Reentry Courts

Reentry Courts are special Problem-Solving Courts, that provide a seamless transition for high-risk offenders leaving our nations jails and prisons and reentering the community, providing the necessary rehabilitation and treatment services, as well as the supervision and monitoring required to make that transition successful.

Indiana Leads With Reentry Court Rules

by

State involvement and leadership in the reentry court field appears to be a requisite for successful programs. No state has been more active in establishing a state presence in the reentry court field than Indiana, where they have established court perameters through “Reentry Court Rules“.

As described in the July 12th issue of the Indiana Court Times, “in 2006, the General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing local courts to establish reentry courts (IC 33-23-14). The Indiana Judicial Conference Board of Directors adopted reentry court rules in 2008, and IJC began certifying reentry courts in 2009. There are currently six certified reentry courts in Indiana. The Judicial Conference established the Problem-Solving Courts Committee in 2006 to support the innovation of judges at the local level. The committee’s mission is: “To encourage the broad integration of the problem-solving philosophy into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law and to encourage judges to take a proactive role, using a non-adversarial, coordinated strategy to problem-solving while creating an environment where participants are encouraged to take responsibility for change.” Judge John Surbeck of Allen Superior Court [Indiana’s first Reentry Court Judge] serves as chair of the fifteen member committee.”

Indiana sets out definitive rules for certification of Indiana’s Reentry courts. For those reentry courts that are not certified, the state provides

“A reentry court that is not certified by the Indiana Judicial Center, and an applicant whose plan of operation does not comply with requirements for certification under these rules is not entitled to receive a favorable review or recommendation from the Indiana Judicial Center on any application for funding of services from state, federal, or private funding sources.” (Sec.13)

Clearly Indiana is creating financial incentives for courts to conform to state standards and become certified. It’s the onlycase I know  of a state judiciary attempting to dictate the structure and and procedures used in reentry court. To my way of thinking, it is an important option available to states, committed to establishing effective state-wide reentry court programs.

For additional information about reentry courts, please contact Mary Kay Hudson, Problem-Solving Court Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center,[email protected].

Grant Support For States With Reentry Courts

by

The following was taken from a 6/29/10 Press Release:

“The Public Welfare Foundation has granted the Center for Effective Public Policy (the Center) and its partner, Northpointe Institute for Public Management (Northpointe), funding to support “Strategic Planning Capacity Building for Prisoner Reentry Under the Second Chance Act.”  This grant award will  support the development of strategic plans and provide assistance directly to the states that support essential planning.  This grant award will increase the capacity of states to create better strategic plans that lead to more effective implementation efforts, ultimately increasing the likelihood that each jurisdiction will be able to impact the success rates of people returning home.”

$9.5 Million awarded to Cal “Parole Reentry Courts”

by

Seven grants from the California Emergency  Management Agency (Cal EMA) were recently awarded to Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. In all, $9.5 million in Federal stimulus funds will be distributed to Parolee Reentry Court pilots to be coordinated by the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In doing so, California has committed itself to  the largest court based prison reentry  demonstration project in the nation’s history.

The Parole Reentry Court Program, will provide funding to each county for up to two and one half years  All the awardees have well defined and implemented drug and/or mental health courts. Priority was given to jurisdictions serving large numbers of  parolees and those with higher risks of recidivating. All pilot reentry courts will be expected  to use risk/needs assessments in their implementation and adopt research tested evidence based practices throughout their programs.

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 a parole officer will initially will decide who is referred for the program,  once a prisoner is accepted by the Reentry Court judge, that judge with assistance of the reentry court team ( including a parole officer) will have final say until termination from the program.

Reentry Court Literature Review

by

Alexandra Lampert, a former judicial fellow with the San Francisco Superior Court Collaborative Courts’ Program, and now attending Stanford Law School, has recently completed a literature  review on reentry courts.  It is informative, providing summaries of a number of articles and evaluations in the reentry court field [Reentry Court Scholarship and Evaluations]

Reentry Court Axiom: Smaller “Margin Of Error”

by

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored Reentry Court “Focus Group”, held in Boston, June 1, arrived at what might be described as a “Reentry Court Axiom”,  that “the greater the risk of  a particpant re-offending, the smaller the “margin of error”, for reentry court practitioners, to get it right”. Reading a transcript of the “Reentry Court  Focus Group” proceedings left me with the strong impression that, while the Reentry Court are largely based on the drug court model,  high-risk offenders returning from jails and prison, would pose a greater challenge than other  participant groups to date.

