"Today when I think of reentry court, I am reminded that nearly every offender sentenced to time in custody will return to the community from whence they came. And thus, every sentencing court is in fact, a reentry court, creating a pathway for the offender’s reentry into society." -Jeff Tauber

HEALING CRIMINAL JUSTICE by Judge Jeffrey Tauber (download free)

Healing Criminal Justice: the journey to Restore Community in Our Courts, is  newly published , by Judge Jeffrey Tauber (it can be downloaded for free on Amazon.com during the month of July). It’s central theme is the rediscovery of the healing power of community within the criminal justice system. Judge Tauber lays out his vision of a future, in which society, recoiling from its overreliance on imprisonment,  returns to its historic use of community to control criminal behavior.

Healing Criminal Justice also speaks to how leadership from within can change the trajectory of a major institution, even one as immovable as the criminal justice system.

Finally, ”Healing Criminal Justice”  celebrates the 25th Anniversary of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). Written by its founding president and president emeritus, it describes NADCP’s path to nationwide champion of criminal justice drug reform.

In Healing Criminal Justice, Judge Tauber describes his  experience as one of the nation’s first drug court judges and how a nascent field with a few scattered programs was transformed into a nationwide movement. He recalls his worldwide travels as well as his experience as a struggling saxman playing in Oakland’s blues clubs, and how both contributed to his understanding of one of the most vital elements in the criminal justice system: community.

Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.) is the Director/Editor of Reentry Court Solutions (RCS), an educational initiative that provides a nation-wide information website; as well as technical assistance, training, and advisory services to the field.

To access an excerpt of the book, please click on the link on the right: hhtp://healingcriminaljustice.co

 

profile of the author as a world travelling sax playing judge

Two narratives on promoting your book: They told me I needed to stay focused.  I actually thought that all you had to do was find the thousands of  hours to write your book. If you have something to say that’s worth the read, then people will read your book. Of course when I put that idea out there to the professionals, they laughed.

JJJ Press
[Jazzy Judge Jeff]
“From the blues and jazz clubs of Oakland, to the prisons of Fiji and Samoa, to the halls of Congress and the White House, Judge Jeffrey Tauber recounts his ascent to the leadership of the nation’s drug and problem-solving court movement.

It’s  also about the challenges one faces when you try to do something really big; when you challenge an entire government bureaucracy. How you run into  buzzsaws coming from every direction. How you need to be willing to sacrifice nearly everything you care about. You have to be driven, and lucky, and you’ve got to catch that big wave just righ, to make it happen. And even after all that, it may not be worth the fight.

In this case, maybe it was. Over three thousand drug and problem-solving courts established over the past twenty-five years; over a quarter million persons trained and educated in alternative treatment practices and principles; Over one and a half million participants entering drug courts since 1994 when NADCP was formed..

In wistful and humorous anecdotes, he recounts his worldwide travels as well as his experience as a struggling saxman playing Oakland’s clubs, and how both contributed to his understanding of the most vital element in the criminal justice system: community.”

Healing Criminal Justice’s central theme is the rediscovery of the healing power of community. Judge Tauber lays out his vision of a future, in which society, recoiling from its overindulgence in imprisonment,  returns to its historic reliance on community as the controller of criminal behavior.

“Jeffrey Tauber has been a criminal defense attorney and a judge. He has also been a world traveler with a sociologist’s eye and the sensibilities of a musician. In Healing Criminal Justice, Judge Tauber recalls his time on the Oakland bench as one of the nation’s first drug court judges and how he helped transform a nascent field with a few scattered programs into a nationwide movement.

”Healing Criminal Justice” celebrates the 25th Anniversary of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). Written by its founding president and president emeritus, it describes NADCP’s path to nationwide champion of criminal justice drug reform.

Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.) is the Director/Editor of Reentry Court Solutions (RCS), an educational initiative that provides a nation-wide information website; as well as technical assistance, training, and advisory services to the field. hhtp://rentrycourtsolutions.com

THE DANGERS OF EXPORTING PRISONS

the Commissioner-General of the Namibian Correctional Service, Raphael Tuhafeni Hamunyela

As bad as overcrowded prisons are in the U.S. and Europe,  the issue of  mass incarceration is hardly limited to the West. It has for too long been an unacknowledged side effect of the westernization of the world. Regions of the world that have little experience with imprisonment have embraced it wholeheartedly, sparking a horendous human rights problem in the developing world. It’s former reliance on community to control its own, has devolved into an unhealthy  acceptance of imprisonment as the solution to criminality. The extent of this problem can be gleaned from an article in New Era Live, a southern africa publication, 

“In Malawi – one of the countries with among the highest levels of congestion in correctional facilities in the world – overcrowding has been put down to a phenomenon in which people who have committed minor offences are sent to jail instead of being sentenced to community service.

