Re-thinking Reentry

Procedural Fairness and Community Courts

2012-02-01T13:27:00.000-08:00

We are blogging from the 2nd Annual International Community Courts Conference in Washington D.C.

Tom Tyler is discussing Procedural Justice theory and its relevance to the Community Courts movement. According to Tyler, the key question we must ask is: What do people want when they engage the courts?
The answer, based on his work, is Procedural Justice.

Procedural Justice is a theory of justice that posits perceptions of fair treatment is strongly associated with acceptance of outcomes compared to positive or negative decisions rendered by authority figures (courts, police, supervisors). While people are not happy when they don't "win" in court, they are more likely to accept the outcomes if they were treated fairly. The effects of Procedural Justice are "robust" even in circumstances where the monetary stakes are high, the matter is emotionally charged (i.e child custody), or when important ethical or moral values are at stake. The positive effects of Procedural Justice cut across racial and class lines. The effects are also durable with some research showing lower rates of re-offending years after a decision.

Regarding reentry, Tracey Meares work has shown that a single two hour meeting with offenders that is procedurally fair reduces recidivism rates compared to other interventions -- provision of social services, traditional community supervision.

Tyler suggest that a "systems level model" of Procedural Justice is needed This approach would incorporate the following elements:

Voice: Help people to to have a chance to state their case in decision making;
Neneutrality: Decisions based on facts and rules and helping people to understand that this is happening (transparancy);
Respect: Take concerns seriously and acknowledge rights, using courtesy and politness;
Trust: A belief that an authority is "sincere and caring" and acting in the interest of parties, not their own intrests.

Community Courts Video

2012-01-31T06:59:00.000-08:00

The Center for Court Innovation produced a video describing Community Courts.It was shown at the 2nd Annual International Community Courts Conference today in Washington D.C. Check it out here.

2nd Annual International Community Courts Conference Opens in D.C.

2012-01-31T06:30:00.000-08:00

Mayor Vincent C. Gray opened the International Community Courts Conference. The Conference has drawn over 300 persons from around the world to hear about innovations in justice.

The Community Courts model was developed by the Center for Court Innovation in the early 1990s to address low-level offending. Community Courts use a problem-solving and data driven approach to help court systems to develop local partnerships that reduce crime and strengthen communities.The first Community Court, the Midtown Community Court, has reduced crime in Midtown Manhattan. Now there are over three dozen Community Courts around the world that are showing results.

Recent Study Produces Local-Level Recidivism Statistics for Parolees in New York City

2012-01-30T12:35:00.000-08:00

Written by Bryn Herrschaft, Senior Research Associate, Center for Court Innovation

In 2009, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 1.4 million adults had spent at least some time on parole supervision nationally and of those exiting supervision during that same year, 34% were re-incarcerated and 11% had another unsuccessful outcome, including revocation without incarceration or absconding (Glaze and Bonzcar, 2010). There is not much information, however, on parolees in local jurisdictions that are often home to a large number of formerly incarcerated persons. For example, New York City accounts for the majority of parolees supervised in New York State (56%). An understanding of the outcomes of New York City parolees can help community corrections officials focus their efforts on a local level to improve outcomes for individuals and the overall system.

In 2008, the Center for Court Innovation obtained a parole recidivism dataset from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) as part of its work with the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force. Parolees in the dataset were released between June 1, 2001 and February 1, 2008 and incurred an initial arrest in one of the 5 boroughs of NYC. The report seeks to provide a portrait of offenders returning to New York City on parole supervision and compare those findings to the 2010 DCJS report of outcomes for the entire State of New York.

Parolees returning to New York City are predominantly male (91%), nonwhite (57% black, 35% Hispanic), and multiple-time offenders (10.6 prior arrests and 7.3 prior convictions on average). Slightly less than half were imprisoned drug charges (47%) and almost one-fourth (23%) had a previous parole episode on the same case that ended in re-incarceration.