This conundrum was spelled out in the presentation of Dr. Douglas Marlowe, NADCP Director of Law, Policy, and Science, when he described the above mentioned, “Reentry Court Axiom” and the need to be diligent in the application of “evidence based practices” (see: Dr. Marlowe’s comments).  Other practitioners/experts in the field came to seemingly diferent conclusions. Judges Steven Manley of Santa Clara County , CA, and Chris Carpenter, of Boone County, Mo., agreed that the reentry court population would have to be treated differently than other populations, and that they presented a special challenge for the reentry court professional. But they concluded that allowances woud have to be made to keep the high risk offender in the reentry court; in effect lowering the bar required of reentry court particpants to stay in the program.

After reviewing the transcript, the seeming conflict resolved. Both Dr. Marlowe and the practitioner/experts agreed that this would be a more difficult population, one that would require “evidence-based practices” to be applied faithfully and diligently. But within those “practices” resided the flexibility (and  even necessity) for “lowering the bar”, by applying intermediate sanctions to  non-violent probation/parole violations.  Innovative intermediate sanctions, applied swiftly and with certainty, will allow the Reentry Court  to keep the offender in the community, without violating the participants’ parole/probation, or sending the participant back to prison.

I came away from my co-facilitaiton of the focus group (with Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center  for Court Innovations), with an understanding of the difficulty of effectively dealing with the Reentry Court population. But also with the belief that Reentry Court is our last best opportunity  to stem the flood of offenders returning to our prisons. [Reentry Court Focus Group Transcript. June 1, 2010]

Dr.Marlowe speaks out for Reentry Courts

by

Dr. Doug Marlowe, speaking in Boston this month on the latest research on reentry programs, concluded that  excluding reentry court,  most every state-of-the-art reentry modality had shown little impact on recidivism.

Dr.Doug Marlowe, Chief of Science, Policy, and Law at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), made his comments at a presentation for a Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored Focus Group on Reentry Courts,  held on June 1, 2010.

While the presentation only dealt  peripherally with reentry courts, its  implications to the field were significant.  Dr.Marlowe’s message was that present coercive and non-coercive reentry efforts don’t work. Even when we use the most sophisticated programs and state-of-the-art technology,  they have not shown themselves to be appreciably better than no program at all.

Presented through a  logical progression of easily followed power point slides (attached below), Dr. Marlowe examined the failures of a number of reentry programs, culminating in the recent SVORI (Serious & Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) meta-analysis. Following the trail of $100 million and 2,391 participants over a 3 year period, the SVORI evaluation concluded that even the best non-court based programs showed higher re-incarceration rates than the control group (though rearrest rates were somewhat lower).

Dr. Marlowe’s conclusion (among others) was that returning offenders were not likely to engage in the highly structured and intensive programs  required for successful reentry, without graduated sanctions and incentives, the mark of the reentry court. While the jury may be out as to the ultimate success of the reentry court, we have reason to believe they will be highly successful with the high risk offenders returning  from our jails and prisons ( as the drug court model they emulate, has been extraordinarily effective when dealing with the high risk offender in the community).

[See  “Reentry of Drug Offenders”; Dr.Douglas Marlowe, J.D., PH.D ]

BJA Sponsored Reentry Court Focus Group Shines

by

Sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Boston Reentry Focus Group completed a full day session, with BJA bringing together an extraordinary group of fifteen experts from the Reentry Court and related fields. (Participants). The agenda dealt with topics as diverse as community coalition involvement and  State Jurisdiction for Reentry Courts (Focus Group Agenda). Lunch featured a presentation by Dr. Doug Marlowe, NADCP Director of Science, Policy, and the Law on “How Evidence Based Practices Applies To A Reentry Court Environment” (the powerpoint will be published shortly). A publication on Reentry Courts seen a likely outcome.

