Part 1: Systemic Approaches to Sentencing

by

 Part 1: Evidence-Based Sentencing Practices

Last week I wrote an article suggesting  the need for “Systemic Approaches to Sentencing” . On re-reading, I felt that the topic needed a more comprehensive explanation. So this is the first of a series of articles dealing with the need for systemic approaches to felony sentencing. In 2009, the PEW Center for the States published an excellent treatment on Evidence Based Sentencing Practices (EBP), authored by Judge Roger Warren (ret.), President Emeritus of the National Center for State courts,“Arming the Courts with Research: Ten Evidence Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs” (click on the figure on the left for copy of article).

To summarize, nearly all sentencing courts are in essence, reentry courts (or court based reentry systems), and ought to be structured to facilitate the ultimate return of the offender to the community as a non-recidivist, productive citizen.

According to the PEW Monograph, every sentencing ought to take into account the most recent research, described as Evidence Based Practices (EBP). Those sentencing principles, (as described by the PEW Monograph) state that (1) Reduced Recidivism should be an immediate goal of sentencing, (2) Recidivism Reduction Options be available to the Court, (3) Sentencing be based on Risk/Needs Assessments, (4) Community Corrections be Evidence Based, (5)  Services and Sanctions be integrated, (6) the Court be aware of Available Sentencing Options, (7) Court Officers be trained in EBP, (8) Court responses to probation violations be immediate, certain, consistent and fair, (9) Court hearings be used to provide incentives to motivate Offender Behavior Change, and (10) the Court Promote Collaboration among Criminal Justice Agencies.

Clearly, individual judges and courts will have have difficulty implementing many of the proposed initiatives.  Only a systemic problem-solving approach is likely to successfully implement “Evidence Based Sentencing Practices”. (PEW declares as much on page two of the monograph; “the failure of mainstream sentencing policies….. has motivated  many state judges, prosecutors, and corrections officials to establish specialized ‘problem-solving’ courts over the past 20 years to reduce recidivism”). Expecting individual judges to independently develop the resources, skills, and competencies to become proficient in Evidence Based Sentencing Practices is unrealistic.

That does not mean that every court needs to have the same level of resources, staffing or sentencing options. The question for most jurisdictions is what level of Evidence Based  Sentencing Practices can they incorporate into their court, and that is appropriate for their community. A judge in a rural jurisdiction will have vastly different sentencing needs than a city with dozens of judges. And a low risk offender will have a very different relationship with the court than a high risk offender or an offender with a violent history.

Second Chance Act Juvenile Offender Reentry Program Solicitation

by

April 2, 2012

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,  of the U.S. Department of Justice, is offering a solicitation  for Second Chance Act grant applications to state and local governments and federally recognized Indian tribes for juvenile reentry demonstration projects. This funding is available to help jurisdictions plan and implement programs and strategies to reduce recidivism and ensure safe and successful reentry of juveniles released from prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities back to the community. The deadline for applications is May 14, 2012. (You can find out more by clicking on the “National Reentry Resource Center” webpage facimile on the left)

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

California Needs Systemic Approaches to Sentencing

by

Mar. 25, 2012

An ACLU Report (described in two articles in the Face Book Column on the far right),  points to the failure of California’s Realignment Plan (under AB109), to provide incentives to counties that reduce the numbers of persons incarcerated in county jail. The report describes the  state’s dismembering its Prison-Industrial Complex, while supporting the development of a Jail-Industrial Complex. It’s argues that counties that develop successful “alternatives to incarceration”, and/or send a small percentage of non-violent offenders to prison are penalized as proportionally larger funds are provided to counties that  have neither adequate jail facilities or effective alternatives to custody. The counter argument is a simple admission that counties that have not used alternatives in the past and relied heavily on state prison to house less serious offenders, need immediate resources to build an infrastructure capable of working with the returning offenders, both in and out of custody (on the left; a systemic sentencing circle, JTauber, circa 1999, National Drug Court Institute Monograph Series, No. 3, “Reentry Drug Courts”)