Over a three-year tracking period, parolees in New York City had:

· A re-arrest rate of 53%

· A reconviction rate of 42%

· A revocation (return to prison) rate of 29%

Almost one-fourth (23%) were returned to prison on a technical violation which occurs when parolees violate the conditions of their supervised release (can include an arrest for a new crime or conviction for a misdemeanor offense). Only 6% of parolees were returned to prison as a result of a new felony conviction. The rate of return to prison for New York City (29%) is lower than the national average of34% reported in the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2009 Report.

A promising result of this study was that the revocation rates have declined over time since the early 2000s (from 32% of individuals released in 2002 to 26% of individuals released in 2006).Possible explanations for this finding as well as additional results are discussed further in the report.

To read more, check out the Center for Court Innovation’s publication by clicking here.

Manhattan DA Advocates the Increased use of NYS' DNA Databank

2012-01-25T19:03:00.000-08:00

On January 23, 2012, the NY Times published an Op-ED piece written by Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, advocating the increased use of New York State’s DNA databank, which he believes can help solve more crime.

New legislation introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo looks to expand DNA collection to all crimes under New York State’s Penal Law. This would change 2006 legislation that did not include all misdemeanors.

Vance wrote:

DNA samples have been linked to more than 3,500 sexual assaults, 860 murders, 1,100 robberies and 3,400 burglaries. Thousands of criminal convictions have resulted. Today, however, we are hamstrung by a law that does not authorize the collection of DNA following convictions of certain misdemeanors.

The Manhattan DA wrote that collecting DNA samples in low level crimes can lead to convictions for other higher level offenses and also prevention of future crimes.

Vance also sees the DNA collection as a major tool in proving innocence:

Crucially, DNA evidence does more than put criminals away; it also exonerates the innocent. One of my top goals as district attorney has been to avoid wrongful convictions. Having a tool like an all-crimes DNA databank at our disposal would go a long way toward helping us achieve that all-important goal of avoiding wrongful convictions.

Vance addressed skeptics of the accuracy DNA testing, "To date in New York, we have never had a 'false positive,' or the misidentification of DNA from one person as the DNA of another."

Finally the Manhattan DA argues that of the available tools for collecting evidence that DNA is the most reliable tool.

What do you think?

Call the DMV, An Inmate May Answer

2012-01-21T15:37:00.000-08:00

Around 10 days ago, The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) announced the opening of new Call Center at the Greene Correctional Facility in Greene County, a partnership which "meets Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s call to state agencies to seek more cost effective ways to deliver services to the public effectively and efficiently, saving taxpayers approximately $3.5 million annually.

According to the press release, the Greene’s call center accepts calls from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. It will employ up to 45 offenders when fully operational, including full-time, part-time customer service agents, trainees, six DMV employee team leaders and two trainers."

"'Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Elizabeth Glazer said: “The opening of the Department of Motor Vehicles Call Center at the Greene Correctional Facility is an example of the innovative work our Public Safety agencies do to meet Governor Cuomo’s goal of delivering services to the public more efficiently,
while lessening the burden on the taxpayers. We also know that operating successful prison industries
programs is an investment in our state’s overall safety. When we help offenders build the workforce skills
necessary to find viable employment after incarceration, we lessen the chances they will reoffend and end
up back in the state’s prison system.”

The center at the medium security Greene facility replaces DOCCS’ DMV call center at the Arthur Kill
Correctional Facility, which closed on December 1, 2011.

Greene's call center, along with the the DMV Call Center at the women’s Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in Westchester County, is expected to answer more than one million calls per year.

Recreating the "miracle of Red Hook" in Brownsville, Brooklyn involves reentry programming

2012-01-09T18:22:00.000-08:00

In a recent article published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn's District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes, declared that transforming Brownsville, Brooklyn into a safe and vibrant neighborhood must involve reentry programming.

"In Brownsville, Hynes said, re-entry, rehabilitation and education programs for young males is key to long-term crime reduction. . . Juveniles have a 78 percent recidivism rate within three years. . .The institution of juvenile detention facilities in New York. . .is an obscenity for the government. They're ticking time bombs with no reentry skills."

In 2008, Brownsville had the highest homicide rate in the city.

Hynes believes that a community justice center, like the one in Red Hook which operates in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation, can help transform the neighborhood. "Red Hook, formerly one of the most violent neighborhoods in NYC, is now one of the 15 safest places in New York City," says Hynes. "If you can do it in Red Hook, you can do it anywhere."