Problem-Solving Courts And The States

by

Reentry Courts have a unique position among Problem-Solving Courts in their relationship to state government. Reentry Courts are almost entirely creatures of the state (at least, those dealing with returnee’s from state prison, are largely under state jurisdiction) and rely on state judicial, legislative, and executive support for their existence.

What follows is the first in a series of articles that explore the critical relationship between Reentry Court and the State.

Fifteen years ago, few people who were aware of Drug Courts understood their extraordinary promise. Initially nearly everyone believed that Drug Courts were and would remain a purely local phenomenon, one fostered by local innovation and commitment alone, with little state or national impact. The success of the drug court, has resulted in heightened state interest in them, as well as their progeny, Problem-Solving Courts (special courts that use the drug court model to address other serious offender issues, ie., DUI, Domestic Violence, Mental Health, Veterans Courts, etc.). It is clear Problem-Solving Courts, like Drug Courts, can no longer be considered “individual programs”, isolated from the rest of the state criminal justice system. Indeed, Drug Courts and Problem-Solving Courts have gone “mainstream” as the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators unanimously endorsed them in years 2000, 2004, and 2009

Initially however, state governments had been relatively uninvolved in the development of drug court programs. Many state agencies, as well as the organizations that represented them on the national level, expressed indifference that at times bordered on opposition to the development of the Problem-Solving Court model. State Judicial Leaders were typically cool to the Problem-Solving Courts concept. The drug court model was new, thought expensive and untested by reliable evaluations. In 1994, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), representing the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, rejected the notion of the drug court as a “special” court.

Soon after, National and State Judicial leadership reversed course, with NCSC and the nation’s judicial leadership providing strong support and leadership on behalf of the problem-solving court model, (see: CCJ/COSCA Resolution). There were many reasons for their  pro-active role on behalf of Problem-Solving Courts. Without state judicial leadership’s guidance, State Judicial Administrators feared that courts would develop inefective programs, while consuming scarce court resources.  There were concerns that programs developed by one judge would be undone by the next.  They worried about judges becoming media “stars” in their communities, and neglecting their other judicial duties. They legitimately wondered how these programs could survive without a level of standardization and institutionalization of practices and procedures.

Similarly, State Departments of Alcohol and Drugs had been slow to support the drug court concept.  Funding in particular had been a significant issue.  Initially, reluctance seemed be based on a generally held belief among treatment agencies that the criminal justice system, with its greater resources should be responsible for funding drug treatment through the criminal courts.  There was also the concern that the criminal justice system would dominate any treatment program they participated in.  They worried that the courts would overwhelm treatment agencies with clients without corresponding new resources.  They were concerned that individual courts would provide limited and inadequate assessments and treatment to participants.  They feared that the criminal justice system would ignore the scientific research on effective treatment and demand prison for those who didn’t conform to court mandates. Those fears have receded with the development of effective court/treatment partnerships and the emergence of drug court judges and other practitioners as effective advocates for the expansion of treatment resources.

Governors and Legislatures also felt the need to react to this new phenomenon. They were certainly aware of the extraordinary media coverage and political support from across the political spectrum.  But, like everyone else in state government, they were concerned that Problem-Solving Courts would consume disproportionate state funding needed for other purposes in times of limited funds. They questioned whether Problem-Solving Courts were truly effective and cost-efficient.

Of course, state policy makers were not the only ones who saw the need for state involvement. While deeply ambivalent about the extension of state power and influence over what were grass-roots community-based courts,  Problem-Solving Court judges and other practitioners  welcomed state financial support. Ultimately,  judges looked to state leaders to help them legitimize their programs and convince their colleagues and county administrators of the importance of their work.  Treatment providers looked to the state for resources and direction.  Probation and parole officers requested resources to maintain reasonable caseloads.  And defense attorneys and prosecutors sought political support and affirmation for their non-punitive approach and non-traditional roles.  For the most part, all agreed that a statewide presence was needed.  The form that involvement was to take was a more difficult issue to determine.

