Education/Training

Information on training and educational programs (both in person or web-based) focused on court-based reentry systems, including reentry courts

California modifies harshest 3-Strikes Law in the Nation

by

Nov. 11, 2012

The passage of Proposition 36‘s last week modified one of the most infamous laws in the nation’s history. While other states enacted 3-strikes laws, none went as far as California. Under California law, an offender with  two prior felonies that were designated as serious or dangerous under the penal code, convicted of a third felony, would be sent to prison for a term of 25 years to life. It didn’t matter what that third felony turned out to be.  Relatively minor offenses, such as a petty theft with a prior petty theft (designated as a felony in California)  could qualified as a third strike.

This is the first voter-sanctioned modification of California’s three-strikes law (the California Supreme Court has carved out limited discretion for prosecutors and courts to three-strike allegation). Prop. 36 also authorizes the courts to resentence thousands of three-strikers whose third offenses were not violent or serious, as long as they do not pose a serious risk to public safety.

A proposition proposing limitations on the imposition of the three-strikes law was rejected in the past. This overwhelming approval of three-strike reform by the California electorate suggests that substantial criminal justice reform is now possible through the electoral system. (see Sacramento Bee article)

The Discretion of Cal Judges in Split Sentencing

by

Oct. 28, 2012

I had the good fortune to attend a conference on parole reentry courts put on by the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) last week. The conference dealt mostly with Parole Reentry Courts and was moderated in part by retired Judge Richard Couzens, a recognized authority on California Sentencing Law. I had  an opportunity to talk to Judge Couzens about the extraordinary discretion given to California Judges to shape prison sentences under the new AB109 Sentencing Law ( where offenses called triple nons; non violent, non-serious, and non sex offenses, actually serve their prison sentences in county jail).

I had read in the manual,”Felony Sentencing After Realignment”, written by Judge  Richard Couzens and  Justice Tricia Bigelow, that where the court decided to impose a split sentence, the conditions of the sentence could be “reserved” and both the term or length of the sentence as well as the conditions of  “mandatory supervision” that normally follows a jail sentence, could be modeified at any time by the court. [click on image on the left for a copy of the manual]

The actually language i found in the manual read, “The court could choose to impose a sentence under the provisions of section 1170(h)(5)(B), but reserve jurisdiction to set the actual time and conditions of release at a later time. Such a strategy might be appropriate where the court wants to give the defendant encouragement to complete various custody programs and do well in custody, then set relevant terms when the court determines release is appropriate” (p.10).

I asked Judge Couzins about the court’s discretion to impose later term and conditions, and he reaffirmed my understanding of the law. Which brings me to a dilemma. I am aware that many courts are not using the split sntencing authority presented under Penal Code Section 1170H. But even when they do, they don’t often use the discretion given to them under the law to shape both the jail and supervision segments of the term. Just this week i read an article in the San Jose mercury News that lamented the lack of discretion given judges to shape a split sentence once handed down. It seems to me that there may be sufficient interest in the court’s authority under Penal Code Section 1170H to warrant a separate AOC Conference dealing with the court’s jurisdiction when imposing split sentencing under the new sentencing law.

 

CSG data shows reduction in Prison Recidivism

by

 

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.”

Part 12; Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: The Conclusion

by

June 25,2012

Back to the Future: Evidence Based Sentencing Systems

The 12 part series of articles on Evidence Based Sentencing Systems (see: Evidence Based Sentencing Systems) concludes as it  began, with an admonition to recognize that technology and science have changed the nature of the sentencing process, What is needed is a more comprehensive and systemic approach that recognizes the advances made in sentencing, from risk/needs assessments and cognitive behavioral therapies, to the development of hybrid sentencing sysems that employ traditional as well as  problem-solving practices.

