry issues. But there’s another very good reason.

The Council of State Governments represents state governments, as well as their views. It should be obvious that decisions made by state policy makers have a critical impact on state-wide reentry systems. If the courts are to become partners in those reentry systems, it will be because of decisions made at the highest state policy-making levels.  Ultimately, we need to partner with organizations that represent state governments (like CSG), to make our case for reentry courts to the states. [to see NRRC's website, just click on facsimile on left]

Bureau of Justice Assistance Releases Three Second Chance Act Solicitations

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) yesterday released solicitations for three Second Chance Act grant programs that will provide funding to state and local governments and federally recognized Indian tribes. Applications are due April 24, 2012.

  • Adult Planning and Demonstration grants will provide funding to help jurisdictions plan and implement programs and strategies to reduce recidivism and ensure safe and successful reentry of adults released from prisons and jails back to the community.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*
  • Adult Co-Occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders grants will provide funding to establish or enhance residential dual diagnosis substance abuse and mental health disorder treatment programs in correctional facilities that include aftercare and recovery supportive services.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*
  • Family-Based Substance Abuse grants will provide funding to establish or enhance residential substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities that include family supportive services.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*

Applicants proposing to incorporate a “Pay for Success” model into their reentry program will receive priority consideration. To learn more about the “Pay for Success” model, please register for the Pay for Success and the Department of Justice’s Second Chance Act Solicitations webinar.

  • Date: Tuesday, March 6
  • Time: 1:00-2:00 p.m. ET

During the webinar, representatives from the Nonprofit Finance Fund will provide background on the Pay for Success concept; and BJA officials will discuss how to tailor your application to include a Pay for Success component. To register for the webinar, click here.

*These 2011 webinars and presentations are relevant for applicants responding to the 2012 solicitations.

[click here: with full credit to the National Reentry Resource Center for use of their text and website facsimile]

Judges Upset at Ohio Prisons for Rejecting Commitments

Posted on by
Reply

Mar. 12, 2012

An interesting story out of Ohio is making waves across the nation (see Facebook collumn on the far right), describes a conflict between some Ohio judges and the Ohio Department Rehabilitation and Corrections. Under a statute that became law last October, Corrections is not required to accept 4th and 5th degree felons (less serious offenders) who are sentenced to prison for the first time. The Department can reject the court’s sentence  and the court must then sentence the felon to community corrections programs, available in their community, before they may send them to state prison. The story suggests that Drug Court might be an alternative the court is required to try before sending a felony drug offender to prison.

The law and its application presents some interesting issues. Does the statute invade the Courts perrogative as an independent, and equal division of state government. Will the Ohio Corrections’ decision not to accept a less serious offender into prison, improperly limit the court’s discretion to sentence as he/she believes appropriate.

These are clearly important questions. The fact that they are being considered at all is a mark of the progress we’ve made in just a few years. For the first time, governors, legislatures, and Departments of Corrections are willing to reject a prison sentence. The reason for the rejection is equally important; the judge in the opinion of Prison Authorities have not given the felon an adequate opportunity to work with community corrections and other prison alternatives in their own community before a prison sentence is ordered.

How times have changed!

Governor Brown’s “Prison Realignment” Plan

Posted on by
Reply

EXTRA/Aug 08, 2011

Governor Jerry Brown responded to a three panel Federal Appeals Court order to present its plan to reduce California’s proson population by 10,000 prisoners by Novemeber, as an intermediary step in responding to the U.S. Supreme court decision to reduce prisons by 40 ,000 prisoners by 2013 (article)

The governor’s plan relies substantially on the transfer of non-violent prisoners to county jurisdiction. While the governor claims that he can not move forward on his plan untill and unless additional funds are found to pay for the reallignment to county jurisdiction, the process is already under way.

Well informed sources report that most parole matters will shift to  county court jurisdiction as of July 1st and that $40 million has been allotted to allow county courts to take over parole revocation responsibilites. While everything and anything may change as budget legislation is finalized, it is expected that the reallignment will move forward, if slowly depending on further funding.

