New: “Reentry Court in Indian Country

by

Oct. 24th

A new publication by the American Indian Development Associates, and funded by the Office of Justice Program’s was released in August of 2010. Entitled,” STRATEGIES FOR CREATING OFFENDER REENTRY PROGRAMS IN INDIAN COUNTRY”, it provides a comprehensive review of reentry actvities and prospects in Indian Country. It also provides a brief analysis of the efficacy of case-specific, as well as, stand alone reentry courts (pp.18-20). It concludes at one point, “While no tribal reentry courts were found during this study, at least one tribal drug court included released offenders on dockets. The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (pp.29-30)

L.A.’s Women’s Reentry Court

by

Oct. 24th

Judge  Michael Tynan of the Los Angeles Superior Court, runs the Second Chance Women’s Re-entry Court program, perhaps the only reentry court in the nation for women facing a return to state prison. Typically charged with nonviolent felonies, these women plead guilty to pending charges and enter treatment instead of being returned to state prison. The results have been extraordinary. According to an October 19th article in the Los Angels Times,  approximately 200 women  have enterred the program since its inception in 2007, and “overwhelmingly, the women are making it through treatment and going on to lead crime-free lives”.

Debt: An Obstacle To Reentry

by

Oct. 17, 2010

According to a new publication just out, “Many states are imposing new and often onerous “user fees” on individuals with criminal convictions. Yet far from being easy money, these fees impose severe – and often hidden – costs on communities, taxpayers, and indigent people convicted of crimes. They create new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts and make it harder to find employment and housing as well to meet child support obligations.”

Published by the New York University  Law School’s Brennan School of  Justice, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier To Reentry,  by Alicia Bannon, Mitali Nagrecha, Rebekah Diller, presents a muti-layered indictment of the heightenned state intererest in extracting monetary penance from offenders reenterring society with no resources or ability to to pay. An important work that will add much to the debate about what encumbrances are fair and even constitutional upon release into society.

SF adds 2 Reentry Courts

by

Oct.10th

San Francisco Superior Court is about to implement two reentry courts, one for parolees returning from prison and the other for probationers who have spent a term in the county jail. The former is called the SF Parole Reentry Court; the latter, the  SF Probation Accountability Court. While there are a number of jurisdictions that work with parolees and others that work with probationers, San Francisco may be the only California jurisdiction that works with both populations that are reentering the community.

The Parole Reentry Court is expected to begin its sessions by the end of October; the Probation Accountability Court is expected to begin by the of November

See Examiner Article

“Second Chance Act” Reauthorization Begins

by

Oct. 2

The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, held its first hearing on the reauthorization of the “Second Chance Act.  Testifying before the subcommittee on Sept.29th were Le’Ann Duran, Director of the National Reentry Resources Center, Council of State Governments; Michele Banks, Manager,Richmond Second Chance Re-entry Program, Richnond City Sheriff’s Office; Nancy G. La Vigne Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute; David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D. Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation; and Gladyse Taylor, Acting Director, Illinois Department of Correction.

While none of the witnesses testified in regard to reentry courts, their testimony (found above) is relevant as to the reauthorization of the “Second Chance act” and its $10 million in grant funding for reentry courts. Proceedings in both House and Senate are expected to continue on Reauthorization over the next several months. We will do my best to keep you informed as events unfold.

Prison stocks Down

by

Sept. 27th

This week, a Wall Street publication, “the Street”, described an unexpected weakness in privately owned prison stocks. Blaming the weakness on a reduction in both violent crime and a first time ever decline in prison populations nationwide (after an eight fold increase between 1972 and 2008), the article, “Jailhouse stocks slip as trends shift” projects continuing weakness in prison spending.


Blog On Reentry Courts

by

Sept. 27th

Christopher Watler is the Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center where he oversees the operations of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court and Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force.

Chris blogged from the BJA sponsored “Reentry Court Focus Group” at  the NADCP Conference in Boston, in June of this year. I just came across his article, “Drug Court Conference Features Reentry Courts”, in the blog, “Re-Thinking Reentry” and thought it presented  a very thoughtful and cogent description of the different reentry court models and the promise of reentry courts. One important point Chris makes is that “Reentry Courts must show results over the next three to five years to justify their role in the national community safety infrastructure”.

Stanford puts on Reentry Court Conference

by

Sept. 20

Leaders of the California Administrative Office of the Courts  (AOC) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, joined with the Federal Judicial Center in putting on a three day training on Reentry Courts at the  Stanford Criminal Justice Center (Sept.13-15). The conference provided Reentry Court technical assistance and training to seven California County Courts and seven Federal District Courts.

Led by Shelley Curran of the AOC and Lee Seale of the CDCR, the seven California pilot courts also worked on developing common protocols, MOUs and procedures that could be implemented among all seven California pilot courts. The California Pilot Program will distribute $10 million over two years to the seven pilot courts and provide the best opportunity to date, to evaluate the Reentry Court model.

Missouri provides sentencing costs

by

Sept. 20

Missouri has taken an important step forward, by providing its judges with the cost of imprisonment when sentencing felony offenders. According to an article in the New York Times, “Legal experts say no other state systematically provides such information to judges, a practice put into effect here last month by the state’s sentencing advisory commission, an appointed board that offers guidance on criminal sentencing.”

