HOPE: An Innovative Probation Strategy

by

There is a new intensive probation model that is getting a great deal of attention in the criminal justice world. Hawaii’s First Circuit Court Judge Steven Alm started “Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement”(HOPE) Program as a small pilot project in 2004. With success, HOPE has grown to 1500 probationers (one sixth of felony offenders on Oahu). HOPE is a relatively economical, intensive probation program, that is especially attractive in these financially challenging times.  The approach in a nutshell; scale back on court, treatment, and rehabilitation involvement , and ratchet up swift, immediate, and certain punshment, with an emphasis on monitoring, drug testing, and immediate warrants, arrest, and sanctions, (typically a week in custody for a violation). Also, reduce the paper work, use simpler forms, reduced hearing times and rely largely on processl assessments.

A recently released evaluation of HOPE  by the UCLA School of Public Afairs, is quite impressive, as is a PEW Center For The States publication  on the program. But as noted by the researchers themselves, these are not new concepts and most if not all have been tried before with mixed results. Previous research on intensive probation supervision (without treatment and rehabilitation components)  have not fared particularly well.  According to the UCLA study, one reason for the HOPE program’s success, may be the extraordinary leadership of Judge Alm in implementing the HOPE program program and in ultimately getting disperate criminal justice agencies to work together effectively.

There are always unanswered questions when any new sentencing program is introduced. What specifically works for targeted demographics, what components of the program are truely necessary, and in particular, can compliance continue beyond the term of probation or court jurisdiction? There are obviously no long term studies on the efficacy of HOPE, nor on the ability of the high risk offender to establish a new drug free, crime free life style once they leave HOPE. The science suggests that there willl be a “response burst” of offenses and drug abuse, once the suppressive effects of intensive supervision are removed. While not a scientist. I do know from experience, that programs with new approaches to old problems, inspired and capable personnel, and extraordinary leadership, often do extremely well while that leadership remains in place (sometimes called the “innovator’s effect”). And that a single program can be enormously successful, while similar programs find it hard to get it right. We will no doubt find answers to some of these questions in the years to come.

Project Hope and similar programs deserve their chance to prove themselves, and find their place in the spectrum of evidence based sentencing practices (whose roots interstingly, go back to the Enlightenment). In the end, HOPE uses many of the same principles that drug courts adopted and that have been scientifically validated over the past twenty years. While HOPE  has largely avoided the treatment, incentives, rehabilitation and courtroom aspects of drug court, there’s reason to believe that it may expand to provide  at least some of those services over time. As described in the UCLA study, “The HOPE program has a strong theoretical basis. That swiftness and certainty outperform severity in the management of offending is a concept that dates back to Beccaria (1764).”  One would hope that there is much to learn from this program, whose roots go back over three hundred years.

.

On Track: Reentry Court Funding For 2011

by

The Reentry Policy Council reports:

“In March, sixty members of the House of Representatives, led by Representatives Danny Davis (D-IL), Howard Coble (R-NC), and Bobby Scott (D-VA), submitted a letter to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to request full funding for the Second Chance Act in fiscal year 2010.”

Note: $10 million for Reentry Courts remains a part of the $100 million dollar “Second Chance Act” bill for 2011.

Texas Slows The Revolving Door To Prison

by

From the Pew Center for the States’ Public Safety Performance Project publication (see article above),” Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years” (p.3):

 Texas faced a projected prison population increase of up to 17,000 inmates in just five years.  Rather than spend nearly $2 billion on new prison construction and operations to accommodate this growth, policy makers reinvested a fraction of this amount—$241 million—in a network of residential and community-based treatment and diversion programs. This strategy has greatly expanded sentencing options for new offenses and sanctioning options for probation violators. Texas also increased its parole grant rate and shortened probation terms. As a result, this strong law-and-order state not only prevented the large projected population increase but reduced its prison population over the three years since the reforms were passed. (Note: one of a panoply of prison alternatives, Texas’ thriving reentry court system diverts offenders from prison into county based SAFPF Reentry Courts)

Prison Numbers Drop Even As Parolees Rotate Through

by

The Pew Center for the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, had good news in March, with the release of their latest publication,” Prison Count 2010: State Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years“. Not only  are prison populations down .4% from 2008, but prison admissions for new offenses are down for the third year in a row. Of course when one puts this news in perspective, the realities are somewhat less  stellar. Prison populations are up over 700% since 1972, while federal prison populations continued to grow, doubling since 1995.