The limitations of a strictly local Problem-Solving Court program are now clear. Even with the commitment and assistance of the federal government, the impact of Problem-Solving Courts, in both quality and quantity of services and numbers of participants reached would be severely limited without strong state financial and political support. A statewide Problem-Solving Court policy is now generally accepted as necessary in order to institutionalize court policies and procedures, stabilize  program structures, standardize  treatment requirements, and expand eligibility  to those who most need assistance, the high risk offender.

Schwarzenneger Takes Step Toward Pre-Entry Court

by

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)


Ohio Announces Increase In Reentry Courts

by

Ohio has announced its “Ohio Reentry Coalition’s Five Year Strategic Plan”. As part of that plan, reentry courts are to increase from the present six courts to a total of  eleven by 2014 with a commensurate increase in the number of reentry participants. Ohio is among a small group of states whose polcy makers have led the way in increasing their state’s focus on reentry courts.

RFP Target: State Criminal Justice Leaders

by

Note: Deadline for applications; June 3, 2010

This is the third of several articles  on the “Second Chance Act” Reentry Court Solicitation; in this analysis,  I will speak to the real audience for this RFP:  Your State’s  Criminal Justice Leadership

BJA’s “Reentry Court RFP, says it right up front, half-way down the title page, “Applications submitted by entities other than the highest state court are strongly urged to demonstrate that the proposal has been coordinated with, and is supported by, the state’s highest state court”.  Again on page 12, in describing  the RFP’s priorities for applicants, ” Demonstrate that the application has been consulted with, and is supported by, the state’s highest state court”.

I would submit  the RFP is communicating the obvious, a reentry court is not a viable institution without the full support and collaboration 0f the State Supreme Court and its executive arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). In reality, a reentry court  is not viable without the full support and collaboration of the entire state criminal justice and political leadership. That doesn’t mean that a local jurisdiction can’t apply for and be awarded a grant, but that a state parole/corrections based reentry court (as opposed to a county-based jail/probation reentry court; see: Pre-entry Courts), needs to partner with the state.

This isn’t so for any other problem-solving court. Drug, mental health,  DUI, and other problem-solving courts are often started by  local jurisdictions, sometimes without the knowledge of the state judicial or political leadership (although state collaboration and support is becoming more and more critical)

The analysis is simple: State’s are overwhemingly responsible for the control of offenders, post prison. To that end, state-wide jurisdiction is typically granted to state parole/probation agencies to oversee offenders returning to the community. In most state’s it’s called the state-wide Parole and/or Probation Agency. Traditonally, counties had little or no jurisdiciton once the offender was sentenced to state prison.

Times have changed. We’ve looked at the data and realized that a  state-wide correctional authority alone, may be too narrowly focused, and that a broader collaborative approach to the returning offender may be more successful and cost-effective. The reentry court is one such model that is being widely investigated as a new path for the returnee. But it can’t succeed without the State Supreme Court, Correctional Authority, Probation/Parole Agency, and the legislature’s collective planning, collaboration and funding. (see:  Ten Prison-Based Reentry Court Models).

This RFP and message is for those of you in your state government’s crimial justice leadership: It will take your good will and support, and yes, your initiative to make an acceptable application under this RFP, truely successful.

Second Chance Grant Targets Co-ocurring Disorders

by

Deadline: June 3, 2010

BJA has announced a solicitation that will distribute $13 million under Sec. 201 of the “Second Chance Act” for offenders with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Up to $600,000 in matching grants will be available to states and local governments to “establish or enhance residential substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities, including aftercare and recovery supportive services”.

Under the BJA Solicitation, priority will be given to applicants that (p.5-6):

Target higher-risk offenders who have been dually diagnosed with serious mental health disorders and alcohol or substance addictions at the same time using validated assessment tools.

• Demonstrate a high degree of collaboration among a variety of public, private, and faith-based organizations, to include at a minimum the State Substance Abuse Authority, the State Mental Health Authority, and a provider organization for direct client integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment services appropriate to the proposed project.