Missouri has consistently been a leader in prison reform with such alternatives to prison as “split sentencing” and reentry courts.  This year, in his annual address, the chief justice of Missouri’s Supreme Court, William Ray Price Jr., stated “Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders”. Missouri is only one of many states whose courts are now taking a hard look at the cost of sending non-violent offenders to prison, rather than keeping them in more cost-effective community based prison alternatives (such as pre-entry courts).

Wyoming develops Reentry Court MOU

by

Sept 12

Pat Anderson is the Executive Director of the Wyoming Board of Parole. These days he sometimes resembles a traveling salesman, criss-crossing the mountains and valleys of Wyoming selling the merits of Reentry Courts. I had a chance to talk to him at the Wyoming State Drug Court Association Conference last week, where we co-presented on reentry courts.

Pat believes that prisoners coming home from prison can be best supervised, and reintegrated into their communities through the twenty-one established reentry courts in the state. As Wyoming has limited their drug courts to relativeley minor offenses in the past, its embrace of reentry courts may shift its focus to the high risk offenders where the drug/reentry court will have the greatest impact..

Pat has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with Laramie (Cheyenne), Campbell (Gillette), and Sublette (Pinedalle) Counties and is in negotiations with Fremont and Sheridan Counties. (See a copy of the Wyoming MOU).

Promising Kentucky Evaluation Discovered

by

Sept. 5

“Kentucky Reentry Courts: Evaluation of the Pilot Programs“, by Matthew L. Hiller, Ph.D., Egle Narevic, M.A.S.W., Carl Leukefeld, D.S.W., J. Matthew Webster, Ph.D.,  was first published by the State Justice Institute in 2007. This document, describes the brief success of the Kentucky pilot project, that was discontinued in 2001, because of a lack of funding. Though its findings were based on less than a dozen participants, its findings are insightful and encouraging to new reentry court practitioners and their supporters.

Cal. Judge’s Description Of Reentry Court

by

Sept. 5

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently published  California Judge Richard Vlavianos’ description and analysis of the Reentry Court. The article, “Reentry Courts and Programs”, defines and describes the attributes of the reentry court in an easily understood fashion that will be especially useful to those unfamiliar with reentry court or other problem solving or collaborative courts.

\”Strategies for Addressing The DWI Offender: Ten Promising Sentencing Practices\” , is a compendium of promising sentencing practices first proposed at the National DWI Sentencing Summit at The National Judicial College, March 15-16, 2004.

Asst. AG Laurie Robinson Testifies For “Second Chance Act”

by

Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, Director of the Office Of Justice Programs  (OJP),  testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee  last week. Ms. Robinson has been a champion of innovative communiy-based rehabilitatilon programs, in particular drug courts, during her first stint as Director of OJP during the Clinton Administration. This time around she has championed effective reentry programs and reentry courts. During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee, she stressed the importance of fully funding the “Second Chance Act” at its previous year 2010, $100 million level.

Part of her testimony follows, “In FY 2010, Congress appropriated $100 million to continue the Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Initiative in OJP. This funding level represents an increase of $75 million over the FY 2009 appropriation of $25 million. This $100 million also includes $10 million for research, furthering our goals to support evidence-based initiatives. In FY 2011, the President’s Budget request includes $100 million to continue the Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Initiative.

Last week, Attorney General Holder called for a new approach to dealing with criminals and announced the creation of an interagency working group to focus exclusively on reentry issues. The group will focus on everything from mental health and drug treatment, housing, and job training needs as well as policy recommendations and efforts to enhance interagency coordination at the federal level.

To further these efforts throughout the federal government, the President launched a new Transitional Jobs initiative with the Department of Labor for ex-offenders and low-income, noncustodial fathers who face serious barriers to finding work and keeping work. The majority of returning prisoners are parents and strengthening family ties upon release can help returning prisoners successfully reintegrate into society. Through this program, fathers will be helped to develop the skills and experience they need to move into full-time, long-term employment so they can meet their child support obligations and help provide for their families”

For full text of testimony: Asst. AG Laurie Robinson/July 22

NCSC on “Fathering” and “Reentry” Courts

by

The National Center For State Courts (NCSC) has recently published “ACHIEVING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF REENTRY AND FATHERS’ COURTS“. In it the author, Jane Macoubrie draws parallels between Reentry and Father’s Courts. I found the comparison of interest, especially since I was ignorant as to the existence of “Fathering Courts”. According to the author, there are 81 existing [fathering]courts or closely court-integrated fathers programs” across the U.S. There is even a hybrid Father’s Reentry Court in Washington D.C. The publication points out the significant similarities between Fathers Court and Reentry Court. As the author states, “they both serve individuals who face significant barriers to employment, are unemployed or underemployed, are usually poorly educated, frequently have a criminal background, and may also have physical or emotional illnesses, literacy issues, substance abuse problems, or multiple-partner fertility”.

Significantly, this publication poses an additional question of some importance to the Problem-Solving Court field. Is the accelerated proliferation of problem-solving courts into distinct specialty courts dealing with limited populations an issue that needs to be addressed?

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team