The Center for Court Innovation and the Brooklyn DA's office are currently developing a community court in Brownsville. As part of their initial research, the Center for Court Innovation undertook a survey of residents' perceptions of Brownsville in 2010. Click here to read the survey.

A Longer Time of Unemployment for Black Americans

2011-12-29T12:21:00.000-08:00

WNYC news reported this week that Black Americans are not only more likely to be unemployed, but more likely to remain unemployed for a longer period, thanWhite Americans.

According the article, For Black Americans, A Longer Time Without Work, "Blacks make up about 10 percent of the full-time working population but 27 percent of the long-term unemployed — that is, those who haven't had a full-time job for a year or more. And unlike whites, blacks are more likely to be without a job at all."

Among reasons for the difference in unemployment rates, ecomists cite less education for blacks, job discrimination and huge slashes in public sector jobs where many African-Americans are employed.

Although over 120,000 new jobs were gained last month, the rate of long term unemployment for blacks has barely shifted.

Harlem Parole Reentry Court's December Graduation!

2011-12-20T12:15:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, December 8, the Harlem Community Justice Center celebrated the graduation of 26 clients from our Reentry Court program with hymns from St. Mary's Choir, eloquent words from Rev. Stephen Chinlund, an author and prison reform advocate, and a story of inspiration and hope from Mark C., a young man who, after 15 years in prison, just received a job offer from the Department of Education. The Reentry Court combines parole supervision with pre-release engagement and planning, coordination of community based services, case management and judicial oversight.

Despite the rousing words of all of ours speakers, no one would deny that the highlight of the night was watching our graduates proudly step up to the podium to receive certificates memorializing their many accomplishments since their release from prison 6 months ago. On the uniqueness of our program, one client remarked, "I'm used to judges giving out time, this one gives out hugs!" Among our graduates were a baker and union worker, an aspiring film maker, a University employee, Justice Corps members, grandfathers, fathers, sons, and important members of our community.

A special thanks to the Harlem Reentry Team, Nigel Jackson, Stephanie Leverett, Bill Long, Alison Dockery, Cramon Milline, and Anisah Thompson and our dedicated parole staff, Judge Saunders, SPO Delgado, PO Oliver, PO Levine, and PO Morro. Thank you to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, our community partners, Palladia Inc., Center for Employment Opportunities, HELP, Exodus, and the Interfaith Center of New York, among others.

Recent Study Confirms that Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Works to Reduce Recidivism

2011-12-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

Written by Lama Hassoun, Researcher at the Harlem Community Justice Center

Over the last 10 years, many research studies have looked at how effective Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) programs are and their impact on those who participate.

In 2007, a comprehensive research study attempted to provide a fuller picture of the effectiveness of CBT programs with offenders and the difference between the different kinds of brand name CBT programs .

The study confirmed the findings of previous studies, showing that offenders who received CBT were 1.53 times less likely to recidivate when compared to offenders who did not receive CBT. Statistically, this is considered to be a significant difference.

The researchers also looked at the differences between the different “brand” name CBT programs. They found NO difference between them and concluded that the general CBT approach is responsible for the overall positive effect on recidivism. They found that including distinct anger control problems and interpersonal problem solving components really enhanced the effects of CBT.

High quality implementation of CBT was found to have a strong impact on the chance of recidivism of the offenders. High quality implementation was defined as low rates of people dropping out of the CBT program, close monitoring of quality and fidelity of the treatment implementation, and adequate CBT training for the providers.

It is also VERY encouraging that the effects of CBT were greater for offenders with higher risk of recidivism than those with lower risk, which contradicts any assumptions that high risk offenders might be less willing to undergo treatment.

Interestingly, offenders treated in prison showed recidivism decreases comparable to those offenders treated in the community (probation, parole, or transitional aftercare). Researchers also found that CBT was as effective for juveniles as it was for adults.

All in all, this study is very promising for providers in their attempts to assist offenders in reintegrating in their communities. CBT has been proven to be effective, time and time again.