So what does this data really mean. Though the nation’s crime rate has been declining steadily since the early 1990’s, 2009 is the first year that the prison population has actually dropped. One might wonder why it took so long for prison populations to reflect that drop in crime. In fact, during the 1990’s, admissions to prison for new crimes grew by less than one percent a year. But parole vilolations as a proportion of all prison admissions more than doubled during that same period. That may reflect the fact that probation and parole have become very popular in recent years; there are currently more than five million offenders on probation or parole, reflecting an increase of 59% since 1990.

In one sense we should be pleased with the great appeal of probation and parole, obvious alternatives to prison. But the fact is, that they are not particularly successful alternatives. While the numbers released from prison grew for the seventh year in a row in 2009, admissions for violations of probation and parole increased for the fifth year in a row. As last year’s Pew Study pointed out, over 60% of prisoners return to prison within three years of release. It would appear that the stabilization of prison populations depends mostly on a new reluctance to sentence those with new offenses to state prison, while the recycling of parolees into prison continues to be  immensely popular. So while we should be pleased to see prison populations stabilize and even drop (although 23 states still showed an increase in prison populations), we should direct our attention to the revolving door that rotates prisoners in and out of prison with great regularity. More attention needs to be paid to evidence-based prison alternatives that are working in our communities (like the Texas system of  prison alternatives (see above), which includes SAFPF Reentry Court Programs).

Harlem’s Administrative Parole Reentry Court

by

The Harlem Parole Reentry Court, sits in one of the oldest court buildings in Manhattan, though it is by no means a traditional court.  The renovated courthouse is home to the “Harlem Community Justice Center”,   a multi-jurisdictional community court project, as well as the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. The Reentry Court is presided over by Parole Administrative Law Judge Grace Bernstein, and staffed by co-located parole officers , as well as Justice Center case managers.

Prospective parolees are pre-identified while awaiting release from custody at one of two pre-release reentry facilities in New York City. The majority of parolees in the program are residents of Harlem, a historic but high poverty community. Recent research conducted by the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force, also a project of the Justice Center, found that half of all parolees released to Manhattan returned to Upper Manhattan, including Harlem, even though the area is home to just 36% of the county’s population.  Participants are assigned to the Reentry Court for frequent (often weekly) court hearings, and are immediately engaged in treatment, rehabilitation, and job related services. The Reentry Court team consists primarily of the judge, two parole officer, three case managers, and service providers. The Court is a non-adversarial forum so counsel is not present. The program provides an extraordinary courtroom session, where the Judge, parolee and staff  “drill down” on each case to learn what is going right, discuss challenges and where more support or services might be needed. The Court uses sanctions and incentives to help motivate participants, and has a wide variety of programs and services available within the building and community to increase opportunities for success. The program typically runs the first six months of parole, culminating in a graduation ceremony (recent keynote speakers included the legendary Harry Belafonte and recently elected Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.). Successful completers have their cases transferred to a regular parole office but may continue to engage services at the Justice Center. Those who are terminated from the Reentry Court program, appear off site, at an adversarial “parole revocation hearing”, represented by counsel.

The Harlem Parole Reentry Court has been successful at reducing new convictions for parolees, as a recently released evaluation by the Center for Court Innovation shows. However, the news is mixed. The evaluation also points out that Reentry Court participants received more technical violations (typically failures to follow the directions of judge and parole officer; to drug test, attend programs, or maintain contacts) than the comparison group. Along with a number of other exemplary programs, Harlem’s Reentry Court’s smaller caseloads and improved collaboration and communication between parole staff and treatment staff make it harder for parolees’ mistakes to go unnoticed. As Court Administrator Chris Watler explained to me, the Harlem Reentry Court is much better than regular parole at catching the parolee in program violations that can lead to “parole revocations”. To address the problem, the Reentry Court is using a recently awarded Second Chance Act grant to develop an evidence-based risk assessment tool (COMPAS) and graduated response protocol.

Contact: [email protected]

OJJDP Juvenile Reentry Mentoring Grants

by

Deadline: April 27,2010

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) has just announced a new grant under the “Second Chance Act” for applicants who mentor juvenile offenders returning from custody to the community.  A grantee may be awarded up to $625,000 for a period of up to three years.  As best described in the RFP:

“The grants will be used to mentor juvenile offenders during confinement, through transition back to the community, and post-release; to provide transitional services to assist them in their reintegration into the community; and to support training in offender and victims issues. Targeted youth must be younger than 18 years old.”
 