• Demonstrate effective case assessment and management abilities to provide a comprehensive and continuous reentry process, including the following:

o Using an actuarial-based assessment instrument for reentry planning that targets the criminogenic needs of the offender that affect recidivism, and provide sustained case management and services during incarceration and for at least 6 months in the community;

o Access to affordable and appropriate housing;

o Establishing pre-release planning procedures to ensure that the eligibility of an individual for federal or state benefits is established before release and that individuals will obtain all necessary referrals for reentry services; and

o Delivery of continuous and appropriate integrated drug and mental health treatment, medical care, job training and placement, housing, educational services, or any other service or support needed for successful reentry.

• Focus their program on geographic areas with high rates of offenders returning from prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities.

[Note: This solicitation is available to both prison and jail-based Reentry Courts and their community and correctional partners]

“Second Chance” Reentry Court RFP: A New Day

by

Note: Deadline for applications; June 3, 2010

This is the first of several articles  on the “Second Chance Act” Reentry Court Solicitation; in this analysis,  I will review the RFP from a collaborative and reintegration perspective.

We’ve been waiting for a Reentry Court “Request For Proposal” (RFP) for a long time. For me, the wait began in 1999, when I collaborated (with West Huddleston, now CEO of NADCP)  on the field’s first focus group and publication, “Reentry Drug  Courts”. The “Second Chance Act”  (Sec. 111), offers up to $500 thousand per applicant and a total invesment of $10 million for the year 2010, the first large scale funding for Reentry Courts  ( though there was limited funding for the Reentry Court Initiative).

That the field has grown little over the past decade is probably due in part to the lack of federal resources, guidance, and interest. While Drug Courts grew from an initial $6 million appropriation in 1996 to over $150 million in 2010, there has been little in the way of federal assistance for “Reentry Courts”, until the Obama Administration, the Holder DOJ, and the return of  Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson as head of OJP (as she was during the Clinton Administration).

All this is to say, that it’s a new day, and that people  are starting to take notice of the potential of Reentry Courts.  Interestingly, it was Jeremy Travis (now, President of the John Jay School of Justice), who first proposed the concept, as NIJ Director during the Clinton Administration,  More recently, in his book, “But They All Came Came Back”, he wrote, “Reentry Courts offer numerous advantages over our current system of reentry supervision”  ….however, the most compelling reason for moving toward a universal system of reentry courts is these court’s ability to promote reintegration.”

The need for a higher level of collaboration and reintegration on state and local levels is clearly reflected in the solicitation’s very  first paragraph. “BJA will only consider applications that demonstrate that the proposed reentry court will be administered by corrections agencies and an entity with judical authority, such as a state or local court, or probation and parole”.  The RFP goes on to state  that applications  ” are strongly urged to submit a Letter of Support from the State Chief Justice demonstrating that the proposal has been coordinated with, and is supported by, the state’s highest state court”.  This critical recognition  of state leadership, in both corrections and the courts, pushes both  state and local jurisdictions to work together in developing their reentry court model.

Drug Courts (although they should) often do not engage  the wider community. Under this solicitation, Reentry Court proposals that can “demonstrate a high degree of collaboration among a variety of public, private, and faith based organizations” will be given priority.  The RFP also gives priority to proposals that “include coordination with families of offenders”. I believe these priorities once again push the applicants to develop effective working relationships with the entire reentry community , including the offenders’ families, and their advocates.

This solicitation moves applicants toward a new ” collaborative reintegration-based model”, with collaboration mandated on state and local levels, both corrections and courts required to work closely together, and  the entire community encouraged to be an integral part of the reentry court process. More to the point, the reentry court process needs to find its place within and become  an integral part of community-wide reinintegration efforts. (For more information on the importance  of  community based reentry under the “Second Chance Act”, visit the National Reentry Resource Center).

Inquiries about this “Request For Proposal” should be directed to Dr. Gary Dennis, Senior Policy Advisor For Corrections, at (202) 305-9059 or [email protected].

“Evidence Based Activities”: A Priority Of DOJ/RFP

by

The “Second Chance Act” RFP (see above)  makes a point of stating that priority will be given to  applications that “implement evidence-based activities”. While this language does not use the term “Evidence Based Practices”, it once again appears to push applicants in that direction. For that matter, only applicants that use validated “risk assessment” tools that are capable of identifying participants as “high risk” offenders will be elligible for funding (see Evidence Based Practices).

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]

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team