We can also expect that all non violent non serious offenses to be resolved with county jail sentences, and only violent offenders sent to prison. Further, that almost all parole violators will be housed in county jail and any sanctions will be facilitated through the auspices of the county probation department, adjudicated under the county court system, and sanctioned through the local county jail (or other local alternative to custody).

No one could have expected such an extraordinary change in felony sentencing, reduction in prison committments, or shift to local jurisdictions. What we are seeing is a huge sea change in how felons are dealt with by the criminal justice sytem in California. And perhaps, to emphasize the point made in the previous article (State Prison Reentry Court RFP Needs State Leadership), changes in how prisoners are handled in a reentry court will only occur when state criminal justice leaders take a strong leadership position. Although it is messy and somewhat uncertain, the movement of non-violent felons from prison to jail based supervision, is an extraordinarily important and encouraging development that should be studied and hopefully emmulated in other states.

Momentum for 3 Strikes Reform in Cal

Posted on by
Reply

Growing concerns with California’s out-of-control prison overcrowding is building interest in a possible reform of the state’s three strikes law. Generally considered the most drastic such law in the nation, over 80,000 second strikers and 7,500 third strikers are in prison, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

In 2012, according to an article in the  San Jose Mercury News there is will probably be a proposition on the ballot to reform that law. A similar attempt fell short in 2004, but with changed circumstances expectations for success are high.

Cal Pilot Reentry Courts Point the Way

Posted on by
Reply

June 13th

With all the interest in California in the return of prisoners to county jurisdiction, it’s important to remember that there is already a major pilot project involving six counties providing supervision treatment and rehabilitation services to high risk offenders with substance abuse and/or mental health problems.

The six California pilot Reentry Courts have been around almost a full year and are beginning to provide evaluation data. While still very early in their development, they report very encouraging results. California reports an overall recidivism rate of 70%. Santa Clara county has been reported to have a recidivism rate of just 20%  (Santa Clara County Press Release), while San Joaquin County reports a recidivism rate of 29% (Stockton Record). Data from other counties are not available yet, but expected to be positive.

As California prepares its “prisoner realignment” back to the counties, we shouldn’t forget or neglect the promising results that the pilot reentry courts are showing and the efficacy of the reentry court model.

CA Courts looking to BJA Reentry Court Funding

Posted on by
Reply

EXTRA/EXTRA

The Bureau of Justice Programs is moving forward with plans to provide grants of $500,000 each, for up to three years to Reentry Courts, under 2011 “Second Chance Act” funding. In California and elsewhere, where states are moving swiftly towards a county-based parole reentry and/or revocation system, local jurisdictions should seriously look at the potential for three year funding of their reentry/revocation court efforts.

Please keep in mind that the Reentry Court Grant Application must be filed by June 30th.

California Courts gird for new parole role

Posted on by
Reply

Extra/ May 22nd

According to reliable sources, California Courts are expected to take over a substantial part of parole revocation responsibities come July 1,2011. It appears that Governor Brown is going to proceed with the portion of legislation he signed last month (AB109) that gives counties (and presumably court systems) responsibility to deal with offenders who violate their parole. What is not known is how much responsibility will be delegated and how much discretion courts will have in fullfilling those responsibilities. What is known is that Governor Brown has arranged for the County Courts to receive a total of $40 million to set up structures to handle  parole revocations.

Those in California, with reentry responsibilities may be obligated to work with the county courts in dealing both with new less serious felony offenders and those who violate their probation and/or parole. It is an open question whether the six county California pilot parole reentry courts will be used as a state wide models for dealing with high-risk offenders. Six-month data on the pilot parole reentry courts is expected in June and will likely have an impact as to whether intensive supervision and rehabilitation, now provided in the Pilot projects, will be favored by the state, its agencies, or the Administrative Office of the Courts.