California needs to deal both with the lack of adequate jail resources, while creating incentives for counties to develop alternatives to incarceration. One way to accomplish that, is to develop effective risk/needs assesssment tools that can distinguish between those who are a violent and/or high-risk offenders and those who do not pose a danger to the community. Risk/Needs Assessments, once validated, provide an scientific basis for determining the risk of offenders to the community. Working with such tools, a county’s criminal justice system ought to be able to create a systemic approach to the convicted offender, that provides appropriate sentencing tracks that reflect an offender’s degree of risk as well as their criminogenic needs. In the future, counties that develop effective sentencing systems, used in the supervision and rehabilitation of felons, that reduce the jail population, ought to receive substantial financial incentives from the state ( California already has a successful state program that rewards probation departments for reductions in probationer recidivism)

We have developed evidence based practices for the sentencing of offenders (based on voluminous research), but are still reticent to apply those practices where they will do the most good, in making sentencing decisions. Rational approaches to sentencing that provide different levels of supervision, treatment, rehabilitation, and assistance for felons are attainable and in effect in some states and jurisdictions (more on that later).

 

 

“Second Chance Act” Probation Solicitation Announced

by

Mar. 5, 2012

“The Second Chance Act” Solicitaition, entitled, “Smart Probation: Reducing Prison Populations, Saving Money, and Creating Safer Communities.” has been announced by the Bureau of Justice Programs (BJA), with a deadline for Applications of May, 21, 2012.

The solicitation itself is aimed at probation agencies and therefore are directly related to (and in many cases subordinate to) the courts. This is a solicitation that the courts ought to be involved in as partners with probation agencies. Note a separate “Second Chance Act” Solicitation, entitiled “Adult Offender Comprehensive Statewide Recidivism Reduction Demonstration Program” is aimed specifically at State Departments of Corrections, and less likely to invove the courts.

[To access the “Probation Solicitation” and learn more about its details; click on the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) facimile on left]

 

 

Yes; “Second Chance” Grants Are Available to Reentry Courts

by

Mar. 19, 2012

Three BJA “Second Chance Act” Demonstration Solicitations

If you’ve read the three “demonstration Grant” Solicitations under the “Second Chance Act, you’ll find little mention of the courts.  The funds referenced in last weeks article (“Three Second Chance Solicitations”), appear to primarily target state or local government agencies. That would appear to eliminate involvement of individual courts themselves (at least as to the “Planning and Demonstration Solicitation” where there is no reference to courts at all). But there’s no reason that an individual court  should not be a beneficiary, along with the rest of the community, from resources made available through the “Second Chance Act”.

Note the language in the Solicitation (Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Program for Planning and Demonstration,  Projects; p.4)

“Within the context of this initiative, “reentry” is not envisioned to be a specific program, but rather a process that begins when the offender is first incarcerated (pre-release) and ends with the offender’s successful community reintegration (post-release), evidenced by lack of recidivism”.

There is little reason to believe that that language can be satisfactorily applied without the participation of the courts. The court sentences the offender to custody and has supervisory responsibilities for the returning offender in many cases (from jail and/or prison). So if you have a reentry court, or wish to involve your court in a community based reentry system in your locality, you have the right and even the obligation to do so.

Each Solicitation requires that the community develop a “Reentry Task Force comprised of relevant state, tribal, territorial, or local leaders and representatives of relevant agencies, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and other key stakeholders” (see Solicitation, p.5). With the understanding that the courts will not likely be the applicant nor the direct receiver of funds (at least as to “Planning and Demonstration Projects”), courts need to be “key stakeholders”, who benefit, along with the community, when resources are made available to felons under the court’s supervisory authority.

 

Held Over 2nd Week: Get To Know the NRRC

by

I printed the announcement below because it’s important for you to know about funding opportunities available through the “Second Chance Act”, but also because you need to become familiar with the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC), and its parent organization, the Justice Center of the “Council of State Governments”. Partly it’s because, the National Reentry Resource Center provides the most comprehensive and up to date information on reentry issues. But there’s another very good reason.