We need to look beyond conventional responses to criminal behavior, acknowledging that our over-reliance on imprisonment  has been a tragic mistake. The science and research advances of the past ten years should inform the sentencing decisions we make. But we should also look back into history.  The prison sysytem in this country is little more than 200 years old. Up until that time, custody as a response to criminal behavior was largely unknown and community control exerted extraordinary influence over the individual. We need to reestablish the primacy of the community through our sentencing and rehabilitation models, in essence going “Back to the Future” (click on image on the left: The Drug Court judicial Bench Book, Chapter 1, Drug Courts: Back to the Future; J Tauber, NDCI, 2011)

We are confronted with new evidence-based sentencing practices that demand a fresh look at a very old paradigm.  We need to acknowledge the central idea of evidence-based sentencing, that sentencing demands a systemic team based approach, and ultimately more effort and time than a single judge can provide. Problem-solving courts provide the structure for a hybrid system, where team based sentencing systems are capable of providing  continuing sentencing  processes, probation and court tracks , risk/needs information, and rehabilitative capabilities that protect the community, yet address for the offenders criminogenic needs.

We will be  challenged in ways that we never expected. Our concepts regarding the treatment of  non drug using offenders,  drug abusers versus drug dependent offenders, low risk offenders versus low to medium risk offenders, all demand that we rethink basic sentencing and rehabilitative concepts.For those willing to open their eyes, Evidence Based Sentencing Practices can open the door to  better and more cost effective sentencing.

 

 

Governors get it right and wrong

by

June 17, 202

As reported last week, the governor of many a state has jumped on the drug court bandwagon. Many support the position that all non-violent drug abusing offenders are in need of intensive drug treatment and an opportunity to receive such treatment in the community, rather than prison. This belief runs counter to what has become an accepted scientific principle, that only drug dependent and addicted offenders need the intensive intervention of a drug court program.While their grasp of the science of drug dependency may be weak, the governors’ willingness to offer a broad  community drug court based treatment plan for most non-violent drug abusers is exemplary (see: NADCP Argues for Evidence-Based Tracks).

On the other hand,  we have governors who apparently understand the science, that drug dependent offenders should receive intensive drug court treatment, but substance abusers (who are not drug dependent) do not need that intensive treatment. While we applaud their understanding of the science involved, we’re concerned that they are not always interested in alternatives to prison for non-drug dependent offenders (or non-drug abusers). We need to provide non-custodial alternatives to prison for offenders who are not drug dependent. Failing to do so will effectively create a second class of non-dependent drug abusers with serious criminogenic needs that are being ignored by our governors. i ask you (and them); why wouldn’t we want to keep non-violent offenders in the community, where they can receive far more cost effective rehabilitative services suited to their criminogenic needs, rather than sending them to prison where all they will receive is a master’s degree in criminology (see: Dealing with the Whole Person in Sentencing: Part 10).

NADCP argues for Evidence-Based Tracks

by

June 12, 2012

Dr. Doug Marlowe, NADCP Director of Science and Law is a clinical psycologist and attorney, widely acknowledged, as the foremost authority on the science behind Drug Courts and evidence-based Drug Court systems (seen in photo on left). At the NADCP conference in Nashville last week, he spoke at a number of workshops, attended by hundreds of attendees and moderated a plenary panel session whose participants were a who’s who of the drug court and drug treatment field ( “Reconstruction After the War on Drugs”). His two part Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheets, Targeting the Right Participants for Adult Drug Courts  and Alternative Tracks in Adult Drug Courts: Matching Your Program to the Needs of your Clients, were the only documents included along with the conference agenda, provided to nearly 4500 attendees.

In his presentations and two part Fact Sheets he laid out a clear message for the drug court and the criminal justice field in general. Drug Courts are not for everyone. Only those individuals who are drug dependent ought to be placed in a drug court. Accordin g to Dr. Marlowe, sixty to eighty perccent of drug offenders in the criminal justice system, are drug abusers, not drug dependent, and don’t belong in a drug court.