While it is unclear what the final perameters of the courts parole responsibilities will be, it would be prudent for California Courts and county agencies to begin planning for their new responsibilities. Though this is a difficult time to consider major reform, County courts may have discretion to structure a sentencing system that tracks offenders from sentence through incarceration (assuming the offender is kept local) into probation and finally reintegration into the community. Rather than come up with a piecemeal approach, now is the time to think systemically, in creating a multi-track structure to deal with less serious felony offenders who are sentenced for up to 3 years  (but kept local) to high risk parolees who may be supervised by the courts, both out of prison and after a parole revocation. [Note: Consider the extraordinary opportunity  that BJA Second Chance funding, ( $500,000 grants potentially for 3 years) could mean to your reentry/revocation court]

The following suggestions are provided:  Options for a California Reentry Court System

A Woman’s Reentry Court

Posted on by
Reply

“A Woman’s Journey Home: Challenges for Female Offenders and Their Children”, written in 2002, is an excellent publication, from the Urban Institute (published by the Dept of HHS), devoted to the challenges facing women returning from prison. Written by Stephanie S. Covington, PhD, LCSW, then Co-director of the Center for Gender & Justice, this study focuses on women’s issues and the inherent bias that effects women in prison and when returned to the community.

It should be noted that a number of Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Courts have developed special tracks, both in the courtroom and treatment and rehabilitation programs in the community, that recognize the special needs and  interests of women. The first such program that I became aware of was established in 1993, by Judge William Schma,  a drug court pioneer, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Judge Schma, was a powerful advocate for the separation of women from men in Drug Court. He argued that women become invisible in the presence of male participants, and the ability of both sexes to focus on their rehabilitation was compromised. I believe that he is and was correct on both counts.

In the field of Reentry Courts, one program stands out in this regard. The Second Chance Women’s Re-entry Court program in Los Angeles, established by Judge Michael Tynan, is an exceptonal program serving over 200 women in Los Angeles County.

Indiana Chief Justice Endorses Reentry Courts

Posted on by
Reply

In a Decemebr 15th interview (see complete article; Inc, Now ),Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard endorsed Allen County’s Reentry Court as a model, “not only for the state, but also for courts around the country” (see article on Allen County Reentry Court). According to policy changes recommended by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Pew Center, Indiana could save taxpayers more than $1 billion by 2017 by looking to Reentry Court and other  corrections reforms. The review, endorsed today by  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, is receiving support in the General Assembly from both sides of the aisle. The review, asked for by all three branches of state government about a year ago, something Chief Justice Shepard referred to as a first, examined Indiana’s public safety, criminal code and sentencing guidelines. Indiana has been a national leader in the development of Reentry Court Systems and state-wide protocols (see article on Indiana’s Rules)

Cal Parole Reentry Courts Start-Up

Posted on by
Reply

Dec. 14th

The California Parole Reentry Court Project is an exciting California pilot program offering court –based rehabilitation, monitoring, and reintegration services to parole violators. It is a state wide statutory pilot project, set up in six counties, working with parole violators, with histories of substance abuse and/or mental illness, who are at high risk of reoffending.

In 2009, the legislature passed, and the governor signed Senate Bill 18, Sec.49 granting Superior Court Judges jurisdiction over parole violators for the first time. (Penal Code 3015).

The actual structure of the six pilot projects, has been the subject of extensive negotiations by the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) over the past six months. Those negotiations resulted in an MOU between those state agencies on December 1, 2010. Even so, counties  have major discretion to develop their own individual programs. For example,  parole officers may refer parole violators to the program, but the Parole Reentry Court Judge may reject them if they do not meet eligibility criteria set  by that county.

The six county projects  funded through a Federal Recovery grant administered by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) receive approximately $10 million for for the project, slated to end September 30, 2012.

Missouri provides sentencing costs

Posted on by
Reply

Sept. 20

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

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

Wyoming develops Reentry Court MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Sept 12

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

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

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