Virgin Record CEO Advocates for Hiring Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

2011-11-29T16:51:00.000-08:00

Billionaire Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin Group, has sought to conquer the record industry, circumnavigate the globe by balloon, and introduce commercial space travel. Now Branson is urging the leaders of his 400 global companies to consider hiring formerly incarcerated applicants.

In a recent article in the Guardian, Branson talks about his decision to actively pursue formerly incarcerated individuals as employees after spending a day in an Australian prison two years ago:

As soon as I got back to England, I contacted the MDs of Virgin companies and said to them that we must . . . try to take on as many ex-convicts as possible," he recalls.

How did they respond? "Generally positive," he says. "I think that people at Virgin appreciate the fact that we are an understanding company. I had one or two negative comments on Twitter, but nothing that concerned me. One of the prisoners I met in Melbourne told me he'd been released with no money. He had to find his own way to the city. He was thrown back out into this world with no help whatsoever. The end result was that he was back inside in a very short time. For people coming out of prison it's a vicious circle. If they can't get a job, the only thing they can do is reoffend. From society's point of view that can be very painful."

Virgin has worked with Working Chance to hire formerly incarcerated women (they also hire men) and so far the results have been encouraging:

[Jocelyn] Hillman, who founded Working Chance four years ago, was being interviewed by a newspaper about her work. "I said: 'We need someone like Richard Branson to get involved'," she explains. "He read the cuttings and got in touch with us. He said: 'How can I help?'"

Working Chance has successfully placed 173 female ex-prisoners with companies, including Pret a Manger, Sainsbury's and Virgin. Their reoffending rate is less than 5% compared with the general rate of about two-thirds of all adults released from prison, who are reconvicted within two years of being discharged. "We have a number of women working for Virgin Management," says Hillman. "One was taken on only last week. All are doing really, really well."

Branson has also made a push to encourage other companies to join him in hiring ex-offenders.

He explained why he has this mindset:

"One of the reasons perhaps that I'm more understanding than some people is that if I go back to my teenage years when I marched on the American embassy trying to stop the Vietnamese war, I was running from the police wielding batons."

For one of the wealthiest people in the UK it comes down to this:

"Everybody deserves a second chance.."

NJ Expands Reentry Efforts

2011-11-28T09:28:00.000-08:00

Today, as reported in North Jersey.com, NJ's Governor, Chris Christie, is expected to announce a major expansion of the state's reentry efforts. "The initiative adopts many of the recommendations made to the Christie administration by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative New York City-based think tank with a progressive reputation on prison issues, which was commissioned to analyze the state’s current prisoner re-entry system.

The institute found the state’s existing re-entry efforts amounted to 'a confusing system with no centralized definitions and mission, a lack of accountability for outcomes . . . and a lack of coordination, with potential duplication of services and no continuity between services provided in prison, during parole and in the community.'”

The Governor’s first major criminal justice initiative calls for:

"Expanding the state’s Drug Court program, which allows those convicted of certain non-violent drug offenses to bypass incarceration by agreeing to a strict regimen of court appearances and drug or alcohol treatment and other recovery services to break the addiction.

The creation of the Task Force for Recidivism Reduction, which will be co-chaired by attorney Lisa Puglisi, with the state Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board, and James Plousis, chairman of the State Parole Board. The task force will coordinate the many treatment and reentry programs across the state government to bolster reentry efforts, as well as make recommendations to the governor on how to improve those programs.

The task force will also assess the effectiveness of all reentry programs currently offered using a real-time recidivism database, which will allow officials to track individuals and the success of the programs they participate in. Using the data, the task force will identify programs that fail and suggest how resources could be better spent to improve recidivism rates."

Fresh Start Program Keeps Rikers Inmate in the Kitchen

2011-11-23T16:23:00.000-08:00

The New York Time profiles a young Rikers inmate in Fresh Start, a program of the Osborne Association that provides job skills and relapse prevention. Click here to view the article.

