Category Archives: Uncategorized

California prison terms for violent criminals more than double

Posted on by
Reply

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.

 

An Overview of a Court-Based Sentencing System

Posted on by
Reply

The following  diagram and descriptive analysis of an Evidence-Based Sentencing System were published in September  as a development tool for California Counties building realignment sentencing structures. 

(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.

Court-Based Realignment Recommendations

Posted on by
Reply

 

Published on September 9, 2012, 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.  PDF

SENTENCING AND MANDATORY SUPERVISION UNDER PC 1170(H)

  1.  Start the risk assessment and classification process at plea or sentencing if possible, so the judge can make the most appropriate sentencing decisions.
  2. Create a seamless process for offenders, with a designated sentencing judge and staff monitoring and supervising offenders through the entire sentencing period.
  3. Develop court tracks that reflect probation classifications based on risks/needs assessments, and tailor appropriate court involvement and contacts to that data.
  4. Where appropriate, hold court hearings for in-custody offenders to encourage compliance with a rehabilitation plan through continued court monitoring.
  5. Use the court’s jurisdiction to motivate offenders to do well in their program by providing substantial incentives keyed to an incentives guideline.
  6. 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.
  7. Use custody as a sanction of last resort, relying on increased rehabilitation and treatment requirements, as well as, community service to correct misbehavior.
  8. Take advantage of the latest scientific findings, using evidence based sentencing practices to engage the offender in pro-social activities and cognitive therapies.
  9.  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.
  10. Look to probation, other government agencies, and community for partnerships.
POST RELESE COMMUNTIY SUPERVISON
  1.  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.
  2. The court should be considered an important resource in the reentry process, and while not directing the rehabilitation plan, assisting probation and the community.
  3. The court should  briefly interview the offender returned to the county, to remind the offender of the court’s interest, support, and concern.
  4. 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).

 

 

 

Reentry Court Judge Receives Judiciary’s Top Honor

Posted on by
Reply

Nov. 20, 2012

For those who have questioned the efficacy and ultimately the relevance of Reentry Courts in the criminal justice system, the following news should be of great interest. I present the following News Release from the National Center for State Courts:

Williamsburg, Va. — Indiana Superior Court Criminal Division Judge John F. Surbeck Jr. has been named recipient of the 2012 William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence from the National Center for State Courts. One of the most prestigious judicial honors in the country, the Rehnquist Award is presented annually to a state court judge who exemplifies the highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics. Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. will present the award to Judge Surbeck during a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on November 15.

“Judge Surbeck is an inspiration and an example to everyone who works in the justice system. He has accomplished what most of us set out to do with our lives – he’s making a true difference in the lives of others,” said NCSC President Mary C. McQueen. “Those who work with him, refer to Judge Surbeck as a pioneer and a trailblazer in the field of reentry courts. I would add that he’s also a proven leader for the nation’s court community when it comes to integrity and judicial innovation.”

Judge Surbeck is the founder of reentry courts in Indiana and considered a “trailblazer” nationally in this field. Through the progression of his career – a public defender for 16 years before becoming a judge in 1988 – he became aware of the need for reentry courts. As a public defender, Judge Surbeck realized he represented one generation of individuals, then as a judge he saw those individuals’ children and grandchildren appear before him in criminal court. He was determined to change that cycle. Judge Surbeck took a map of the city and tracked the addresses to which prisoners returned after release. His map revealed that prisoners overwhelmingly returned to the neighborhoods where drugs and other illegal opportunities are in abundance. This was evidence to Judge Surbeck that once released, prisoners had no chance of success without a solid support system.  

In 2000, Judge Surbeck worked with others to design the Allen County Reentry Court, which helps transition offenders on early release back into the community by providing counseling, mentoring, and help with finding a job. Five years after establishing the reentry court, statistics showed that the program had reduced the rate of prisoners reoffending to 34 percent, compared to nearly 60 percent nationally. Since opening in July 2001, more than 600 offenders have completed the program.

“Judge Surbeck has made a tremendous and long-lasting impact on the courts of Indiana and elsewhere and has brought fresh ideas and a proven track record to the seemingly intractable problem of recidivism,” Indiana Chief Justice Brent E. Dickson and Lilia Judson, Executive Director, Division of State Court Administration, said in a letter of reference for the award.

