Cal AB109 forces Counties to Care for their Own

Mar. 5, 2012

The two articles posted on my Facebook Page ( California Prisons Address Overcrowding, Remove Last Of Nearly 20,000 Extra BedsCalifornia prisons clearing out – sacbee.comfound to immediate right), speak volumes about the success of California’s prison reduction plan. Known statewide as AB 109, the realigment strategy returns what are called “triple nons” (non-violent, non-serious, non-sex-offenders) to local jurisdictions to deal with. It also requires local courts to sentence the same basic low risk offender class to local custody or alternatives to incarceration. The result has been the elimination of temporary beds and a reduction of almost 20,000 state prisoners since October 1st when the new law took effect.

Vilified by many California criminal justice professionals, it is clear that Governor Brown’s strategy is working and for all the right reasons. Critics argue that we are returning prisoners to counties that are unable to keep them incarcerated them and therefore risk releasing them into the community. And that is the point. If local communities and their judiciary wish to incarcerate an offender for a protracted period of time, it should be their burden, finacially and otherwise, not the state’s.

Consider what has been the existing system in California and elsewhere. Counties with limited jail facilities and financial resources have dumped tens of thousands of sentenced felon into the state  prison system. Between 1970 and 2006, the California Prison system increased more than 700%, largely because counties could send unwanted anti-social offenders out of county for long prison terms, the longer the better. Looking at a Callifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation documents, largely rural and financially strapped counties send the highest percentage of offenders to prison, and of course that is the problem.

What the Governor’s plan has done, is force local communities to accept responsibility  for their own less serious felons (once again, those who are in triple non status), forcing them to sentence offenders to more appropriate terms of incarceration and releasing those into the community who pose the least danger to the community. What is missing from this successful equation, is a court-based rehabilitation sysytem, that could seamlessly reintroduce offenders into the community through supervision, monitoring, and rehabilitation services that would give the newly released offender the opportunity to successfully reintegrate into the community.

Front-Loading Court-Based Interventions

Picture 8
Dallas Judge Francis with graduates from the Dallas Pre-Entry Court Program

It is generally thought that the court’s have little recourse or jurisdiction to affect a prison sentence once that sentence has been announced. The truth is, that most state courts have significant jursdiction to alter, amend or modify a prison sentence. Depending on the state, jurisdiction to recall may exist for a period of one month to one year after sentencing.The most obvious purpose of a “front-loaded intervention”, is to order a convicted felon to state prison for an evaluation, assessment, or other purpose, immediately before or after sentence has been imposed.

While this power is found in most state courts, it is most often used by individual judges on a case by case basis. Some courts, in particular drug courts, will use front-loaded jurisdiction to create what can be called a “court-based reentry system” . A recent example of such a court-based reentry intervention occurred in New Mexico, where a drug court judge ordered a program violator into prison (before sentencing) for a sixty day evaluation, to be returned to court, for sentencing (see:Preentry Prison Evaluation used in New Mexico )

Similarly, jurisdiction exists in many states to recall the felon, after sentencing, for re-consideration and potential re-sentencing. The intention to recall may be announced at the time of sentence, or the decision to recall may be discretionary with the judge within the statutory period. This form of preentry intervention is often used to encourage a serious attitude change on the part of a prospective long-tern prisoner.

The judge may use their jurisdiction to sentence the felon to prison as part of a court-ordered treatment program, with the understanding that the offender is to undergo treatment before returned to court for re-sentencing. If the felon is found in compliance, the court will return the felon to a court-based probation program in the community.

The Dallas Reentry Court is a excellent example of the extraordinary innovation (and sometimes bewildering variation) among pre-entry courts, that divert offenders from a prison sentence to a probation based custodial program. What makes the Dallas SAFPF Program unique, is that its custodial segment is actually situated on prison grounds, yet program participants are segregated from the prison population, and never leave the jurisdiction of the County SAPFP Court Program.

The Texas legislature’s “4C program” provides  in-custody facilities within the prison’s outer perimeter , and uses specially trained, but regular prison guards. Although there are approximately ten jurisdictions that take advantage of “4c” facilites, Dallas is by far the largest, and the only one that has a court and judge dedicated to the reentry mission. Seventeen Dallas judges sentence drug offenders to the  SAFPF program, but when offenders finsh their in-custody treatment (typically 6 to 9 months),  they enter a dedicated Reentry Court for monitoring, continued treatment and rehabilitative services.