Things got to a head in 2006 when the country’s Constitutional Court declared that the extent of overcrowding in some correctional facilities amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The top court urged the government of Malawi to take concrete steps to reduce the overcrowding by half and improve ventilation and prison conditions in general.

Now, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Malawi Prisons Inspectorate will this June support training of magistrates in different parts of the country on the use of alternatives to imprisonment when dealing with people who overstep legal boundaries.

This is in line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures of 1990, commonly known as The Tokyo Rules which promote greater community involvement in the administration of criminal justice and in the treatment of offenders. Additionally, they promote a sense of responsibility towards society among offenders.”

If one reads between the lines, it is apparent that Malawi is sufferring from mass incarceration as is the U.S. and the rest of the world. One needs to address this issue as a worldwide problem and not just one impacting the West.

Vision 3: A ceremony to Honor the Healed

Sept. 22, 2014

Screen Shot 2014-09-22 at 12.29.06 PM

Colonial America, made up of many small, insular and stable communities, relied heavily on community-based or “alternative’ sanctions to enforce a strict social, economic, and religious code of behavior. While it’s true that some of those sanctions may now be considered unacceptable (i.e., corporal punishment), other forms of alternative sanctions are very much a part of the modern criminal justice system. The use of warnings, servitude, and restoring the victim, may be known by different names today (admonitions, restitution, community service), but share similar functions.

The Church and the Court were at the center of community social control. A trial “was an occasion for repentance and reintegration; a ritual for reclaiming lost sheep and restoring them to the flock”…It was a public, open affirmation of the rules and their enforcement; a kind of divine social theater.”(Lawrence Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History, p.25 (1992).

The parallels to the Drug Court and other Problem Solving Courts could not be clearer. Living in a time when society has substantially broken down, where people lead isolated lives and where societal pressure may be minimal, the drug court provides a group structure for the drug user, providing support, rehabilitation, resources, and “community” where none had existed before.

Within that “community”, “alternative” or community-based sanctions have a new found importance. Sitting in the jury box for a day is the equivalent of wearing a dunce cap.  The admonition from the judge in front of the drug court community is a shaming that all understand. Most importantly,the rehabilitated drug-user is welcomed back into society at a very public graduation ceremony presided over by the judge and other community leaders (see above)

…………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

Vision 1: Integrating Traditional Community Justice Into Penal Systems

September 8, 2014

Screen Shot 2014-09-07 at 11.09.55 PM

An article in the Huffington Post proposes a novel alternative to the existing prisons system, prisons that are run by non-profit organizations (Huffington Post, “Nonprofit Floats Unusual Alternative To Private Prison”). The author, Saki Knafo, describes how “Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, or CURE, a prison reform group comprised mainly of former inmates, wants to convert a private jail in D.C. into what they say would be the first nonprofit lockup in the country, if not the world.”

The idea is not so farfetched. Making offenders accountable and responsible for each others conduct and behavior is very close to what is done in traditional societies that control misbehavior with community based responses. There are courts across the country that are experimenting with offender communities making criminal justice decisions. In San Francisco, I was part of a nascent, but very successful Reentry Court (responsible for reintegrating high risk prisoners back into society). Our Reentry Court Team was able to enlist “honor role” participants’, as well as their ideas and recommendations, in setting up court procedures and developing appropriate responses to minor program violations (unfortunately the pilot program was discontinued due to fiscal constraints; New York Times, Oct. 8, 2011)

While many consider prisoner decision making the provence of prison gangs, I would suggest that if structured right, a Prison administered by a Non-Profit Corporation could play an important part in building traditional community responsibility and accountability into both our prisons and prisoner rehabilitation. (San Francisco Reentry Court: 87% Fewer Return  To Prison)

No. 4 in a Series: Invited to a Fijian Prison’s Kava Ceremony

June 30, 2014

Screen Shot 2014-06-29 at 9.13.57 PM

I had always wanted to visit the South Sea Islands. When elected to be an Oakland Judge, I had over six months before I took office in January 1989. I decided to take advantage of the opportunity to travel somewhere I had always wanted to, the south sea islands. Fiji was my first destination, as it was pretty much all I knew of the south seas. I thought of the trip as a busman’s holiday, with the idea that I would visit the courts and jails and learn something about how the islander’s meted out justice., before I took the bench.

