A resource for community based reentry court systems
April 25th
Reflecting a reduction of 17% for all Department of Justice programs, the Second Chance Act for 2011 has been reduced to $ 83 Millon from the $100 million budgeted for the Act in 2010. There is no word yet, whether there will be new funding for “Reentry Courts” as there was in 2010, or even continuation funds for Reentry Court programs that were funded under 2010 programs.
Practitioners, Academicians and Policy makers met at a seminal “Focus Group”, at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals Conference in Boston, in June of 2010, to discuss critical issues surrounding the implementation of Reentry Courts in the U.S. Sponsored by the Bureau f Justice Assistance (BJA),the focus group itself, was planned and co-facilitated by NADCP President Emeritus Judge Jeffrey Tauber (ret.), Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center for Court Innovation (CCI), along with BJA staffer, Jacqueline Rivers. The most experienced reentry court practitioners from around the country were brought together in an effort to discuss the effectiveness, feasibility, limitations, obstacles, and successes of Reentry Courts. The Publication itself, a Conversation about Strategies for Offender Reintegration, was writen by Robert Wolf and published by CCI.
Aril 5, 2011
On March 17th, the California legislature passed AB 109, the most far-reaching criminal justice legislation in many a generation. Among other startling changes, was the transfer of authority over parole revocation from the State Board of Parole to the individual County Superior Courts, while parole itself would become agencies of the counties, and thousands of state prisoners would be returned to County jails to finish out their sentences. Clearly, this bill will not be favored by everyone, but it is a step in the right direction, a return of less serious prison offenders to the counties they came from.
The governor has not signed the bill as of yet, and the provisions of the bill will not be implemented unless state funding for County parole responsibilities is provided to counties. It is an open question as to how the bill might effect the six pilot parole reentry courts presently being implemented and evaluated across Califiornia.
March 25th/ Part 4
The information found in the previous article is important and can be read in full through their links. They are well-written descriptions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. (see also; Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: A Review and Discussion for Corrections Professionals, Harvey Milkman, Kenneth Wanberg, NIC 2007 ). In this short description of one “Thinking for a Change” training (T4C), they provide a backdrop for my reentry court team’s four day training (taught by Juliana Taymans, one of the co-authors of T4C )
I wasn’t one of the trainees, but audited most of the training for twelve San Francisco case managers held in my courtroom.. I can say that it was well worth the time, effort, and resources involved. My impression was that the trainees thoroughly enjoyed the material and mastering the skills involved, which included problem-solving in their own lives. While the curriculum could not be used for everyone (as it appeared to require some level of introspection and sophistication), it certainly could be effective with a large cohort of parolees. The lessons were formal (often read verbatim from a training manual), emersing participants in role playing, film and other engaging techniques. It should be noted that the number of trainers required (initially 2 per group), the number of group participants (10-12), the number of sessions required (20-22), and the length of sessions (1 hour or more) make delivery of this therapy somewhat problematic. But I found the techniques taught grow on me (surprisingly finding myself using them in my everyday life). We intend to begin at least three group sessions for parole reentry participants in April. We’ll let you know how it all works out. Thinking for a Change (T4C) is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for offenders that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills. NIC makes available the T4C offender program materials plus a curriculum for training program facilitators. NIC also can assist agencies in training staff to facilitate the program ( National Institiute of Corrections on Thinking for a Change)March 28th/ Part 3
It is a recognized principle of Evidence Based Practices that “the most impactful programs at changing criminal behavior and reducing recidivism are cognitive-behavioral and behavioral interventions. (Andrews, 2007; Aos, Miller, and Drake,2006; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey and Landenberger, 2006: and Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson, 2007)”. see Implementing Evidence-Based Practices, Carey, 2010, p.9.
“Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a treatment that focuses on patterns of thinking and the beliefs, attitudes and values that underlie thinking. CBT has only recently come into prominence as one of the few approaches to psychotherapy that has been broadly validated with research, although it has been used in psychological therapy for more than 40 years. It is reliably effective with a wide variety of personal problems and behaviors, including those important to criminal justice, such as substance abuse and anti-social, aggressive, delinquent and criminal behavior” (Preventing Future Crime with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy by Patrick Clark NIC)March 21, 2011
We first provided a description of Harlem’s Administrative Parole Reentry Court in May of 2010. Since that time, an evaluation of the program has been published by the Center for Court Innovation (CCI), authored by Zach Hamilton, Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court.