The Council of State Governments represents state governments, as well as their views. It should be obvious that decisions made by state policy makers have a critical impact on state-wide reentry systems. If the courts are to become partners in those reentry systems, it will be because of decisions made at the highest state policy-making levels.  Ultimately, we need to partner with organizations that represent state governments (like CSG), to make our case for reentry courts to the states. [to see NRRC’s website, just click on facsimile on left]

Bureau of Justice Assistance Releases Three Second Chance Act Solicitations

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) yesterday released solicitations for three Second Chance Act grant programs that will provide funding to state and local governments and federally recognized Indian tribes. Applications are due April 24, 2012.

  • Adult Planning and Demonstration grants will provide funding to help jurisdictions plan and implement programs and strategies to reduce recidivism and ensure safe and successful reentry of adults released from prisons and jails back to the community.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*
  • Adult Co-Occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders grants will provide funding to establish or enhance residential dual diagnosis substance abuse and mental health disorder treatment programs in correctional facilities that include aftercare and recovery supportive services.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*
  • Family-Based Substance Abuse grants will provide funding to establish or enhance residential substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities that include family supportive services.
    • To download this solicitation, click here.
    • To watch a 2011 webinar that was held for applicants responding to this same solicitation, clickhere.*
    • To download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the 2011 webinar, click here.*

Applicants proposing to incorporate a “Pay for Success” model into their reentry program will receive priority consideration. To learn more about the “Pay for Success” model, please register for the Pay for Success and the Department of Justice’s Second Chance Act Solicitations webinar.

  • Date: Tuesday, March 6
  • Time: 1:00-2:00 p.m. ET

During the webinar, representatives from the Nonprofit Finance Fund will provide background on the Pay for Success concept; and BJA officials will discuss how to tailor your application to include a Pay for Success component. To register for the webinar, click here.

*These 2011 webinars and presentations are relevant for applicants responding to the 2012 solicitations.

[click here: with full credit to the National Reentry Resource Center for use of their text and website facsimile]

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).

Cal AB109 forces Counties to Care for their Own

by

Mar. 5, 2012

The two articles posted on my Facebook Page ( California Prisons Address Overcrowding, Remove Last Of Nearly 20,000 Extra Beds; California prisons clearing out – sacbee.com, found 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.

President of the American Judge’s Association Speaks Out

by

Judge Kevin Burke, president of the American Judge’s Association, recently wrote a blog describing “the closing of the highly successful San Francisco Parole Reentry Court”. He wrote his blog, “San Francisco Reentry Court: May it Rest in Peace”, after reading a New  York Times article describing the closing of the Reentry Court  (see “Parole and Probation Courts in San Francisco are Closing After Budget Cuts” ). Judge Burke commenting on that New York Times article, wrote, “The story speaks volumes about two things: (1) budget cuts to courts have real consequences and (2) there are emerging new ways that courts can reduce recidivism.

Let me speak to Judge Burke’s first point. In times of adversity, it is the problem-solving courts that are the first victims of cost-cutting. The argument, of course, is that the programs cost too much in resources and staffing. It’s an argument that has been debunked by numerous studies done on drug courts and other problem solving courts over the last twenty years (A recent national study by the Urban Institute found that for every $1 invested in Drug Court, taxpayers save as much as $3.36 in avoided criminal justice costs alone. When considering other cost offsets such as savings from reduced victimization and health care service utilization, studies have shown benefits range up to $12 for every $1 invested). It simply is no longer acceptable to cut one of the most beneficial, but least political aspect of the courts. Resources must be found to sustain and expand these critical programs.

Some argue that the case for reentry courts is less than compelling. That dealing with parolees and ex-prisoners is an executive and not a judicial function, and that they are best left to the jurisdiction of Corrections and Parole. But courts in California, as well as other states are getting into the prisoner supervison business,whether they like it or not. In California, legislation took effect last October, requiring county courts to sentence offenders (who would have previously been sent to prison) to county jail and then to supervise them in the community. States like California ( and those that will surely follow), now have the jurisdiction and the responsibility to rehabilitate and supervise the high-risk offender that are under their jurisdiction.

As San Francisco’s Reentry Court Judge over its fifteen month demonstration period, I have my own perspective on these issue. We recognized the danger and attempted to limit court costs. We reduced staffing to a bare minimum, using a retired part-time judge and clerk, and doing without a district attorney and a reporter (except when requested by defense counsel). We held drug relapse, cogntive therapy and other program sessions in the court building and in many case, the closed courtroom itself to reduce administrative costs ( “A minimalist reentry courts for recessionary times”). After our best efforts at reducing costs, we were still closed when the budget was cut.