Judge Robert Francis, a retired judge, works full time as the reentry court judge. He and his staff take regualr trips to the “4C” facilities to check up on Dallas based offenders. Plans are in the works to reward those who do well well in the in-custody program.  Though the progam is less than a year old, 275  participants have completed the in-custody “4C” treatment program, and been released into the care and custody of Judge Francis and the Dallas SAFPF Reeentry Court,  where revocations are at an extraordinarily low 5% (Dallas SAFPF Reentry Court)

Boone County, Mo. is an example of a jurisdiction that has uses its front-loaded court jurisdiction to send drug dependent violators to prison for a period of up four months for treatment, to be returned to Judge Chris Carpenter’s Reentry Court (or what some describe as a Preentry Court), for further probation rehabilitation and monitoring in the community. Columbia, Missouri’s “Reintegration Court” is considered a Reentry Court, as it provides a comprehensive rehabilitation program, focused on the whole individual, his/her risk of recidivism,  and relies on evidence based practices after the prison term. (see: Columbia Missouri)

The above are just some of the existing variations in the courts’ use of a brief and immediate prison term, to be followed by recall to the court for sentencing or reconsideration of a sentence previously imposed. They are considered here because they are generally thought of as a successful rehabilitation strategy (and in the case of Boone County, a Reentry Court Program), designed to get the offender’s attention, assess their suitability for probation, and give them one last chance to change their behavior before a substantial prison sentence is imposed. It should be seriously considered on the program level as an alternative to prison, and as a way to reach out to large numbers of offenders that otherwise would be on their way to long prison terms.

Pre-Sentence Prison Evaluation used in New Mexico

Feb.4

A pre-sentence evaluation is often used to give an offender, a failed drug court participant in particular, an opportunity to see what a substantial prison sentence would be like. The program described, appears to be part of a court-based reentry system, probably a drug court. In this instance, a New Mexico judge, ordered resigned State Public Regulation Commission member Jerome Block Jr., to serve 60 days in prison while being evaluated

Reentry Court Grant Opportunities for County Jails

June 6th

The recent pubication of BJA’s reentry court RFP presents a variety of important options to the reentry court field.

Perhaps one of the most important facts to remember is that the grants are available to county jail as well as prison returnees.

County Sheriffs who may be facing an influx of prisoners to local jurisdictions (ie, California), should consider how $500,000 grants would lighten their burden. They can use the funds to provide services in custody, while inmates are in transitional housing, and/or when they are living in the community.

In that regard, it’s important to note who may apply: “states, units of local government, federally recognized Indian tribes, and non-profit entities that target adult populations.”

At a time when rehabilitation funds are drying up, this is an extraordinary opportunity to access as much as three years of federal funding for local alternative sentencing.

Each day this week, at least one new article will be published, focusing on a critical aspect of  the Reentry Court RFP

Remember, the RFP deadline is June 30th.

Dallas Program: Back in The News

Nov. 15, 2010

Chris Watler, the Director of the Harlem  Community Justice Center (which houses the Harlem Parole Reentry court) takes a look at the Dallas SAFPT Reentry Court. This website published an article on the Dallas reentry program last December (Dallas SAFPC: Where Reentry is Also Preentry), but Chris’s article, (Rethinking Reentry: A Visit To The Dallas Reentry Court) gives a more down to earth description of one of the premiere Reentry Courts in the U.S.

Schwarzenneger Takes Step Toward Pre-Entry Court

California Governor Arnold Schwarzennneger has indicated that his May revised budget will include a provision to send fifteen thousand  nonserious, nonviolent, non-sex offender felons presently serving time in state prison, to serve up to three years of their sentence in county jail (see: Sacramento  Bee article). To some, the plan has obvious drawbacks, as many county jails are severely overcrowded, without adequate medical and other services, (and in some cases under federal caps). Others would argue that the plan would imprudently force county jail to release county inmates early.