 

Columbia Reentry Court:A Probation-Based Reentry Court

by

The Boone county reentry court model has a split sentence structure that relies upon probation, rather than parole, to provide services and monitoring. Those sent to prison, receive treatment during an initial four month prison term and are returned to the reentry court for continued treatment, rehabilitation and monitoring. Approimately 80 returnees are part of the progam at any time.

Judge Chris Carpenter attributes the program’s documented success to a level of accountabilty and structure that touches the participant even before they leave prison. A returning offender is interviewed by the reentry court coordinator before leaving prison, released from prison on Tuesdays only, transported for an extensive interview and assessments with  the coordinator on Wednesdays, and transported to court on Thursday for the offenders first reentry court hearing. During this period, the offender is in held at “Reality House”, a secure facility, and only released after court and upon the judge’s order.

 Though Judge Carpenter also presides over drug and mental health courts, she believes that the seriousness of the returnees criminal history and criminal attitude require that they be separated from other problem-solving court participants. The reentry court team is made up of  judge,  program coordinator, probation officers, case managers, job training counselors, and treatment specialists.  Of interest; even though this is a county probation-based program, prosecutor and defense counsel are not part of the reentry court, unless and until the participant is terminated from the program and a “probation revocation hearing” ordered (  see “Minimalist Reentry Court” ). Nor is this a voluntary program. Everyone sentenced under the split sentencing statute who returns to the community after four months (many who have been sentenced to substantial prison terms), enters reentry court, signs a contingency contract, and is a participant in the program. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Columbia reentry court, is that it is part of a seamless rehabilitation process, whose dimensions and consequences  are known to all, even before a plea is enterred into.

Update: Mansfield adds Reentry/Drug Court

by

Adding to its tapestry of problem-solving courts, Richland County has received  a forty-two thousand dollar state grant to work with drug offenders who were terminated from drug court and sent to prison, to return to a reentry/drug court upon release into the community.  The funding will allow sixty returning offenders to engage the regular drug court as a reentry court (though there is a reentry court in place in the county [see: Richland County: A Reentry Court Showcase].

Dave Leitenberger, Program Coordinator and head of Richland  County Probation, believes that the drug court is the best place for returning drug offenders to receive treatment, monitoring, and rehabilitation services. Mr.Leitenberger also informed me in a telephone interview that  the existing reentry court has neither prosecutor nor defense counsel on  its reentry court team (though, upon termination from reentry court, parolees face parole authorities at “parole revocation hearings”, with defense counsel present).

[see: Leitenberger interview; article and video]

2010 Budget Proposal Increases Reentry Court Funding

by

The Obama Administration’s funding proposal for law enforcement and correctional purposes is increasing substantially over 2oo9, opening up the potential for increased resources for reentry courts and other criminal justice reform programs. The budget proposal requests:

“$519 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants in FY 2011. The Byrne-JAG program, which received $518 million in FY 2010, awards grants to state, tribal and local governments to support a broad range of activities that are designed to prevent and control crime. This includes: law enforcement; prosecution, corrections, drug treatment and technology improvements. The Administration has proposed funding the COPS program at $690 million. This is an increase of nearly $300 million from the FY 2010 level of $392 million. Of that total, $600 million is set aside for law enforcement officer hiring. This would equate to roughly 2,900 officers.  In addition to these proposed funds, in December, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the “Jobs for Main Street Act” (H.R. 2847) that included $1.18 billion for COPS hiring programs. The Senate is expected to consider and act on this legislation in the near future.” (see complete article: International Association of Chief’s of Police)

It would be useful to follow this funding closely. Byrne- JAG Grant Funding is distributed largely through state governor’s Offices of Criminal Justice and also directly through grants to local jurisdictions.  Once the monopoly of law enforcement and corrections authorities, these funds have been opened up in recent years to support criminal justice and correctional reform, including, Drug Court and Alternatives to Prison. (For funding details, see: OJP/BJP website)

The $690 million budget request for COPS funding for 2010 (an increase of $300 million over last year), as well as the Billion Dollar plus under the “Main Street Act”, under consideration in the Congress, are reason enough to follow the money trail. Community policing resources, the original purpose of COPS is still very much alive as a priority, and provides the means for personnel and resources to monitor drug court participants in many communities (Richland County, Ohio, uses Community policing personnel to do home visits and monitor reentry court participants in the community)  .