What’s is of greatest interest, is Judge Burke’s second point; “there are emerging new ways that courts can reduce recidivism”. The success of the San Francisco Parole Reentry court has been documented (One Year San Francisco Reentry Court Report Card). The real success of reentry courts lies not in their cost savings, but in their  potential for salvaging damaged lives, restoring them to their communities and families, and preventing their future “return to prison”. The thing to keep in mind is that there are new ways for the court to deal with the returning prison offender, and that we have a moral obligation to investigate, develop, implement, and evaluate those court-based alternatives, as we have so successfully done in the past for drug courts.

The 3Cs: Community, Corrections, and the Courts

by

Feb.20,2012

If there is one principle generally accepted in prisoner reentry reform, it is that collaboration between criminal justice partners is critical. Certainly, that has ben the finding of researchers evaluating the importance of collaboration in drug courts as well as other problem-solving courts. The research suggest that we leave stakeholders out at our peril.

A recent Harvard Law School article, (“Designing a Prisoner Reentry System; Hardwired to Manage Disputes”,123 Harv. L. Rev. 1339 (2010) makes this very point, in advocating for “Reentry Court” as the better way of dealing with returning prisoners. The truth is that the Courts may be at the table as reforms are designed, but they are largely absent as collaborators in reentry reform itself.

It is suggested by some, that the courts don’t belong in the reentry reform structure; that prisoner reentry is an executive function and not a judicial one, that the courts have little or no jurisdiction or statutory authority to be part of the process, and more pointedly, that involvement of the courts would violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. On more practical grounds, they argue that courts are too expensive, involving too many stakeholders, resources, and personnel. Finally, it is argued that there is no need for the courts, as the needed reforms are already being implemented, by the required partners:  Corrections and the larger Community (with its many resources and institutions, including religious and non-profit organizations).

Somehow, those arguments are less than compelling, when considered against the reality of prison recidivism. Corrections have been a disappointment in their attempts to rehabilitate the returning prisoner. According to that same Harvard Law Review article quoted above, “Approximately six out of ten prisoners released from prison this year will be rearrested within two years [2008]”. Even where Community has been included as a partner (with all its resources), there is little reason to expect substantially better results. The  federally funded SVORI project (Serious & Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) was the largest demonstration project of its kind, distributing over $100 million in grants, to 16 sites in 14 states nation-wide, providing comprehensive, coordinated services to prisoners, both pre- and post-release. Evaluation results after the two year demonstration period (2004-2006) are generally characterized as having little impact, showing minor improvement in re-arrest rates, but higher re-incarceration rates.

Given the weakness of existing prison reentry reform models, there is a great deal to gain by bringing the courts into  the evolving collaboration between Corrections and Community. Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court have already proven the effectiveness of judicial involvement in collaborative criminal justice systems. Shouldn’t the courts be part of one of the most critical reforms in the history of the criminal justice system — the return of the prisoner to their community?  It’s time to bring the third “C” – Courts – to Prison Reentry Reform.

Understanding Court-Based Reentry Systems

by

Feb. 5

 

INTRODUCTION

State court or Judicial connections to prisoners and ex-prisoners are much more common than generally believed, among the 50 states. State courts typically have some jurisdiction to intervene in prisoner reentry into the community, but rarely use that authority. Furthermore, relatively few such connections are organized into a systemic program that coordinates court or judicial intervention with community and correctional intervention.

While reentry court may be the best known of court based reentry systems, there are other systemic connections that exist between the court and prisoner/ex-prisoners, that have a substantial impact themselves or hold the potential for such an impact.