The Increasing Privitization of the Prison Industry: The ACLU's Latest Report

2011-11-21T15:43:00.000-08:00

The United States imprisons more individuals than any other country in the world, both per capital and in absolute terms. The term "prison industrial complex" has been coined to refer to relationship between the rapid expansion of the U.S. inmate population and the political influence of private prison companies and businesses that supply goods and services to government prison agencies. Last week, the ACLU published the first comprehensive report on the privitization of the prison industry in its publication, "Banking on Bondage, Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration." The report points to some alarming statistics and trends that are facilitating the ever expanding industrialization of the prison industry:

"As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits. Private prisons for adults were virtually non-existent until the early 1980s, but the number of prisoners in private prisons increased by approximately 1600% between 1990 and 2009. Today, for-profit companies are responsible for approximately 6% of state prisoners, 16% of federal prisoners, and, according to one report, nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government. In 2010, the two largest private prison companies alone received nearly $3 billion dollars in revenue, and their top executives, according to one source, each received annual compensation packages worth well over $3 million."

To read more, check out the ACLU publication by clicking here.

Supreme Court Will Decide Another Life-Sentence-Without-Parole Case Related to Juveniles

2011-11-09T18:33:00.000-08:00

In May 2010, the Supreme Court decided that sentencing juveniles convicted of non-homicide related cases to life without the possibility of parole violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

On Monday, as report in the LA Times, the court determined that it would hear a related case-whether juveniles convicted of killing someone can be locked up without the possibility of parole.

The two cases that will decide this issue deal with two men who were sentenced to life without parole for killings committed when they were 14 years old.

In deciding the 2010 case, the court noted that a youth does not share the same amount of culpability for crimes as an adult due to their impulsive nature and a less developed capacity for evaluating consequences.

From Harlem to the UK: "Offender Resettlement" Forum in London features HCJC Project Director

2011-11-01T18:55:00.000-07:00

Via The Young Foundation :

Transatlantic perspectives on the challenges of offender resettlement

Wednesday, 2 November 2011 14:30 - 16:00

Cost, recidivism, and the collateral consequences of contact with the criminal justice system present significant challenges in relation to offender resettlement. Drawing on insights from Chris Watler and Evan Jones this seminar will explore these challenges and the process of resettlement from two comparable but contrasting contexts.

Chris Watler is the Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center, a community court in New York focusing on housing, youth crime, and offender re-entry. Evan Jones is Head of Community Services at St Giles Trust, a leading charity working with offenders in the UK.

This event is being co-hosted by the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) and the Young Foundation to coincide with the launch of a new publication, From the Ground Up: Promising Projects in Criminal Justice, which profiles a range of innovative criminal justice projects from the US and UK.

The event will be held upstairs in Bethnal Green Library, Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 0HL.

RSVP to events@youngfoundation.org

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

2011-10-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Budget Cuts Eliminate Parole and Probation Courts in California

2011-10-11T12:23:00.000-07:00

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

Are Parole Supervision agencies using practices grounded in evidence?

2011-10-06T14:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Center for Court Innovation Celebrates 15 Years of Doing Justice

2011-10-06T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

What if Hurricane Irene had hit Rikers Island?

2011-08-31T10:34:00.000-07:00

While the Mayor's Office has come under fire for its statement to the Times that no evacuation plan existed for Riker's inmates, others activitists say that in "talks with city administrators over the past few days, the city made it clear that it did have a plan to move inmates on lower lying areas on Rikers to higher ground in the case of flooding, but that city officials made an early determination that the entire island was on high enough ground that they did not need their plan." The controversy is summed up in Colorlines Magazine this week.

The "Secret Ingredient": Why Respectful Judging Matters

2011-08-24T11:36:00.000-07:00

Today's New York Law Journal published an Op-ed by Center for Court Innovation's (CCI) Director, Greg Berman, and Research Director, Mike Rempel, entitled "Judges Matter: How Courts Reduce Crime and Save Money." The Op-ed describes a study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted by the Urban Institute, CCI, and RTI International, that finds that "drug court participants are one-third less likely to report using drugs 18 months after enrollment in the program, and that they are responsible for less than half as many criminal acts as the comparison group after 18 months." Such reductions in criminal behavior are estimated to save approximately $5,680 per participant. What is the "secret ingredient" to why drug courts work?