But, it can also be seen as a positive development in the fight to keep non-violent offenders out of prison; a tacit acknowledgement of the compelling need to keep non-violent offenders in local probation based programs (whether custodial or otherwise). This can ultimately work out to be a major step away from state prison and toward community supervision and rehabilitation of non-violent offenders.  County Probation Jail-Based Reentry Courts (or Pre-Entry courts) could be the real winner, if Schwarzenneger’s plan catches on in California and other states (see article: Jail Based Reentry Court As Grant Applicant)


Pre-Entry Court as RFP Applicant

Note: Deadline for applications; June 3, 2010

This is the fourth and last article  on the “Second Chance Act” Reentry Court Solicitation. In this analysis,  I will review the RFP from the perspective of a Pre-Entry or county jail, probation-based reentry court applicant. [Note: A Pre-Entry Court is a before entry to prison court)

Typically, when one thinks of a reentry process, the focus is on state prisoners reentering society.  While this is clearly a critical issue, the possibility of keeping the offenders in the local community , and using a substantial jail term as a last resort has not always received the focus it deserves. Creating an effective county jail-based reentry court program offers the possibility of reducing the state prison population with its extraordinary costs, keeping offenders local, while increasing public safety within a seamless and comprehensive jail-based reentry court system.

Note:This solicitation is open to offenders returning from jails as well as prisons.

The pressure is on to reduce prison population in states like California (see article below). Governor Schwarzenneger has just announce a major new prison plan to return 15,000 prisoners to county jail to complete up to three years of their sentences. This news augurs well for Pre-Entry or County Probation-Based Reentry Courts. The potential for dealing with offenders at an early stage of the criminal justice process (possibly as soon as Arraignment), allowing for the seamless transitioning from jail to community, providing judicial oversight and incentives, using the same reentry court team throughout, and providing critical rehabilitation services early on, is a compelling alternative to prison  (see: County Jail Based Reentry Courts, a Policy Paper).

An additional benefit of the Pre-Entry Court, is that the local jurisdiction can submit an application and proceed with their planned reentry court, even in states that don’t support state prison-based reentry courts. As described in last week’s article, “RFP Targets Criminal Justice Leadership“,   there is enormous political, social, and financial pressure to handle prisoner reentry through the corrections and parole mechanisms that have always been in place. Hopefully, by showing that Reentry Court works on the county level, many more states will take a serious look at reentry court as an alternative to the failed conventional corrections/parole based reentry system presently in place at the state level.

It’s worth repeating the obvious, the way to deal with exploding prison populations and prisoner reentry failures is to refrain from sentencing non-violent offenders to prison in the first place.

Pre-entry Courts in the Age of Reentry

Pre-Entry Court is a county probation-based reentry court and an advanced next generation drug court, . Typically, non-violent drug offenders are placed on  probation, with a state prison sentence suspended, and the offender ordered to attend, participate, and complete an in-custody treatment program as a condition of probation ( for those legally inclined, “execution of sentence is suspended”).  In essence, rather than dealing with the  offender after they serve a prison term (with all its dibilitating consequences) they are given their last best opportunity to enter a “pre-entry court” (or a “before entry to  prison court”) and avoid a formal prison commitment.

For example,  County Jail-Based Reentry Courts offer the possibility of reducing state prison populations with their extraordinary costs,while providing the serious non-violent offender, the  seamless  monitoring, treatment, and rehabilitative services of  a comprehensive drug court.  (It can be confusing at first, to realize that there are two kinds of reentry courts, one dealing with prison reentry, the other with those returning from extended jail or other probation-based custodial programs.)

Optimally, Pre-entry Courts (typically county-jail based reentry courts)  engage the offender at the time of plea and assessment through sentencing, entry into, and completion from an in-custody rehabilitation program. When released from custodial status into the community, the pre-entry court judge and team continue to monitor the probationer through progress hearings and finally program graduation.

Ultimately, a pre-entry court will be part of a Next Generation Drug Court System, providing comprehensive drug court services  to returnees from jail, other county-based custodial programs,  probation revocations, prison (and more traditional drug court participants, who typically do not receieve  an immediate custodial sentence). The emergence of fledgling  pre-entry courts, while focused mostly on those with substance abuse problems, is an important development in criminal justice reform, and arguably the best way to reduce both prison over-crowding and prison reentry failure, whether offenders are drug involved or not. [for a unique example of a pre-entry court, see Dallas SAFPF Reentry Court]


© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team