Before being appointed a Superior Court judge in 1988, Judge Surbeck served as an Allen County deputy public defender from 1972 to 1988. He has been named Judge of the Year by the Indiana Correctional Association and in 2002 was named Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Citizen of the Year. He received his law degree from Indiana University.

I provide this press release mid-week as it is of  some importance. I will have more to say about this seminal event next week.

Cal Realignment hits a Speed Bump

Posted on by
Reply

Nov. 4, 2012

Something unanticipated is happening to the California AB109 Prison Realignment Reform.They have (as hoped) placed some 27,000 ex-prisoners under probation rather than parole supervision and by statute denied the courts and counties the authority to return these offenders to prison without a new serious or violent offense. But of late, the number of prisoners has stopped its substantial monthly reduction, to the point where the drop in state prisoners was a total of seventy-seven in August (see L.A. Times graph).

 

It’s somewhat unclear why the reduction in prisoners has been reduced to a trickle, but the situation presents serious problems for the state. Califronia is under a Federal Court order to reduce its prison population or face the Federal Court ordering the release of prisoners.

More baffling is the stabilization in the numbers of state prisoners. It is suggested in an article in the Los Angeles Times that it is the result of county judges who decide to send offenders to state prison, rather than keep them local. But judges have limited discretion to send offenders to state prison if the new offense is what is called a triple non (conviction of a non serious, non-violent. non- sex offender).  But those judges who are intent on sending triple nons, (with serious or violent prior convictions) to state prison, often have the discretion to do so. This may be why the prison population is no longer dropping. Clearly, further investigation and analysis is required to understand why realignment has hit a speed bump.

 

A Model of a Court Based Sentencing System

Posted on by
Reply

Evidence-based Sentencing systems            [PDF]      

Judge Jeffrey Tauber; jtauber@reentrycourtsolutions: 9/30/12

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.

[[he Diagram below is used in this article as an example of a basic evidence-based sentencing system]

[Click on Image Above for 12 Part Analysis of this Court Based Sentencing Model ]

CSG data shows reduction in Prison Recidivism

Posted on by
Reply

 

Sept. 25, 2012

From an NRRC Press Release:

On September 25th, the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center’s National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) released a policy brief highlighting a number of states that are reporting significant reductions in recidivism. The states profiled in the report show significant declines in their three-year recidivism rates based on data tracking individuals released from prison in 2005 and 2007. Texas and Ohio reported reductions of 11 percent, while the Kansas rate fell by 15 percent and Michigan’s rate dropped by 18 percent. Incorporating data through 2010 (and in some cases, through 2011), the report provides some of the most recent data available for statewide three-year recidivism rates. [For  copy of the report, click on the image on the left]

Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, and the U.S. Department of Justice and other cabinet agencies have been instrumental in creating a climate that has propelled the work of state and local governments in reducing recidivism. Most notably, under the Second Chance Act, landmark legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, state and local governments and their community-based partners have been able to seed new reentry initiatives and expand existing efforts.

U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R, OH), a co-author of the Second Chance Act, applauded the states, including Ohio, for their accomplishments. “Second Chance Act programs, in collaboration with faith-based and community organizations and local reentry coalitions, have a proven record of helping inmates turn their lives around, and I applaud their continued good efforts to reduce recidivism. Encouraging people released from prison to become productive members of society not only strengthens communities, but also reduces the burden on taxpayers who shoulder the costs associated with incarceration.”

The brief, “States Report Reductions in Recidivism,” highlights strategies that leaders in several states credit with helping drive down recidivism:

  • In Ohio, state policymakers standardized the use of a validated risk assessment instrument to focus limited treatment and supervision resources on those individuals assessed at the highest risk for reoffending.
  • In Kansas, state leaders awarded performance-based grants to community corrections agencies, partnered with local communities where recidivism rates were highest to improve post-release supervision, and enhanced housing and workforce development services to better meet the needs of people coming out of prison.
  • Michigan officials invested heavily in the state’s Prisoner Reentry Program, prioritizing funding for housing, employment, and other transition support services in order to provide the most effective community-based programming for released individuals.

Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, said: “Reducing recidivism can produce a big payoff: If states across the country could reduce their recidivism rates by just 10 percent, they could save more than half a billion dollars combined in one year alone in averted prison costs.”

Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps said: “Corrections administrators know that reducing recidivism is a goal that can be accomplished only in partnership with other agencies and community-based organizations. At the same time, we recognize that governors, legislators, and the public are holding departments of correction accountable for their recidivism rates. The data highlighted in this brief demonstrate that we in corrections are standing up to meet this responsibility and are getting results.”

Denise E. O’Donnell, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the U.S. Department of Justice, congratulated the states highlighted in the brief. “At BJA, we’re supporting states who are committed to taking a data-driven approach to lowering re-offense rates of people released from prison and jail. Later this week, we’ll be announcing major awards to a select group of states that are setting recidivism reduction targets, and like the states highlighted today, are using evidence-based approaches to meet the goals they set.”

Court-Based Realignment Recommendations

Posted on by
Reply

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)

  1.  Start the risk assessment and classification process at plea or sentencing if possible, so the judge can make the most appropriate sentencing decisions.
  2. Create a seamless process for offenders, with a designated sentencing judge and staff monitoring and supervising offenders through the entire sentencing period.
  3. Develop court tracks that reflect probation classifications based on risks/needs assessments, and tailor appropriate court involvement and contacts to that data.
  4. Where appropriate, hold court hearings for in-custody offenders to encourage compliance with a rehabilitation plan through continued court monitoring.
  5. Use the court’s jurisdiction to motivate offenders to do well in their program by providing substantial incentives keyed to an incentives guideline.
  6. 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.
  7. Use custody as a sanction of last resort, relying on increased rehabilitation and treatment requirements, as well as, community service to correct misbehavior.
  8. Take advantage of the latest scientific findings, using evidence based sentencing practices to engage the offender in pro-social activities and cognitive therapies.
  9.  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.
  10. Look to probation, other government agencies, and community for partnerships.
POST RELESE COMMUNTIY SUPERVISON
  1.  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.
  2. The court should be considered an important resource in the reentry process, and while not directing the rehabilitation plan, assisting probation and the community.
  3. The court should  briefly interview the offender returned to the county, to remind the offender of the court’s interest, support, and concern.
  4. 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).

 

Evidence Based Practices in Reentry Court

Posted on by
Reply

THE BEST OF: The following article, initially published on Feb. 15, 2010, makes the connection between Drug Courts’ Ten Key Components and Evidence Based Practices and comes out in favor of instituting scientifically proven Evidence Based Practices.

“Implementing Evidence-Based Practices (on your left), by Marc Carey and Frank Domurad, published by the Center for Effective Public Policy, under a grant from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is the best publication I have found on the application of EBP to Prisoner Reentry

If you have or are planning a reentry court, you need to be familiar with “Evidence Based Practices” (EBP).   The challenge for a reentry court is to adopt proven empirical and research driven, “Evidence Based Practices”, designed to reduce recidivism. To do so, a reentry courts will need  qualified personnel, with open minds, and pioneering spirits. Perhaps we should start with a bit of history.

The Drug Court field’s Ten Key Components (NADCP/OJP; 1997) have been  around since 1997 and have stood the test of time. However, while still valuable as general principles, they don’t provided guidance as to what specific features reduce drug usage and recidivism.They were developed by practitioners like myself (I was an ex-drug court judge and NADCP’s President at the time), who knew what we were doing was working, but not exactly why. When we came together in Washington D.C., it was clear that the  fast growing field needed standards and guidance. So we created a template that was broad and based on commonsense. What we didn’t know was whether research and empirical evaluation would back up our beliefs. That the components have been implemented and adhered to by thousands of drug and problem-solving court practitioners in the intervening years is extraordinary in itself. But as I said before, for all the success of the “Key Components”, they didn’t provide the guidance we needed, to know which features to build  into our programs to make them more effective. Since then, the “Key Components” have been scientifically evaluated, substantiated to an extent, and have evolved (to my way of thinking) into  what has become known as  “Evidence Based Practices”,  or  scientifically proven”Best Practices” (specific guidelines) for the Problem-Solving Field.

