The Reentry Court from Another "Think and Do Tank's" Perspective

Recently, we hosted the New Economics Foundation, a self described English think-and-do tank at the Harlem Community Justice Center.  Shortly after, Helen Kersley, one of our visitors, wrote a blog post  describing her impressions of our Parole Reentry Court on their site, http://www.neweconomics.org/  Here is a short snipet of their insights:

"As a visitor to the project, what was so striking was to see Judge Terry Saunders’ approach to the people coming before him. His engagement was warm, focused, and highly respectful. In the case of a young man appearing for the first time straight after his release, the judge welcomed him to the programme. He asked him about himself and his family so that, as the judge said, they would be on more intimate terms next time they met. Judge Saunders carefully explained the programme to him, saying that it couldn’t provide all the answers or solve all the difficulties he would be likely to face going forwards, but that the scheme was there to help him stay away from jail in the future. The judge acknowledged the challenges in breaking patterns of behaviour and established incentives. He highlighted the responsibility everyone has for their decisions and actions, and how hard that can be."

She also commented that ,"Ultimately, for a fuller understanding of the effects, and to unpick what are the key ingredients, it would be of huge interest to be able to compare the results of a re-entry scheme which does involve the court and judge in the way we saw in Harlem, with a matched scheme without such involvement."  Lucky for all of us, the Harlem Community Justice Center is in the process of doing just that. In fact, we are about half way through a research study that looks at outcomes of our parole participants versus those who are experiencing traditional parole.

To read more of Ms. Kersley's observations, click here.

Read More

Budget Cuts Eliminate Parole and Probation Courts in California

Despite what one official called a "torturous" decision in an interview with the New York Times, San Francisco's Parole Re-entry Court, which assists formerly incarcerated individuals stay out of prison and boasts a 88 percent success rate, and San Francisco's Probation Alternatives Court, which offers offenders rehabilitative services instead of incarceration and has kept 100% of its participants out of jail/prison, have been closed.  


These closures, results of budget cuts, "came just days before Gov. Jerry Brown’s realignment of California’s criminal justice system took effect, on Oct. 1. The law transferred responsibility for thousands of convicts and parolees from the state system to county jurisdictions."


The closings of these programs have been met with confusion and anger by many who know that the transfer and release of thousands of incarcerated individuals into the counties will demand effective community-based responses. 


“One of the priorities of realignment is safe and effective re-entry back into the community,” said Jeff Adachi, the San Francisco public defender and a mayoral candidate. He called the closings a “huge mistake” at a “time when they are needed most.”


To read the Times article, describing these closures, click here

Read More

Are Parole Supervision agencies using practices grounded in evidence?

The Urban Institute recently released the results of their findings from a 2008 Parole Practices Survey that explores the use of evidenced based practices in the supervision of individuals on parole. According to the recent publication, Surveying the Field,  the survey results produced four key findings: 1)Widespread use of evidence-based practices (ebps)and many components of effective paroles supervision were reported; 2)Uncertaintly was common in the parole field regarding the definition of "evidenced-based practices"; 3)Many parole field offices do not know whether parolee recidivism is being tracked (suggesting that recidivism is not a key outcome for assessing field office performance in many states); and 4) Approaches to enhance parolee's motivation and engage the parolee's supports are not common in many states.

Although the results are mixed and various barriers exist to the implementation of evidenced based practices,  the developing focus on EPBs which target offender needs and risk, enhance intrinsic motivation, and engage pro-social supports in the client's community, is a new and exciting development that has the potential to transform the way parole is done (and, most importantly, to  reduce technical violations and recidivism). In New York State, for instance, DOCCS Community Supervision Staff (formerly known as Parole) is in the process of training staff on the COMPAS Assessment which assesses the needs and risk (both dynamic and static) of an individual being released from prison with the goal of providing enhanced supervision to those who are "high" risk, and less risk to those who are at the lower end of the risk spectrum.  The COMPAS Assessment also gives parole and reentry providers information on which of the needs and risk of the individual are greatest, and therefore should be focused upon. For more information on incorporating evidenced based reentry practices into community supervision and reentry programs, take a look at the publication, Implementing Evidence-Based Practices published by the Center for Effective Public Policy.

Read More

Center for Court Innovation Celebrates 15 Years of Doing Justice

For the past 15 years the Center for Court Innovation has worked quietly and effectively to develop and implement some of the most innovative responses to the challenges facing our justice system. The Harlem Community Justice Center, Harlem Parole Reentry Court and Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force are among the dozens of innovative projects the Center has worked to develop with our partners. I hope you will enjoy this brief video about the Center. I


Center for Court Innovation Video

Read More