Last week, a new description of the Harlem Court was published by CCI, “TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE REENTRY COURT MODEL: THE HARLEM PAROLE REENTRY COURT“. Authored by Chris Watler, Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center and Bryn Herrschaft, researcher for the Center For Court Innovation, this powerpoint presentation present new information and data on the effectiveness of the Harlem Project.
march 13th
The results are in, the ride over. The only thing that liberals and conservatives appear to agree on is prison reform. It’s hard to argue the issue when everyone has adopted one side of the argument. As commented on in this website many a time, everyone is for prison reform these days, with hardly a squeak from prison guard unions or District Attorneys’ offices. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, “Conservatives latch onto prison reform” describes the depth of the adoption of criminal justice reform by conservative leaders and advocacy groups.
What that means to those who have fought for reform for a very long time, is that the stars are aligned in the heavens, and it’s time to push hard for real prison reform. That means, not only returning prisoners to their communities with alternative community-based sentences, but keeping offenders out of prison in the first place, with Pre-Entry Courts that provide an alternative to prison. Reentry courts, for returning high risk offenders, will clearly be a part of that reform package.
Yes, it’s time to demand reform, but it must be effective reform. If we mess this up, we could be waiting a very long time before we have another oppotunity. Everyone seems to favor alternatives to prison, but little is said of what alternatives we speak, their efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. Our greatest fear shouldn’t be that we will send prisoners home to poorly funded prison alternatives and find they don’t work. One thing worse that underfunding prison alternatives, is building a criminal justice system on the rotting structure of the exisiting one. Clearly reform needs to be built from the ground up, rather than funding existing programs that have never proven their worth, or worse, been found to be counter-productive. Reform has to be built on sound scientific evidence, based on decades of unassailable research, and memorialized in such publications as the Center for Effective Public Policy’s “Implementing Evidence-Based Practices” (see Cont: Evidence Based Practices Point the Way).
March 8th: Part II
The most succinct definition, taken from perhaps the best and most cogent publication on “Evidence Based Practices (EBP) in the Reentry Field, is as follows, ” Evidence Based Practices: The application of empirical research to professional practice” (p.7). This is an important definition to keep in mind, because it opens the door to new concepts and applications, based on scientific research that will enhance, ground, and even empower your reentry court (or other reentry program).
The monograph from which the definition is taken, written by Mark Carey and Frank Domurad of the Carey Group, and described in an earlier post, deserves a second reference. “Implementing Evidence-Based Practices (Revised, January 2010), published by the Center for Effective Public Policy, under a grant from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is the best publication I have found on the application of EBP to Prisoner Reentry. As opposed to the many conceptual and intellectual descriptions of what EBP is or may be, this document breaks the concepts down to their basic elements (and can be read in less than an hour). Though part of an eleven “coaching packet” series, put out by the Center for Effective Public Policy, in my opinion this monograph is the most useful and grounded of the series. (The following eight principles are fully described on pages 10-16 of the monograph)
Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions
1. Assess actuarial risk/needs.
2. Enhance intrinsic motivation.
3. Target Interventions.
a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.
b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.
c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, culture,
and gender when assigning offenders to programs.
d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months.
e. Treatment: Integrate treatment into sentence/sanction requirements.
4. Skill train with directed practice (use cognitive behavioral treatment methods).
5. Increase positive reinforcement.
6. Engage ongoing support in natural communities.
7. Measure relevant processes/practices.
8. Provide measurement feedback.
The Berkeley Center of Criminal Justice has recently (November, 2010) published a comprehensive monograph entitled, “Reaching a Higher Ground: Increasing Employment Opportunities for People with Prior Convictions”. The publication provides “eight guiding principles” that provide a broad framework to “improve the employment prospects of people with prior convictions as well as ways to benefit our communities, increase public safety, and achieve cost savings at the local and state levels” (p. iv). The focus of this report is on California, and the information and discussion reflect current laws, policies, and practices in the state.
Feb. 21st
Though many disputed the idea that federal funding for Reentry Court would survive the President’s initial 2012 budget, there it is; $5 million for Reentry Courtsin the Department of Justice’s “Second Chance Act”. Though, in the scheme of things, not a lot of money ( and half of the $10 million allocated last year), it will continue funding of existing Reentry Court programs, and allow the expansion of Reentry Courts in exciting new ways. Most importantly, it is a statement that the Administration has not given up on Reentry courts as a model for prisoners returning to their communities.
It should be noted that there are literally dozens of states that are flailing around looking for some strategy that will allow substantial reductions in their prison populations. Reentry Courts, working with other important institutional and community partners, provides the focus necessary to integrate offenders back into the community while controlling their criminal conduct. However, its important to note that reentry is a statewide problem, and cannot be addressed by local communities without the leadership, resources and committment of state political, judicial, and criminal justice officials. Any new federal Reentry Grant Program needs to be aimed at state government, rather than individual localities.
