A resource for community based reentry court systems
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
Aug. 9,2011
I can write best about my own reentry court in San Francisco. I can’t compare it to any other California Pilot Parole Reentry Court, because all six counties with pilot parole reentry courts have taken different paths. One has built its court with participants who have been been placed on probation for new offenses and start out their program in county jail, others built their programs based on the proven track record of their other existing collaborative courts, another creates an informal atmosphere where participants are ushered into the court room personally by the judge to sit across a table from judge and team members.
I find this a particularly good time to write about our program as we are in the tenth month of program development, and we have learned a good deal about the reentry court process. We have chosen to build our program from the ground up, and not rely on existing structures. That has forced us to reconsider conventional drug court wisdom and rely on our own expertise, experience, and importantly, evidence based research in building our program.
It’s also a good time to look back, because there may not be a San Francisco Parole Reentry Court, nor any California Parole Reentry Court after Governor Brown’s “Prison Realignment” on July 1st. This is hard to accept as we have worked hard building a program based on “evidence-based principles” and an evolving community environment and have watched it mature into a successful reentry court model . These are difficult times for reentry courts and the california criminal justice system in general. We hope for the best.
EXTRA/Aug 08, 2011
Governor Jerry Brown responded to a three panel Federal Appeals Court order to present its plan to reduce California’s proson population by 10,000 prisoners by Novemeber, as an intermediary step in responding to the U.S. Supreme court decision to reduce prisons by 40 ,000 prisoners by 2013 (article)
The governor’s plan relies substantially on the transfer of non-violent prisoners to county jurisdiction. While the governor claims that he can not move forward on his plan untill and unless additional funds are found to pay for the reallignment to county jurisdiction, the process is already under way.
Well informed sources report that most parole matters will shift to county court jurisdiction as of July 1st and that $40 million has been allotted to allow county courts to take over parole revocation responsibilites. While everything and anything may change as budget legislation is finalized, it is expected that the reallignment will move forward, if slowly depending on further funding.
We can also expect that all non violent non serious offenses to be resolved with county jail sentences, and only violent offenders sent to prison. Further, that almost all parole violators will be housed in county jail and any sanctions will be facilitated through the auspices of the county probation department, adjudicated under the county court system, and sanctioned through the local county jail (or other local alternative to custody).
No one could have expected such an extraordinary change in felony sentencing, reduction in prison committments, or shift to local jurisdictions. What we are seeing is a huge sea change in how felons are dealt with by the criminal justice sytem in California. And perhaps, to emphasize the point made in the previous article (State Prison Reentry Court RFP Needs State Leadership), changes in how prisoners are handled in a reentry court will only occur when state criminal justice leaders take a strong leadership position. Although it is messy and somewhat uncertain, the movement of non-violent felons from prison to jail based supervision, is an extraordinarily important and encouraging development that should be studied and hopefully emmulated in other states.
Growing concerns with California’s out-of-control prison overcrowding is building interest in a possible reform of the state’s three strikes law. Generally considered the most drastic such law in the nation, over 80,000 second strikers and 7,500 third strikers are in prison, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
In 2012, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News there is will probably be a proposition on the ballot to reform that law. A similar attempt fell short in 2004, but with changed circumstances expectations for success are high.
June 13th
With all the interest in California in the return of prisoners to county jurisdiction, it’s important to remember that there is already a major pilot project involving six counties providing supervision treatment and rehabilitation services to high risk offenders with substance abuse and/or mental health problems.
The six California pilot Reentry Courts have been around almost a full year and are beginning to provide evaluation data. While still very early in their development, they report very encouraging results. California reports an overall recidivism rate of 70%. Santa Clara county has been reported to have a recidivism rate of just 20% (Santa Clara County Press Release), while San Joaquin County reports a recidivism rate of 29% (Stockton Record). Data from other counties are not available yet, but expected to be positive.
As California prepares its “prisoner realignment” back to the counties, we shouldn’t forget or neglect the promising results that the pilot reentry courts are showing and the efficacy of the reentry court model.
june 10th
I submit that whatever the intent of BJA’a Reentry Court RFP, a state prison based reentry court is not a workable structure without the full support and collaboration 0f the State Supreme Court and its executive arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). In reality, such a reentry court is not viable without the full support and collaboration of the 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), needs to partner with the state to be successful.