In Fact Sheet II, Alternative Tracks in Adult Drug Courts: Matching Your Program to the Needs of your Clients, Dr. Marlowe further explains that developing alternative tracks in drug courts for non high-risk offenders probably make good sense. “In some communities the drug court may be the most effective, or perhaps only, program serving as an alternative to incarceration”. He concludes, “If a drug court has such compelling reasons to serve low-risk or low-need individuals, it should consider making substantive modifications to its program to accommodate the characteristics of its participants”. The document then describes “a conceptual framework and evidence-based practice recommendations for designing alternative tracks within a drug court to serve different types of adult participants”. All of this information should be of great interest, not only to the drug court practitioner, but to those interested in evidence-based sentencing systems, that provides appropriate tracks for different offender populations. In fact, both documents ought to be closely read for their import to sentencing in general (see:  Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 10).

Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 10

by

June 12, 2012

Dealing with the whole person in sentencing: Part 10

If you follow the comments of governors and other state policy makers these days, it appears that they have signed on to the notion that drug courts are the answer to prison overpopulation, high crime rates, and increased recidivism (and that may be the short list). In reading about their support for drug courts, I am cheered by their adoption of an important  innovation that I along with others pioneered over twenty years ago. And I am disheartened by their misunderstanding of the significance and applicability of drug court to one and all criminal offenders.

As described by Dr. Doug Marlow, at the 18th Annual NADCP Conference in Nashville  (see:  NADCP argues for Evidence-based tracks), most drug offenders are not drug dependent and shouldn’t be part of an intensive drug court program. In fact, according to Dr.Marlow, 60 to 80% of drug offenders do not need  a drug court’s intensive treatment. The majority of criminal offenders need to be treated as a whole person (not just a drug abusing person). As tempting as it may be to lock onto drug treatment as a silver bullet that works with all offenders, it isn’t an effective or cost- efficient tool for most criminal offenders (or even most drug offenders).

However that shold not conclude our analysis. If you look at the scientific literature on evidence based sentencing practices (click on image on the left,for a brief, comprehensive description of “Evidence Based Practices”), you’ll find that medium to high risk offenders have substantial criminogenic needs that need to be addressed, even if they’re not drug related.

“Criminogenic Needs” are functional impairments that if not treated, will increase the risk of further criminality. The top four such needs are a history of anti-social behavior, anti-social personality factors, anti-social cognitions/attitudes, and anti-social peers.Surprisingly, drug abuse is a second tier criminogenic need that only becomes a central concern if the offender is truly drug dependent or addicted., Otherwise, substance abuse treatment ranks  behind such second tier criminogenic needs such as family and/or marital stressors, employment and/or education deficiencies, and lack of pro-social leisure activities.

In practical terms, it appears that we over-treat drug abuse and pay too little attention to cognitive behavioral needs and rehabilitative therapies that have proven success in dealing with them. In essence what Dr. Marlowe and his scientific brethren have been telling us is Drug Court is not the answer to most offenders’ crimonogenic needs (although the better drug courts do not neglect them). Certainly drug courts can be modified (as Dr. Marlow suggests) to deal with the majority of criminal offenders, whose drug usage is not a primary criminogenic need. But it should be clear to all, that doing so may negatively impact drug courts and appropriate participants  As the old saw goes, if you just treat a criminal offender’s drug abuse, you might just create a healthier criminal. Better to deal with the whole person, in an evidence-based sentencing system, where their individual levels of risk and need are determined, and the appropriate supervision and treatment responses applied to them..

NADCP Conference Success is Complete

by

June 4, 2012

The National Association of Drug Court professionals 18th Annual Conference, was held last week in Nashville, Tenn.  Presided over by NADCP CEO West Huddleston, over 4000 attendees (an attendance record) filled Gaylord’s Grand Old Opry Hotel and Convention Center. I have been to all 18 National Conferences and found the energy  and confidence displayed to be inspiring.  To my mind, it was a powerful demonstration of the power of problem-solving courts to energize criminal justice reform across the nation (full disclosure: I was founding President of NADCP and am NADCP President Emeritus).