While it’s true that the pilot programs that are underway in a dozen states have not been around long enough to prove their effectiveness, drug courts have proven the effectiveness of the model in working with high-risk offenders (making up the great majority of those returning from prison). Where Reentry and other Problem-Solving Courts have missed their mark, is that they have not embraced evidence-based practices that have been developed through nation-wide meta-analysis based research.
As a Reentry Court judge, I am constantly reminded of the advances made in our knowledge, capabilities, and technology over the past ten years. It literally puts us on the brink of extraordinary change in the criminal justice system. All it takes is the willingness to break from the conventional, and the committment to apply what we know works (based on state of the art research) to our reentry populations. It can be done and the ride will be exhilarating.
[More on those advances next week]
Feb.14th
It’s unfortunate, but funding for Reentry Courts under the “Second Chance Act” appears to be in jeopardy. Those in a position to know, claim that few grant applications were submitted last year for Reentry Court funding, and that there appears to be little interest in these grants this year
The federal governemnt and especially the Department of Justice owes it to local communities facing the return of state prisoners to fully explore what appears to be the substantial potential of the Reentry Court. Do a Google search and note the many states that are seriously considering the return of state prisoners to local venues ( often over the strenuous objection of local officials). It would be shortsighted to consider the return of state prisoners to their communities without fully exploring the capacity of “Reentry Court ” to make that transition responsible, cost-effective, and humane.
Feb.14th
On February 9, 2011, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, released the solicitation for Second Chance Act mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations (Section 211). Funding under this section is available to help nonprofit organizations and federally recognized Indian tribes implement mentoring projects to promote the safe and successful reintegration into the community of adults who have been incarcerated. The deadline for applications is April 21, 2011.
To download the solicitation, click here.
To download the Frequently Asked Questions document about this solicitation, click here.
To help potential applicants respond to this solicitation, the National Reentry Resource Center will hold a free webinar on February 17, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. ET. Representatives from BJA will participate in the webinar, explaining the details of the solicitation and answering questions from applicants.
Feb. 14
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has announced the establishment of a reentry court program for certain individuals on federal post-conviction supervision. The first federal court will be established in San Francisco, and Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero will preside. The court will meet every two weeks. Additional reentry courts may be established in the district in the future.
For documents describing the planned court, see PDF attached.
Feb. 7th
Reentry Court Practitioners have available to them an eleven part education series that enhance their ability to implement evidence based practices in their courts. The Center for Effective Public Policy and its partners, The Urban Institute and The Carey Group, developed this free educational program now available to criminal justice professionals and their partners interested in enhancing their implementation strategies.
Too often, practitioners have been encouraged to use research based strategies such as “Evidence Based Practices”, but find the can only access highly conceptual education materials, that provide little guidance for implementation in the real world. On the other hand, each of the eleven Coaching Packets provided in this series, provides an overview of a key topic related to successful offender reentry, concrete strategies and key steps for enhancing practice in this area, and a “self assessment tool” that jurisdictions can use to evaluate their strengths and challenges in the particular topic area discussed. The packets are organized in three series:
Though not specifically designed for Reentry Courts, I would encourage Reentry Court Practitioners to investigate this important educational series (especially the “Implementing Evidence Based Practices Packet”), and decide for yourselves.
At the National Association of Drug court Professionals (NADCP) Board Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, there was a good deal of discussion regarding the future of Veteran’s Court. One informal suggestion made was that a Veteran’s Court that focused on returning offenders from prison would be an appropriate expansion of the Veteran’s court concept. There are as many as 80 Veteran’s courts across the country and those that I am aware of, work with offenders are relatively recently separated from the military, who are new to the criminal justice system, with new offenses that are often dealt with through a diversionary court.
With the continued success and popularity of the Veteran’s Court, it would seem most appropriate to consider working with those who have had long histories in the criminal justice system, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era. Those with prison terms who are returning to the community or are to be released into the society clearly deserve the same degree of appreciation and consideration as more recent veterans receive in Veteran’s Courts
I have seen various statistics on the number of veterans in prison, the most widely quoted suggests that 10% of those in prison nationally are veterans (though I can not vouch for that). I have seen reliable statistics showing that there are over 2 million veterans living in California alone. For example, I would hope that California jurisdictions who are in the process of realignment, take a look at how those veterans imprisoned and released on parole in their jurisdiction are faring and investigate how we can best serve this deserving population as they return to their communities. A Veteran’s Reentry Court may be part of the answer.