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. 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)
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 is for those of you in your state government’s crimial justice leadership: It will take your good will and support of a state prison based reentry court application, and yes, your initiative to make an acceptable application under this RFP, truely successful (see article below; “ California Courts Gird for New Parole Role“)
June 9th
This is one of many articles I’ve written on the 2011 “Second Chance Act” Reentry Court RFP, in an attempt to stir interest in a major funding opportunity involving community alternatives to prison. In this analysis, I will review the Reentry Court RFP from the perspective of a county -jail, probation-based reentry court applicant.
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 to prison 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. Governor Jerry Brown has committed his new administration to implementing a major sentencing realignment that will optimally send 30,000 state prisoners back to local communities and county court jurisdiction. The potential for dealing with offenders at an early stage of the criminal justice process (potentially at 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 an important alternative to prison based reentry court (see: County Jail Based Reentry Courts, a Policy Paper). An additional benefit, 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.
It’s worth repeating, that an obvious 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.
June 8th
The NADCP Conference in July will feature a full day of workshops on Reentry Court.
The Reentry Court track that runs five workshops on reentry court topics on Monday July 18th
We are watching a major nationwide trend develop before our eyes; state prisoners returning early and often to local jurisdictions. That pattern can be observed in states such as California where major reforms are being implemented that return parolees to local courts for supervision, parole, and revocation; and in states like Indiana, where state-wide certification already standardizes rules for existing reentry courts This track will take a hard look at how different states are implementing state-wide reentry court systems, both jail and prison based.
Workshop A: 10:15-11:30
Different State Approaches to Reentry Courts: A review of five states that have taken substantially different approaches to the use of the courts in supervising and supporting the reintegration of returning state prisoners into the community.
Moderator: Judge Jeff Tauber (ret.), San Francisco Reentry Court
California; Judge Steven Manley, Santa Clara Reentry Court
Indiana; Mary Kay Hudson, Director of Court Services, Indiana Judicial Center
Missouri; Judge Christine Carpenter, Boone County Reentry Court
New York; Chris Watler, Director, Harlem Justice Center Reentry Court
Ohio; Christine Raffaele, Program Manager, Ohio Supreme Court
Workshop B: 12:30-1:45
Evidence Based Practices in Reentry Courts: A review of the latest research based practices that make a difference in the success of Reentry Courts
Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.), San Francisco Reentry Court, CA
Workshop C: 2:00-3:15
The State of Reentry Courts in California:
California has taken a giant step toward the systemization of reentry courts across the state. In addition to six pilot reentry courts that have been in operation for nearly a year, Governor Brown has signed legislation that may in the near future, give county judges primary responsibility to supervise parolees and hold parole revocation hearings.
Judge Richard Vlavianos, San Joaquin Reentry Court
Judge Steven Manley, Santa Clara Reentry Court
Workshop D: 3:30-4:45
Dealing with the new demographic: Returning state prisoners
The local courts are experiencing the return of state prisoners to localities, to finish state prison terms and in some cases , to be supervised and tried for parole revocation before county judges. Learn how working with this new demographic is different.
Moderator: Judge John Creuzot; Dallas TX
Judge Patricia Cosgrove, Akron Reentry court, OH
Kathy Bush: Program Coordinator. San Joaquin Reentry Court. CA
Michael Princivalli, Boone County Missouri Reentry Court Coordinator
Workshop E: 5:00-6:15
The State of Reentry Courts in Indiana
Dealing with almost a dozen reentry courts, Indiana has the largest number of reentry courts in the nation. Additionally, Indiana is a model for developing astate wide systems that require counties to follow state wide rules. Learn from Indiana officials how a state wide, standardized reentry system works.
Moderator: Chris Watler, Director, Harlem Justice Center Reentry Court
Judge Jose Salinas, Indianapolis Reentry Court
Mary Kay Hudson, Director of Court Services, Indiana Judicial Center
Information on the NADCP Conference that runs from Sunday July 17 through Wednesday, July 20th.
June 7th
The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 23rd, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that overcrowded conditions in California prisons violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the Constitution. In a decision that is being noted across the nation, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, described “a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.” [NY Times Article]
The Supreme Court orderred 30,000 inmates removed from the California prison system over the next two years, but did not indicate how that was to be achieved. Interestingly, Californiia Governor Jerry Brown, has recently signed reallignment legislation (that will take effect on July 1, 2011), that will make less serious felonies subject to extended county jail sentences, and less serious parolees subject to state court jurisdiction.