According to the Pew Center on the States, “Evidence Base Practices”,  mean “supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices that scientific research demonstrate reduce recidivism among individuals on probation, parole, or post-release supervision” (Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections; Pew Public Safety Performance Project; 1998). The Crime and Justice Institute and National Institute of Corrections have produced a major report, authored by Judge Roger Warren (ret.), President Emeritus of the National Center for State Courts,  entitled Evidence-Based Practices to ReduceRecidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries, written for  the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National Center for State Courts. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals has also produced a monograph on the topic: “Quality Improvement for Drug Courts: Evidence Based Practices” (National Drug Court Institute Monograph #9; 2008)  The reentry court practitioner needs to rely on peer approved and recognized works in establishing its structures, procedures, and processes.

Even with all the scientific and institutional support for the implementation of EBP, the application of Evidence Based Practices to reentry court will be a hard sell. EBP often runs counter to  the practitioner’s conventional thinking on sentencing and rehabilitation practices. (ie. Best to play it safe and provide services for worthy non-violent, non-serious offenders, return parolees to prison for all but the most minor of violations, use the same sanctions and incentives for all drug abusers, etc.) And it’s not as simple and straight forward as the “key components”. But let’s remember that the “Key Components” are not the grail, but commonsense ideas about what worked for drug courts in 1997. EBP will require a willingness to learn new ways of doing our job. That means training and education. For some, it’s just too much work. But isn’t it worth the effort to create reentry courts (and other problem-solving courts), using scientifically proven guidelines or “Evidence Based Practices”  that will do what we started out to do in 1997; to better reduce drug abuse and recidivism in our communities.


Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 9

Posted on by
Reply

May 28, 2012

Evidence-Based Sentencing Systems are Cost-Effective: Part 9

The previous eight articles in this series are testimony to the potential of evidence based sentencing systems. Scientific and technological advances now make these systems cost-effective as well. The most cost intensive aspect of any evidence-based system are the court hearings for felons sentenced to local custody and/or supervision. There is a misconception, that in an evidence-based sentencing system, all felons would be seen in court on a regular basis (as most problem-solving courts tend to do). But science and technology has provided us with strategies and solutions that allow us to substantially reduce the need for additional court sessions and staff (the “Risk Principle”).

Validated risk/needs assessment tools developed over the past ten years allow us to determine a felon’s risk levels and how to best deal with the offender ( see “University of Cincinnatti Study on Risk Principle”) We now know that intensive supervision for low to medium risk offender (involving multiple appearances before the court) actually increases their levels of recidivism. In some jurisdictions, that understanding may actually reduce the total number of court appearances, as only those who have been determined to need intensive supervision and court monitoring would receive it. Felons who are traditionally “banked” as low-risk probationers would almost certainly be excluded. Those offenders who are considered medium risk offenders might be seen by the court on a very limited basis (perhaps one court appearance after beginning their jail sentence, with a second at the start of active probation supervision and a third at the completion of successful probation supervision). Depending on criminal background, history of violence, extent of imprisonment and other relevant factors, high-risk felons would be placed in an appropriate supervision and court monitoring track. (see video at bottom of article, for interview with Reentry Court judge Jeff Tauber, on the intensity of supervision and rehabilitative track required by serious and/or violent high risk parole violators)

A more universal fiscal concern relates to the over-staffing of problem-solving courts. The fact that many courts have more than a dozen employees attending staff meetings and court sessions is a major financial obstacle to the expansion of evidence-based sentencing systems (and other problem solving courts as well).  My experience as both a drug court and reentry court judge suggests problem-solving courts are often over-staffed ( see: A Minimalist Reentry Court for Recessionary Times). My Drug Court staffings in 1990 (admittedly a long time ago) had two persons present, the probation officer personally responsible for offenders to be reviewed, and myself. In a more recent experience on the Bench (2010-2011) , the San Francisco Parole Reentry Court operated with a staff of five; judge, program coordinator, case manager, defense attorney, and parole officer. It should be acknowledged that every problem-solving court has its own staffing requirements,  but the tools described above can also help keep court personnel to a minimum. The development of risk/needs assessment tools allows us to better categorize probation/parole offenders, placing them in customized court tracks, limiting the court time of program specialists, to sessions where their skills are truly needed. Similarly, technology allows us to share information and communications between program personnel and staff, limiting  the need for those present in court.