It's in the judge, so the research demonstrates. "When participants believe that the judge treats them fairly, they do better. . .When offenders understand the process, feel that they've been treated with respect and believe that their voice has been heard in court, they are more likely to accept court decisions-even ones that go against them. . . The most effective judges were those whose demeanor was independently rated by researchers as respectful, fair, attentive, enthusiastic, consistent, and caring. This finding is echoed by other studies that have suggested that the role of the judge is just as critical to defendants' success as the provision of treatment."

Up at the Harlem Community Justice Center, one of CCI's projects, we have applied this key concept to our Reentry Court. In the Harlem Parole Reentry Court, individuals under community supervision (i.e. on parole), regularly meet with a judge, his/her parole officer, a graduate of the program, and a case manager. Although the setting, a traditional court room, is familiar to the client, the interaction is anything less than typical. The judge asks the client about his life, his struggles, his successes. He asks about his children and his interests. He has the court clap for him when he does well, and speaks compassionately when he struggles. He warns him respectfully about potential consequences of non-compliance, and if he supports the parole officer in mandating the client to a new program or for an evaluation, he explains why. He also gets off the bench at the end of each session and pats the client on the back.

No doubt, the drug court study has important implications for all courts. As the Op-ed states, "It offers powerful ammunition to legislative and executive branch leaders who are currently attempting to trim correctional spending and invest in alternatives to incarceration like drug courts...For judicial leaders, the drug court study poses a challenge: Is it possible to spread some of the basic elements of drug court judging-a problem solving orientation, individualized attention to each case, an emphasis on respectful interaction with defendants-throughout court systems?"

Consenting to Confinement: Sex Offenders Overwhelmingly Waiving Their Right to Trial Before Civil Confinement

2011-08-11T07:28:00.000-07:00

This week's New York Law Journal reports that nearly 92 percent of sex offenders civilly confined following the completion of their prison sentence have waived their right to trial since the passage of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, thereby consenting to indefinite confinement.

Under the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, which took effect in 2007, upon completion of a criminal sentence, the state can continue confining a sex offender upon proof of "clear and convincing evidence" (a high legal standard) that the individual suffers from a "mental abnormality" that predisposes him or her to commit sex crimes. The respondent has the right to a jury trial and a unanimous verdict is required for confinement.

Although 20% of individuals who were confined for a sex offense win at trial (and are therefore released to parole or set free), most are opting to remain confined. The question is why? Officials have been very surprised by the choice to forgo trial since the worst outcome of trial is confinement.

Attorneys who represent clients in civil confinement cases say that many sex offenders know the great barriers to reentry they will confront upon release. Residency restrictions forbid them from living in many areas and many housing providers exclude sex offenders from transitional housing. For example, in New York City, if the offender an is under parole or probation supervision, the individual may not live within 1,000 feet of a school or other facility caring for children. Getting a job is no less of a feat. With no social safety net, former sex offenders fear they will end up homeless and marginalized.

Dr. Wulfert, Professor of Psychology suggests that "many offenders assume confinement is inevitable, and some may realize they cannot control their impulses, do not trust themselves, and genuinely do not want to reoffend....They may also want to avoid more humiliation..."

Others suggest that consenting to confinement may be a "strategic move" hoping that "if they readily admit they have a problem the courts may be more receptive to releasing them in a year or so when they come up for mandatory annual review."

Facebook Removes Inmate Profiles at Request of Law Enforcement

2011-08-10T11:59:00.000-07:00

The state of California and Facebook recently began a formal partnership with the goal of removing the Facebook accounts of inmates. The partnership began when an individual convicted of a sex offense was found viewing the pages of his victim with a contraband cell phone. Authorities report that inmates use their accounts to do anything from connecting with family members to ordering crimes to be committed on their behalf. For more on this story, click here. To see a sample page, click here.

"Why all those desks have tvs on them" : Technology and Reentry

2011-08-04T12:06:00.000-07:00

One of our Deputy Director, John Megaw's favorite stories to recall about the challenges facing long-timers returning from prison is about a man who served 20 years and was released into our Reentry Court program. John escorted him upstairs to do an intake assessment with him and guided him down our clinic corridor which has cubicles equipped with the usual office ammenities. John brought him into his office, the man sat down across from him, and said, "First things first, why does everyone have a television on their desk?" John explained that those were actually computers, and realized just how much techology had changed since the man's incarceration.