The Conference itself ran 23 tracks of 6 topic related workshops, ranging from Tribal Healing and Wellness Courts to Veteran’s Courts. Perhaps the most powerful session of the week was a plenary on Friday morning on “Reconstruction After the War on Drugs”, with Dr.Doug Marlowe, NADCP Director of Law and Science, moderating.  An mportant discussion ensued on the future of Drug Reform, now that the efficacy of treatment over imprisonment has become an article of faith among conservatives and liberals alike. On the panel were Judge Steve Alm, Dr. Robert DuPont, Melody Heeps, Chris Lowenkamp, Tim Murray, and NADCP CEO West Huddleston. The coming together of these seminal figures in the Treatment Court field is a good omen for the future.

Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 7

by

May, 13, 2012

Decision Making in a Sentencing System: Part 7

The diagram on the left represents the first half of a sentencing system envisioned, allowing us to take a closer look at decision making in an evidence based  sentencing system (Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 6):

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.

 As described in the demonstrative Diagram, the following evidence-based tracking system is offered for your consideration:

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 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 to  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 or graduation (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 prosocial activities for atleast 40 hours per week (for at least 90 days)

 The next segment will look at the ability of  local jurisdictions to use brief prison terms in sentencing

 

 

Front End Reentry Court Training; at NADCP Conference

by

May 5, 2012

A spcial training session focusing on the effectiveness of Front End/Preentry/Early Intervention Reentry Courts will be held on May 30th from9:00AM to Noon at the NADCP Conferendce in Nashville, Tennessee (SB-1; Bayou C)

[for conference registration information; May 30 – June 1: click here]

If you are interested in how Front End Reentry Courts could work in your jurisdicition and state, this is your opportunity. The training will be led by Judge Jeff Tauber (ret.), NADCP President Emeritus and Judicial Fellow in Reentry Courts and Evidence Based Sentencing. Practitioners from both the Dallas and Akron Reentry Courts, as well as national experts, will provide insights and practical information as to how Front End Reentry Court work in your jurisdiction and across your state. (At left, see Dallas Judge Bobby Francis and his SAFPF Court graduates)

Find the description for the training in the Conference agenda below:

FRONT-END REENTRY COURTS; A HALF DAY TRAINING (May 30, 2012; 9AM-12 Noon)

The states are looking for ways to reduce long term prison sentences. A number of state courts have developed effective “reentry courts” based on limited state jurisdiction that exists at the front end of a prison term. Called  Front End, Preentry, or Early Intervention Reentry Courts (depending on your locality), they capitalize on the courts ability to recall prisoners for resentencing within the first several months of a prison sentence (typically less than six months). These programs provide a seamless transition between in-custody treatment, court supervision, and community rehabilitation.

Learning Objectives:

a. Learn how Front End Reentry Courts have used existing jurisdiction and authority to create comprehensive reentry courts that combine the control of a prison sentence with the promise of court supervision and community reintegration.

b.  Learn how prison and community- based supervision and rehabilitation are coordinated in a seamless fashion that successfully reintegrates offenders into the community at a fraction of the cost of long term prison sentences.

You will receive first hand information on:

1.   Jurisdictional issues in starting front–end programs; program development both in and out of prison, levels of contact between court and prisoners, and sentencing structure.

2.    What happens in prison ( jail or a community corrections facility); what do the participants get out of brief custodial term, is there treatment, rehabilitation, and/or educational services while in custody, is there judicial oversight and/or incentives?

3.    What triggers a recall to the court for resentencing, what level of compliance is required for the prisoner to be allowed back into the court and community. What does the post prison court program look like and who has jurisdiction. What success have Front End Programs had?

[Note a separate single workshop on Front-End Reentry Courts will be held on Thursday, May 31st, from 10:30 to 11:45 at the NADCP Conferernce. It will be Workshop A13: Governor’s Ballroom D, the first workshop of the conference]

 

 

 

Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 5

by

 

April 30, 2012

Court Monitoring of Sentence Tracks: Part 5

Courts can deal effectively with all their sentenced felons, by developing comprehensive “evidence-based sentencing systems” (see Arming the Courts with Research: , Roger Warren, Pew, 2009). Traditionally, we classify, categorize, and sort felons into appropriate groupings at every step of sentencing process.The Sheriff decides an inmate’s housing category. The probation departments recommends whether a probationer should be intensively monitored or placed in a banked case load. The court  determines whether a felon is to be placed on probation or sent to prison.(Click on image to the left for Development and Implementation of Drug Court Systems,JTauber,NDCI,1999)