Finally, even problem-solving courts with significant operating cost, have shown themselves to be cost-effective (see California Study), substantially reducing custody and other criminal justice costs, and providing enormous savings to the community as a whole. This will undoubtedly be the case for evidence-based sentencing systems as well.

 

If your ‘re in Nashville this Week, Come on by and say hello……….

Posted on by
Reply

May 21, 2012

I’d like to invite those of you planning on coming to NADCP’s Nasville conference this week, to join me and my colleagues presenting at the Reentry Court Training and Workshops.

I’ll be leading a wonderful group of presenters from Akron and Dallas in a three hour training on Front-End Reentry Courts (Early Intervention courts)  on Wednesday May 30th from 9:00AM to Noon (SB-1; Bayou C)]

And I’ll be moderating a panel session on Front-End Reentry courts that will be held on Thursday, May 31st, from 10:30 to 11:45. It will be Workshop A13: Governor’s Ballroom D, the first workshop of the conference.

Finally I’ll be presenting on Evidence-Based Sentencing Systems, the future of the Problem-Solving field on Friday, June 1st, from 4:30 to 5:45 in the afternoon, in Room F13; Governor’s Ballroom D. 

Note:  The June 1st session is described incorrectly in the broshure as being on “Commnity-Based Reentry Courts”; It will partially be on that topic, but mostly be devoted to the larger subject of “Evidence-Based Sentencing Systems” (the subject of a 12 segment series of articles on RCS)

Join in on our sessions or just come by and introduce yourself. 

San Francisco Reentry Court Start-Up

Posted on by
Reply

For someone who believed he had a basic understood of Reentry Court and its parolee participants, the last six months of planning and implementing the San Francisco Reentry Court have been something of a revelation. The parolees themselves have surprised me the most with their willingness to participate in court sessions and court-ordered programs (appearing for  better than 99% of weekly court appearances). While it’s far to early to analyze the limited data,  building a core community and an expanded team within the court program itself, and creating an environment where participants feel welcome and respected, appear to be  potential factors in explaining initial parolee participation.

JTauber

Reentry Courts beckon as Cal Prisoners return?

Posted on by
Reply

As California, and states across the nation, contemplate the return of non-serious offenders to local counties, it may be time to seriously consider the Community-Based alternative,  Reentry Court.

Newly re-elected Governor Jerry Brown has announced his intention of returning state prisoners to county jails. According to an article in the San Jose Mercury, “Under Brown’s plan, the state would stop housing 37,000 adult convicts each year who are short-timers, low-level offenders and parole violators. Those groups instead would be held in county jails at a cost some experts say could be half the current burden…This is just an incredibly massive shift for a state system that was sending everybody and their brother to prison,” said Joan Petersilia, a Stanford University criminal justice expert. Petersilia, who has worked with two gubernatorial administrations on the change, described it as “the most significant in California history.”

This news shouldn’t come as a surprise as similar plans have been put forward in the past. But this time, it appears that the governor’s plan has a great deal going for it. The extraordinary cost of keeping non-violent offenders in state prison, an astounding budget deficit pegged at $27 Billion, and the court case before the U.S. Supreme Court, that may force California to remove up to 40,000 prisoners from its over-crowded prisons.The question for many, is whether the state will provide the funds to counties to provide the necessary treatment and other services required to successfully reintegrate offenders into their communities.

Reentry Courts are seemingly new,and not on everyone’s mind, but they should be. The six California Counties participating in California’s Parole Reentry Court  Pilot Project, having recently begun operations, are showing unusual promise. Within the next six months, we should have a very good idea as to the efficacy of the reentry court model in handling those returning from prison. It’s time to pay attention to the reentry court, based on a drug court model, that has proven itself to be the only effective community-based program for high-risk offenders.