March 18: Deadline For Reentry Mentoring Grants

by

Community involvement in the Reentry Process is critical to the success of a reentry court. Our guest post, on the importance of Mentoring in the Reentry Process, was written by Pat Nolan , of the “Justice Fellowship”:

Prison Fellowship has found that having a mentor increases the beneficial impact of the other programs they participate in. Ex-offenders need healthy relationships even more than they need programs. A mentor is there to help them think through the myriad decisions that confront them—where to live, how to get a job, where to get medical care. Even mundane things like obtaining a driver’s license or a state ID. Mentors also hold offenders accountable for staying on the right path and help them get back on their feet when they falter.

It’s great news that the grants just issued by the BJA’s Office of Justice Programs are meant to be used to help build the capacity of local communities to match returning offenders with a mentor. There were 507 applications for the first round of grants, and we anticipate even greater demand for the $15 million available this year. The mentoring grants are the only source of funding currently available for community- and faith-based groups under the Second Chance Act; so, be prepared for stiff competition.

The announcement from BJA has excellent step-by-step instructions, an invaluable checklist and a comprehensive syllabus of articles about mentoring. My hat is off to Gary Dennis and his team at BJA. They have done a terrific job establishing this grant program in a way that is understandable to those of us who are not in government service. [For the full article see: Justice Fellowship]

Mansfield, Ohio: A Collaborative Model

by

Mansfield, Ohio, a small community of fifty thousand presents an extraordinary example of collaboration between county court and probation services, and state prison and parole agencies.  Almost all returning county prisoners, have been intentionally interned at one of the two in-county prisons and upon release from prison, monitored by the Richland Reentry Court. Judges’ Henson and Deweese operate the Reentry court in tandem, each holding court once a month for some 150 participants.  The Ohio “Judicial Release Program” as practiced in Mansfield, over the last ten years, is a hybrid of county and prison based reentry models that has proven its worth in a formal evaluation conducted by Professor Jeffrey Spellman, of Ashland University.

The reentry process actually begins at the time an individual is sentenced (sometimes as early as arraignment).  The court makes its sentencing decision based on risk/needs assessment tools. Whenever an offender is sent to prison under the “Judicial Release Program” for a period of six months or more, the offender can be recalled by the reentry court  for continued county-based supervision and treatment. When the offender is returned to the community depends on the court’s decision at a “Prison Reentry Hearing”, that  considers the prisoner’s conduct, as well as,  participation and success in prison rehabilitation programs, while being closely monitored by the Richland County Reentry Court Coordinator.  Once returned to the community, the reentry court’s treatment, rehabilitation and monitoring (facilitated by  parole, probation and community policing staff) work together with the returning offender.

The Reentry Court has a second facet, for offenders who are released under the state parole authority’s jurisdiction. These offenders typically are convicted of more serious offenses, but are also monitored and serviced by the reentry court. One of the most fascinating aspects of the court, is that the Reentry Court Judge sits alongside a Parole Commissioner  on the bench, (though each has final authority over a different segment of the reentry community).  It appears, that given the right environment (as in Mansfield), county and state reentry authorities can create innovative and successful  collaborative relationships. (Article on Richland Reentry Court)

For more information, contact: David Leitenberger, at [email protected]

NCSL Provides Overview of 2009 Sentencing Data

by

The National Conference  of State Legislatures has published an overview of “Significant State Sentencing and Corrections Legislation in 2009”. The easy to follow summary provides a review of new sentencing laws for every state in the nation. Though brief, this  snapshot of sentencing reform across the nation points to increasing efforts at prison and jail reform. It’s also an excellent place to begin a review of reentry court legislation nationwide.

Find the data at: NCSL 2009 Sentencing Review

2011 Budget Maintains Reentry Funding

by

While the details are just coming in, the prognosis for Reentry Programs under the proposed 2011 budget released Feb.2,2010 is good. Proposed Reentry Funding may actually increase over 2010 expenditures. Specifically, funding of $144 million is proposed for  Department of Justice’s Reentry Services. including continued funding of $100 million under the Second Chance Act, and $30 million for a Drug Rehabilitation Housing Program for offenders returning from jails and prisons.

Further details on 2011 Reentry Funding will be added as they are announced.