The “Court Jurisdiction Chart” is designed to help you analyze whether your state has the potential for a Court-Based Reentry System (or Judicially Supervised Reentry System) and/or Reentry Court [Note: the chart is explained below]

 

[An explanation of this chart can be found in the full article; click here:Judicially Supervised Reentry Interventions]

 


New York Times Article on San Francisco Reentry Court

by

The New York Times published the following article on Sunday, October 8, 2011, on the closing of the highly successful San Francisco Parole Reentry Court. (see:  “Parole and Probation Courts in San Francisco are Closing After Budget Cuts” )

The San Francisco Parole Reentry Court was part of a six county statutory pilot program, that gave the San Francisco Superior Court jurisdiction and authority for the first time to determine parole conditions, including rehabilitation and supervision as well as sanctions for parole violations. It was not an easy program to start, because of the reluctance of many to take on the supervision of parolees (an executive function in California and most of the states). As it turns out, we were merely anticipating the inevitable sentencing realignment in California, that would return a majority of prisoners to county jurisdiction.

The SFPRC enjoyed the full support of the San Francisco court until this past summer, when drastic reductions in state funding caused many California Courts to reassess their ability to provide rehabilitation services. San Francisco was one of the worst hit, with over 6 million dollars of debt and prospects of closing down 25 of 63 courtrooms countywide. The court determined that the Parole Reentry court (as well as two smaller reentry courts; a  juvenile reentry court and a probation reentry court) would be closed down, because they did not provide a core function of the court. Focusing on what they considered to be their survival as a court, the San Francisco Superior Court decided to get out of the “reentry court” business. 


Front-Loading Court-Based Interventions

by
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.

Drug Court used as a Court-Based Reentry Intervention

by

Feb. 4

Drug Courts have only recently begun to meet their potential, by concentrating on the rehabilitation and treatment of the high risk offender, who otherwise would be sent to prison. The article belows, shows how one Oklahoma court is trying to use front-loaded prison treatment in lieu of long prison terms. It appears that atleast some of the prison terms imposed require the successful completion of a drug treatment program in prison (or other custodial setting) before the court will return the felon to a community-based program and probation supervision. The sentence appears to describe a Court-Base Reentry System (probably drug court based )and possibly a “reentry court”.

 (Stillwater, Okla.) — A four-time convicted drug offender from Cushing was given a 10-year prison term Friday for possessing substances with intent to manufacture methamphetamine at a Cushing apartment with three co-defendants.

Savannah Colette Hilbert, 27, who was already on probation for methamphetamine possession, has been jailed on $100,000 bond since her arrest in September by the Payne County Sheriff’s Office.

Although she was ordered into prison Friday, District Judge Phillip Corley told her in court that he would suspend the rest of her sentence on her successful completion of a drug treatment program while incarcerated.

One of her co-defendants, Christopher Sean Ward, 36, of Cushing, who was also already on probation for methamphetamine possession, was given a seven-year prison term on Dec. 13 for his role in the case. He has been jailed on $100,000 bail since his arrest.

Associate District Judge Stephen Kistler told Ward that he would suspend the remainder of his sentence on his successful completion of a drug treatment program in prison.

Another of her co-defendants, David Jesse Baxter, 26, of Cushing, who also was on probation in an earlier methamphetamine case, was placed on 15 years’ probation on Dec. 2 by Kistler, who ordered him to enroll in and successfully complete the Payne County Drug Court program. He had been jailed on $100,000 bail.

Another co-defendant, Luke Patrick Danyeur, 30, of Yale, remains free on $35,000 bail pending his preliminary hearing on Jan. 12 in the methamphetamine case.

All four were alleged to have possessed — at an apartment in the 500 block of E. Moses Street in Cushing — crystal drain opener, liquid drain opener, Coleman fuel, iodized salt, methamphetamine, a cold medication containing pseudoephedrine, an instant cold compress containing ammonium nitrate, and three lithium batteries with intent to use those substances to manufacture methamphetamine on September 26.

According to court documents, Hilbert was convicted in 2008 of three charges of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, once in 2004 and twice in 2008.

She was ordered to serve 120 days in the Payne County Jail, to be transported to inpatient treatment when a bed was available, and then to serve 15 years of probation.

Last March, Ward was placed on five years’ probation with an order to enroll in and successfully complete the Payne County Drug Court program, for possessing methamphetamine in 2010 and 2011, both in Cushing, court records show.

In 2010, Baxter was placed on five years’ probation for possession of methamphetamine in Perkins with intent to distribute in 2008, court records show.

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team