When I met Mr. X, who has been incarcerated for over 31 years and who has been the subject of a few blog posts over the past year, I remembered this story and thought of all the innovations that he hasn't experienced over the years. In this excerpt of an inteview I conducted with Mr. X, he responds to my question about the technological advances that he is most curious about.

I would have to say the computer, the internet. You can locate anything on the internet. I also curious about cell phones. When I left the free world we had big telephones in my apartment, now when I look at the news on TVI see everybody walking around with cell phones. They are talking and texting people. Also the big flat screen televisions and The GPS systems fascinate me. They have phones and computers where you can see the person as you speak to them, the phones can take pictures and record things and small IPods, MP3 where you can have some many of your favorite songs on such a small device. I also got a chance to see how the U.S. Treasury changed some of the money (paper money). I do a lot of reading and I watch the news so I can know what’s happening out there.

My grandchildren also write me telling me about things she does the computer. My granddaughter Destiny, 10yrs.old, has written to me saying," Grandpa, do you know what these initials mean? OMG, LOL, TMI, BFF etc. I didn't, of course, so she has to tell me the answers. When she wrote me back she gave me the definitions to all the initials: OMG= oh my god; LOL= laugh out loud; TMI=too much information and BFF= best friends forever.

The Harlem Community Justice Center and Exodus Transitional Community Unite the Harlem Community to Extend a Warm Welcome Home to the Formerly Incarcerated and their Families at the Harlem Family Day Block Party

2011-07-29T09:26:00.000-07:00

To counter the message of exclusion often sent to formerly incarcerated individuals and their families, on July 23, 2011, The Harlem Community Justice Center and Exodus Transitional Community united community members, social service providers, and the faith-based community to say, “Welcome home, you are part of our community. We value you as sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, and community members and have great expectations for you.”

Our Reentry Family Day was a lively celebration, with service providers, games, crafts, music and food spanning Lexington to 3rd on 121st. It was a true community effort with the all of our neighbors donating supplies, music and energy. Despite the humidity and sweltering sun, seniors and youth danced together to drums, a local dance studio put on a mesmerizing hip hop and African dance display; there was jewelery making, free haircuts, and delicious BBQ. Representatives from local reentry agencies came early and stayed late to make sure information about services reached as many people as possible. Our parole officers, all of them, were on hand as well, as our Reentry Court Judge. Many of the men in our programs who show up with their kids who were treated to face painting, tie dying, and street games, not to mention the open fire hydrant.

Thank you to all of the participants who volunteered, those who made donations, and those who attended. It was a truly special day, embodying the spirit of acceptance, hope, and support that we wish for all individuals coming home.

Ohio and North Carolina Enact Justice Reinvestment Policies

2011-07-26T07:47:00.000-07:00

via the Council of State Governments:

Bipartisan Legislation Saves States Hundreds of Millions of Dollars,

Leaders Reinvest in Safer Communities

Over a two-week period in June, a bipartisan group of state leaders from across the political spectrum in both North Carolina and Ohio came together in their respective states to enact comprehensive, data-driven legislation resulting from justice reinvestment initiatives. The bills in both states will increase public safety and reduce crime by making probation more effective, ensuring, for example, that those people who are most likely to reoffend are not left unsupervised. Both bills increase sentence lengths for certain high-risk property offenders or the most serious and violent offenders, while expanding sentencing options for nonviolent and first-time felony offenders.

North Carolina

Since 1994, when it established a structured sentencing system, NC has long been considered a model state for its approach to managing the capacity of its prison system. Increasing numbers of probation revocations and various sentence enhancements have since increased the pressure on the prison system. Recently, the General Assembly received a projection forecasting a 10 percent growth in the prison population, or about 3,900 inmates, by 2020.

Learn how Justice Reinvestment is helping North Carolina save $290 million, increase sentences for habitual offenders and expand community-based treatment programs for people on supervision.