The coming together of the Supreme Court decision and the Governor’s reallignment policies is as close to a perfect storm as we are ever likely to see in the criminal justice system. Many states are operating under similar overcrowded conditions and subject the Supreme Court decree. There is now an opportunity to create a more rational, reasonable and effective community based sentencing policy for felons.
The most significant part of any such strategy will be the sentencing of less serious felons, anchoring them to their communties and providing a structured system for their supervision and reintegration into the community. Such a movement of prisoners and parolees to local venues (whether they be jail sentences and/or alternative sentences), is critical to cost-effective and humane treatment of the returning offender.
It’s clearly time to create a vision of how felons can best be supervised, treated and rehabilitated, and finally returned to being participating members of their communities.
[The Reentry Court Grant, available through BJA’S Second Chance Act would be an excellent place to begin creating that alternative vision]
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.
A report distributed to Philadelphia federal district judges in December of 2010 on the Supervision to Aid Re-entry (“STAR”) program, described the regional reentry court as a highly successful model for the federal judiciary. Among the reports special points of interest was an innovative use of legal interns to provide legal services to federal probation participants (there is no parole, only probation in the federal system):
EXTRA/EXTRA
The Bureau of Justice Programs is moving forward with plans to provide grants of $500,000 each, for up to three years to Reentry Courts, under 2011 “Second Chance Act” funding. In California and elsewhere, where states are moving swiftly towards a county-based parole reentry and/or revocation system, local jurisdictions should seriously look at the potential for three year funding of their reentry/revocation court efforts.
Please keep in mind that the Reentry Court Grant Application must be filed by June 30th.
Extra/ May 22nd
According to reliable sources, California Courts are expected to take over a substantial part of parole revocation responsibities come July 1,2011. It appears that Governor Brown is going to proceed with the portion of legislation he signed last month (AB109) that gives counties (and presumably court systems) responsibility to deal with offenders who violate their parole. What is not known is how much responsibility will be delegated and how much discretion courts will have in fullfilling those responsibilities. What is known is that Governor Brown has arranged for the County Courts to receive a total of $40 million to set up structures to handle parole revocations.
Those in California, with reentry responsibilities may be obligated to work with the county courts in dealing both with new less serious felony offenders and those who violate their probation and/or parole. It is an open question whether the six county California pilot parole reentry courts will be used as a state wide models for dealing with high-risk offenders. Six-month data on the pilot parole reentry courts is expected in June and will likely have an impact as to whether intensive supervision and rehabilitation, now provided in the Pilot projects, will be favored by the state, its agencies, or the Administrative Office of the Courts.
While it is unclear what the final perameters of the courts parole responsibilities will be, it would be prudent for California Courts and county agencies to begin planning for their new responsibilities. Though this is a difficult time to consider major reform, County courts may have discretion to structure a sentencing system that tracks offenders from sentence through incarceration (assuming the offender is kept local) into probation and finally reintegration into the community. Rather than come up with a piecemeal approach, now is the time to think systemically, in creating a multi-track structure to deal with less serious felony offenders who are sentenced for up to 3 years (but kept local) to high risk parolees who may be supervised by the courts, both out of prison and after a parole revocation. [Note: Consider the extraordinary opportunity that BJA Second Chance funding, ( $500,000 grants potentially for 3 years) could mean to your reentry/revocation court]
The following suggestions are provided: Options for a California Reentry Court System
EXTRA/ May 17th
The Bureau of Justice Administration has issued their 2011 “Second Chance Act”, Reentry Court RFP. Up to $500,000 grants will be issued and depending on resources may be available for an additional two years. Fifty Pecent will be required in match grants, but only 25% in cash, as 25% may be provided in kind.
The deadline for this grant is June 30th.
[Stay tuned for more details]
Breaking News: Grant Deadline:June 6th
$4.4 million will be made available under this grant, with up to $400 thousand made available to individual jurisdictions.
This new grant program combines the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) drug court and offender reentry treatment services programming and funding with its mental health diversion and systems transformation programming and funding. The grant program is open to all criminal justice and family/child dependency courts, as well as reentry courts.
[It should be noted that there are elligibility requirements that limit the use of these funds to court programs that have been in existence at least one full year]
To learn more about this opportunity, you are encouraged to participate in the free webinar hosted by SAMHSA on Tuesday, April 26, from 3 to 5 p.m. EDT. CALL: 1-888-453-4221 (Access code 676520 and then press #) LOG INTO: htttps://jbsinternational.webex.com (Meeting number: 572 187 472 / password: samhsa)