In Fiji I was granted the opportunity to visit the main jail facility by the Chief Justice of Fiji. I was treated with respect and deference, and as a special honor, I was invited to the guards own housing unit , to participate in a traditional Kava ceremony. [ The root of the Kava pepper plant is  used to produce a drink with sedative and anesthetic properties, highly valued throughout Polynesia, but banned in many western counties for its mild addictive and toxic qualities]

I also visited other  communities  where Kava was used in the traditional fashion, with the Kava ceremonial experience, a rare religious and/or community celebration. But with the modern world intruding into village life, it had become endemic to many communities and used everywhere and much of the time. That explanation was brought home to me when I met a fellow traveller on a bus. He invited me to his home to drink Kava. He said he drank it every day, as there were no jobs , no money for a wife, and nothing to do but drink. He was a drug dependent, with no obvious way out of his dilemma.

Which is what I sometimes think is happening across the world; people using drug to anesthetize themselves from boredom, lack of opportunity and community.  No job, prospects of one, money to start a family, or marry, and nothing much to do. Within a generation, a ceremonial substance, admittedly hallucinogenic and addictive had become an acceptable part of the life of an entire region of the world.

It was on my south seas journey that I began to seriously think about the value, nature and consequences of drug use around the world. It gave me a new perspective on legalization  and the endemic use of marijuana and other soft drugs in the U.S.and other western nations?

…………………………………………………………………

 

 

Urban Institue reports on “Justice Reinvestment Initiative”

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 11.32.43 AM January 28, 2014

The Urban Institute has issued a positive report on seventeen states that have adopted the “Justice Reinvestment Initiative”and issued the following statement,

“Seventeen Justice Reinvestment Initiative states are projected to save as much as $4.6 billion through reforms that increase the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. Eight states that had JRI policies in effect for at least one year – Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina – reduced their prison populations. Through the Initiative, states receive federal dollars to assess and improve their criminal justice systems while enhancing public safety. This report chronicles 17 states as they enacted comprehensive criminal justice reforms relying on bipartisan and interbranch collaboration. The studynotes common factors that drove prison growth and costs and documents how each state responded with targeted policies.”

The Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report was written by Nancy La Vigne, the project’s principal investigator, along with a team of researchers from the Urban Institute (click on image on left for PDF).

[See Justice Reinvestment Initiative”Leads Prison Reform]

 

 

 

Life Without Parole for Non-Violent Offenders

Screen Shot 2013-11-19 at 7.53.48 AM

Novemebr 18, 4013

Taken from a Press Release from the ACLU: “In the first-ever study of people serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union found that at least 3,278 prisoners fit this category in federal and state prisons combined.”

“A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses” features key statistics about these prisoners, an analysis of the laws that produced their sentences, and case studies of 110 men and women serving these sentences. Of the 3,278 prisoners, 79 percent were convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes such as possession or distribution, and 20 percent of nonviolent property crimes like theft.

The report goes on to state that the number of offenders sentence to life without parole has quadrupled over the last twenty years, with 65% African-American.

There are now important forces at work to reform this anomaly. Senators Rand Paul and Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder and other influential policy makers are coming out for the reduction and /or elimination of the mandatory minimum laws that make these outrageous sentences possible. It’s important to remember the 3000+ offenders presently serving  life terms, when we reform the mandatory minimum laws.

 

 

NIJ Impact Evaluation on Reentry Courts due soon

Sept. 16,2013

Screen Shot 2013-09-16 at 10.31.38 AMJust a reminder: A National Institute of Justice preliminary evaluation of eight reentry courts was published in March of 2013.  It provided an excellent description of the structures and processes developed by the participating jurisdictions and does and excellent job ib comparing their major program characteristics (see article: One Year Process Evaluations of 8 Reentry Courts). Entitled “The National Institute of Justice’s Evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts: Program Characteristics and Preliminary Themes from Year 1”, can be found in full, by clicking on the image to the left of this text. The evalaution waa the product of RTI International, the Center for Court Inovation, and NPC Research. It’s authors are Christine Lindquist, Jennifer Hardison Walters Michael Rempel, and Shannon M. Carey.

We can expect an initial impact evaluation, focusing in the effectiveness of the eight  reentry courts at reducing recidivism and improving other reentry outcomes early in 2014.

 

Court-Based Realignment Recommendations

THE BEST OF: The following article,  originally posted on September 9, 2012, describes how California Counties can make the best use of the state’s new realignment reform process.                  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).

 

California prison terms for violent criminals more than double

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

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

 

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).

 

 

 

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team