Today’s problem-solving courts have led the way in in the use of assessments (and other evidence based sentencing practices)  to improve our sorting or categorizing and thereby our sentencing outcomes. The court and its systemic partners determine if an offender needs special rehabilitation, treamtment, or education as part of the sentencing process. So a DUI offender with a third offense might require a residential alcohol treatment program, the domestic violence offender, an extensive series of violence reduction classes, and the drug offender, completion of a appropriate drug treatment program. In each instance, the court will continue to monitor the offenders at progress report hearings until the relevant conditions of probation are completed.

To optimize the effectiveness of a sentencing court’s monitoring of all felony sentences (see: Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 3), we now use a more comprehensive process, a validated risk/needs assesssment, to sort the offenders into appropriate tracks.  A felon is  determined to be a low, medium, or high risk offender. Depending on that determination, an individual is placed in different probation, treatment or rehabilitation tracks, with  the court actively monitoring those tracks on an regular schedule over the term of probation (and in some cases parole).  In effect, a “special sentencing team”, led by the sentencing judge, follows all offenders placed in sentencing tracks,  as they move seamlessly through sentencing and custody (where ordered)  and into the probation process.

It should be remembered, that though all felons are categirized and placed in tracks, that very process is intended to increase the court’s effectiveness, by limiting the court’s contact with the low risk/low needs offenders. If the sentencing court is to effectively deal with all felons, it will need to distinguish between those who require the court’s attention and those that are best left alone. Substantial savings in time, staffing, and resources lie in the court’s effective and appropriate tracking of  sentenced offenders.

The next segment will look at how sentencing tracks work in a systemic sentencing court.

Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 3

by

April 16, 2012

Part 3: The ‘Specialty Sentencing Court” as a Problem-Solving System

 

The idea that sentencing courts ought to be special and distinct entities is not a new one. There are and have been many urban jurisdictions that deal with sentencing and/or probation violations with full time specialty courts. As with the early drug courts of the 1980s, the purpose of special sentencing/probation courts is often to streamline the process and move the offender through as quickly as possible. Concern for how the offender can be best prepared for a return to community with appropriate supervision and/or treatment was and is often overlooked (click on the image on the left for “Reentry Drug Courts”, National Drug Court Institute Monograph Series, No. 3, “Reentry Drug Courts”, JTauber, circa 1999).

Existing sentencing or probation courts should have the responsibility to do more. Like other problem-solving court systems, Sentencing and/or Probation Courts need to create a bond between offender and the court, that among other things, reminds both of their obligations, one to the other. Special Sentencing Court Systems need to deliver evidence-based sentencing practices, processes too complex and demanding for even the most dedicated individual judge. ( “Arming the Courts with Research: Ten Evidence Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs”, a PEW monograph, Judge Roger Warren, ret.)

The best Problem-Solving Sentencing Courts will supervise thorugh separate tracks, as do most problem-solving courts in large urban jurisdictions. The Drug, Mental Health, and DUI Courts, though often presided over by the same judge, separate out the offender by the nature of the problem that the offender faces. Though the offender may have more than one serious issue, different problems call for different resources, information, staffing and treatment.

The Veterans Court provides a particularly good model for the Sentencing judge in smaller jurisdictions The Veterans Court has relatively few participants (typically less than 50), and is able to deal with the “Whole Person”. An individual is directed to the Veterans Court because he or she is faced with a criminal case, not because they have a particular issue or problem. The Veteran’s Court is prepared to deal with any and all issues facing the Veteran. To that extent, the Veteran’s court is a particularly good model for a “sentencing court”. The Veterans court mets out appropriate responses, as  a sentencing courts should, dealing with many different issues, and providing the appropriate supervision and services as required.