Senator Coburn Memo lays out Reentry Funding

by

A memo from Senator Tom Coburn’s office (rep, Ok ), provides a comprehensive picture of Department Of Justice (and other departments) reentry funding.  The memo’s purpose was to expose duplicate funding within the federal government, but in doing so lays out a comprehensive  picture of available federal funds for reentry purposes.

[Note: A valuable document for those researching reentry court funding streams; in particular,  DOJ’s $520 million  Byrne JAG Funding and Department of Labor’s $100 million plus funding for ex-offender reentry):

Second Chance Act

Funded at more than $100 million in FY 2010, the Second Chance Act funds offender-prisoner reentry programs.

DOJ is responsible for allocating $100 million, which breaks down into the following amounts:

· $37 million for grants for adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects,

· $15 million for grants for mentoring and transitional services,

· $10 million for reentry courts,

· $7.5 million for family based substance abuse treatment,

· $2.5 million for evaluation and improvement of education at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities,

· $5 million for technology careers training demonstration grants,

· $13 million for offender reentry substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration, and

· $10 million for prisoner reentry research.

There are a number of other programs, both within DOJ and at other agencies, which also make money available to states and localities for the purpose of facilitating prisoner reentry, as outlined below.

Department of Justice’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative

DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs-Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the Prisoner Reentry Initiative ($11.7 million in FY 2008), which provides funding to states and federally recognized tribes to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies. It targets individuals 18 or older that have not been convicted of a violent or sex-related offense and assists them with returning to their communities after periods of incarceration.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the following DOJ programs are also able to be used by states and localities to fund prisoner reentry efforts. (All below was excerpted from CRS Report RL34287.)

· DOJ maintains formula grant programs outlined below that provide assistance to states or local units of government according to legislatively mandated formulas; this funding can be used for offender reentry purposes at the state or local unit of government’s discretion. In addition to these programs, the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program can also be used by states to support offender reentry activities and initiatives.

· Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The COPS program does not expressly authorize funding for offender reentry purposes; nevertheless, under its broad community policing mandate, OJP has used this grant program on occasion to fund pilot offender reentry programs.

· Weed and Seed. The Weed and Seed program can also provide funding for state offender reentry programs. …Offender reentry programs can [qualify for this funding] because funding can be used to provide supervision for ex-offenders in the community, as well as to develop support services. In addition to participating in the [Prisoner Reentry Initiative] program, Weed and Seed is currently collaborating with the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation to create volunteer-driven offender reentry initiatives in communities.

· Juvenile Justice Grant Programs. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers a number of grants that can be used by states and units of local government to provide aftercare services (i.e., offender reentry programs) for juvenile delinquents who are returning to their communities from residential placement (i.e., prison).

· The National Institute of Corrections (NIC). Within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, NIC provides assistance for state and local corrections agencies. …NIC’s offender reentry-related support typically covers programs focused on preparing offenders for offender reentry while they are incarcerated. Specifically, the Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement works to advance the employability of offenders and ex-offenders, which is also duplicative of numerous efforts at the Department of Labor

Department of Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorized this competitive grant program combines two previous demonstration projects, the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) ($108 million in FY 2010) and the Responsible Reintegration of Youthful Offenders (RRYO). PRI, funds faith-based and community organizations that help recently released prisoners find work when they return to their communities.

In addition, DOL maintains two programs that provide incentives for companies to hire ex-offenders. The Work Opportunity Tax Credits program provides up to $2,400 in tax credits to companies for every former offender they hire, and the Federal Bonding Program allows companies who cannot obtain bonding or insurance from their own providers to bond ex-offenders for up to $25,000 for up to six months.

According to CRS, various Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services programs may also be used to provide support for offender reentry education efforts, duplicative of efforts at the Department of Justice, including the following:

· Lifeskills for State and Local Inmates Program;

· the Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders programs;

· Title II of the Workforce Investment Act, Adult Education and Family Literacy;

· The Perkins State Grant Program;

· HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program;

· Programs through HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA) and the Office of Community Services; and

· HHS’ Young Offender Reentry Program.

[Download: Council of State Government’s Federal Reentry funding list]

California’s Non-Revokable Parole Goes into Effect

by

Today, Non-revocable Parole goes into effect in California. Some five thousand non-violent, less serious offenders will be released with a single condition of parole; that they submit to a search when requested.  Part of a multi-phase prison/parole reform package, some question whether releasing former offenders without services, rehabilitation, or accountability will increase or decrease the rate of recidivism in California. [Click: Non-Revocable Parole]

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team