Court-Based Realignment

Realignment is the general term used to cover the return of prisoners from state prison to local jurisdictions, and in many instances, court jurisdiction.

Supreme Court spurs prisoner move to counties

by

June 7th

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 23rd, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony  Kennedy, found that overcrowded conditions in California prisons violate the  “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the Constitution. In a decision that is being noted across the nation, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, described “a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.” [NY Times Article]

The Supreme Court orderred 30,000 inmates removed from the California prison system over the next two years, but did not indicate how that was to be achieved. Interestingly, Californiia Governor Jerry Brown, has recently signed reallignment legislation (that will take effect on July 1, 2011), that will make less serious felonies subject to extended county jail sentences, and less serious parolees subject to state court jurisdiction.

The coming together of the Supreme Court decision and the Governor’s reallignment policies is as close to a perfect storm as we are ever likely to see in the criminal justice system. Many states are operating under similar overcrowded conditions and subject the Supreme Court decree. There is now an opportunity to create a more rational, reasonable and effective community based sentencing policy for felons.

The most significant part of any such strategy will be the sentencing of less serious felons, anchoring them to their  communties and providing a structured system for their supervision and reintegration into the community. Such a movement of prisoners and parolees to local venues (whether they be jail sentences and/or alternative sentences), is critical to cost-effective and humane treatment of the returning offender.

It’s clearly time to create a vision of how felons can best be supervised, treated and rehabilitated, and finally returned  to being participating members of their communities.

[The Reentry Court Grant, available through BJA’S Second Chance Act would be an excellent place to begin creating that alternative vision]

California Courts gird for new parole role

by

Extra/ May 22nd

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

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

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

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

CA Omnibus Bill AB109 Redefines Parole

by

Aril 5, 2011

On March 17th, the California legislature passed  AB 109, the most far-reaching criminal justice legislation in many a generation. Among other startling changes, was the transfer of authority over parole revocation from the State Board of Parole to the individual County Superior Courts, while parole itself would become agencies of the counties, and thousands of state prisoners would be returned to County jails to finish out their sentences. Clearly, this bill will not be favored by everyone, but it is a step in the right direction, a return of less serious prison offenders to the counties they came from.

The governor has not signed the bill as of yet, and the provisions of the bill will not be implemented unless state funding for County parole responsibilities is provided to counties. It is an open question as to how the bill might effect the six pilot parole reentry courts presently being implemented and evaluated across Califiornia.


Reentry Courts beckon as Cal Prisoners return?

by

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.

Supreme Court to hear Cal Prison Case

by

The U.S. Supreme court has agreed to hear an appeal of  Schwarenegger v. Plata, where a three judge appellate panel found  California to be denying prisoners adequate medical and mental health care, in violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the U.S. Constitution. The Appellate panel ordered the State of California to reduce its prison population (now at approximately 150,000) by 40,000 prisoners, by December, 2011 (AP story).

In a similar vein, another recent news story told the sad tale of state’s reducing and in some cases eliminating prison based drug and other treatment/rehabilitation based programs (AP story). One can only hope that these programs are being cut back because of states’ intent to release drug dependent offenders, to be provided treatment and rehabilitation services in their communities. As unlikely as that may be, it will be incumbent on all to be vigilant and proactive in maintaining and expanding treatment both inside and outside of state prison walls.

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).

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]

California Leads with $10 Million in Reentry Court Funding

by

California has committed itself to  the largest prison-based reentry  demonstration project in the nation’s history. The RFP  released today through the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) provides $10 million in Federal stimulus funds for the Parolee Reentry Court Program to be administered by the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Parole Reentry Court Program, will provide between $1 and 1.5 million for two and one half years for up to seven prison-based reentry courts.  The demonstration grants will be open to jurisdictions that have well defined and implemented drug and mental health courts. Priority will be given to jurisdictions serving large numbers of  parolees and those with higher risks of recidivating.

For California, with its overwhelming prison overcrowding and reentry problems, this project marks a remarkable change from business as usual. For the first time, ex-prisoners  will be under the jurisdiction of the California Courts. While the Corrections Agency will decide who is elligible for the program,  once a prisoner is assigned to a Parolee Reentry Court, the reentry court judge and team ( with the assistance of a team based parole officer) will have final say  until termination from the program.

Of Note: the program requires no matching funds from the court or local jurisdicition and retired judges may be contracted to preside over the reentry court.

Applications must be filed by March 1st. (For more information, see: Parolee Reentry Court Program)

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team