 The next segment will look at the importance of the judge in sentencing and monitoring supervision

Systemic Approaches to Sentencing: Part 2

by

 

April 9, 2012

Part 2: The Single Sentencing Court Team Concept:

One common feature that should define the Systemic Sentencing Model, is that the same judge and court team deal with the sentenced offender (to the extent possible), as part of a seamless supervision, treatment, and rehabilitation system, that runs from sentencing, through custody, through community supervision. The first of such systems go back more than 20 years to the dawn o the Drug Court era. It was widely understood that the sentencing and supervision of drug offenders was dysfunctional. There was little coordination in the court’s dealing with the drug offender, the offender rarely saw the same judge or court personnel twice, and there was little system accountability and therefore far too little offender responsibility and compliance ( Drug Courts: a Judicial Manual, J Tauber, California Center For Judicial Education and Research Journal, Summer 1994)

We still live in a largely uncooperative world of competing government departments, uncollaborative programs and agencies, and weak sentencing follow-thorugh by the courts and relevant agencies. As noted in Part 1, its unrealistic for individual courts to develop the  advanced capabilities necessary to develop evidence-based sentencing practices (“Arming the Courts with Research: Ten Evidence Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs”, a PEW monograph, Judge Roger Warren, ret; click on image).

What is necessary, is for a jurisdiction to focus a single judge and court team (or in a larger jurisdiction, a dedicated cadre of judges and staff) to the task of applying evidence based practices to sentencing courts. There is no reason to use a different approach or rationale than that developed and successfully applied to drug courts and other problem-solving courts across the nation. A sentencing court’s effectiveness ultimately depends on a jurisdictions willingness to provide a rational, system-wide, coordinated  approach to sentencing (It could be argued that much of the success of Hawaii’s PROJECT HOPE, rests on its systemic approach to felony probation supervision).

Some may feel it unnecessary for all felony sentencing and/or supervision to be handled by a problem-solving court. The advantages already described in such a system make it a very attractive alternative to the current somewhat haphazard process. What may be more surprising is the potential for savings to the court. Because the sentencing system will look to a validated risk/needs assessment tool to assist its sentencing decisions, it will be possible to create sentencing tracks for low risk/low need offenders that involve minimal resources and staff, allowing what limited resources that exist to be applied to high risk offenders with the greatest need and potential for harm.

In fact, low risk offenders may not be actively supervised by the court at all, after the individual makes a single supervision appearance before the judge after sentencing . On the other hand, a high-risk offender with a history of violence may be required to have weekly contact with the court and extensive contact with supervisory agencies  and rehabilitative programs, over an extended period of time.

The next segment further analyzes the needs of a “special sentencing/probation court”

 

NADCP Conference highlights Reentry Track and Training

by

The NADCP Conference to be held at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tenessee, May 30 through April 1, will provide information and training through 23 workshop tracks at the Conference (click here for Registration Information)

Reentry Courts and other court based reentry sysytems will have its own six workshop tracks (N0. 13) at the conference (as well as a half day training on Front End Reentry Courts on May 30th).

The following Reentry Court Workshops will be featured at  the NADCP Annual Conference in Nashvillle:

[click on schedule below to enlarge]

 

*Click here for agenda of NADCP Conference

NADCP convenes “Reentry Court Standards” Committee

by

Mar. 12, 2012

Twenty experienced criminal justice practitioners and policy makers met at NADCP offices in Alexandria Virginia over the past weekend, to review best practices and procedures of Reentry Courts across the nation. The three day session was led by NADCP Board “Reentry Court Committee” chairman, Keith Starrett, (depicted in picture on the right). Judge Starrett is the Federal District Court Judge in Hattiesburg, Mississippi and runs the first Federal Reentry Court in in the nation, established over six years ago (click here for additional information)

The committee was also led by Justice Ray Price of the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge J. Fulton of the Norfolk VA reentry court, and John Marr, a pioneer of the reentry court movement. The committee made substantial progress in laying out the major concepts of Reentry Courts and will continue to work on the document in the coming months. It’s expected that there will be a session on “Reentry Court Standards”, presented at the NADCP National conference in Nashville on May 31st (the NADCP Conference runs from May 30 to June 2; more on that shortly).

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team