Ohio

Like North Carolina, Ohio's criminal justice system faced pressures that, in 2008, led a bipartisan group including the governor, chief justice, and legislative leaders to employ a justice reinvestment approach. With nearly 51,000 people locked up on any given day, the prisons were 33 percent over capacity. The state projected that the system would grow by another 3,000 people by 2015. Much of that could be traced to people convicted of property and drug offenses, who received short sentences and were subsequently released from prison with no supervision.

Find out how Ohio is able to make community supervision and treatment more effective, while putting $20 million towards improving felony probation supervision.

The CSG Justice Center's Justice Reinvestment Initiative to address corrections spending and public safety is a partnership with the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. These efforts have provided similar data-driven analyses and policy options to state leaders in 14 states.

The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels from all branches of government. The Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus-driven strategies, informed by available evidence, to increase public safety and strengthen communities.

From Rikers to Television

2011-07-19T08:22:00.000-07:00

A recent Daily News article describes how a young man "breaks into the tv industry, and out of a life of drugs and jail" through the Made In New York Production Assistant Training Program.

12,000 Prisoners To Be Granted a Reduction in Sentences for Crack Related Offenses?

2011-07-11T09:08:00.000-07:00

Thousands of federal prisoners may benefit from the proposal under consideration by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to correct large disparities in sentences between those convicted of crack and power cocaine offenses. Although the Fair Sentencing Act, passed nearly one year ago, sought to ameliorate such disparities, the act did not determine if the reduction in sentencing would apply retroactively.

Prior to the FSA, crack related offenses had been been punished one hundred times more severely than those involving powder cocaine and have largely targeted African Americans, who represent 82% of those prosecuted federally for crack offenses. (For example, a conviction for the sale of five hundred grams of powder cocaine triggers a five-year mandatory sentence,whie only five grams of crack triggered the same sentence). The FSA reduced that disparity to eighteen to one.

A recent LA Times article, Attorney General Eric Holder, who supports the proposal stated, "There is simply no just or logical reason why their punishments should be dramatically more severe than those of other cocaine offenders." No meaningful pharmacological differences between the two drugs have been found.

Over 12,000 federal prisoners could be affected.

New Study Examines the Benefits of Access to Health Insurance for the Poor

2011-07-07T12:29:00.000-07:00

According to the New York Times, a groundbreaking study by the National Bureau of Economic Research investigated the impact of access to Medicaid for the poor. The study was made possible when the state of Oregon moved to expand access to Medicaid via a lottery in 2008. Over 90,000 persons applied for the 10,000 new Medicaid slots creating a comparison group (the gold standard of research).

The study found that those with Medicaid were more likely to avail themselves of health services, including: mammograms, doctor visits, and medicines to treat illnesses; Medicaid recipients were forty percent less likely to not pay a bill or borrow money as a result of a medical debt, according to the Times. The study is now comparing the medical outcomes of Medicaid recipients and non-recipients.

To read the Times article by Gina Kolota click here.
To access the full study click here.

New York State Closing 7 Prisons

2011-07-01T09:17:00.000-07:00

According to Ernest Drucker in his new book, "A Plague of Prisons," New York State had a fairly consistent number of persons incarcerated from 1880 to 1970. That all changed with the enactment of the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 1973. So began the steady rise in the state's prison population from about 75 inmates per 100,000 to 375 per 100,000. New York led the way in a national incarceration experiment that has cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars with an incalculable loss of human capital, according to Drucker.

Now, almost 40 years later, New York has turned the corner with a 28% drop in prison inmates and historically low rates of crime. The New York Times reports today, that New York is closing seven prisons totaling 3,800 beds.

Ski At Your Own Risk: A Lifer Recalls Old School Prison Recreation

2011-06-29T09:09:00.000-07:00

I met Mr. X at Coxsackie during my first trip there one year ago with NY States's County Reentry Task Force Initiative. He has now been incarcerated for over 31 years.

Over the last year, he has been consistently corresponding with me at the Task Force (you can read his first letter here) and agreed to be interviewed for the blog. Over the next few weeks, I will be publishing parts of his interview.

In this excerpt, Mr. X responded to my question about the changes he has seen over the past 30 years in Correctional Facilities. Here is his response:

In Clinton, inmates use to go skiing, I couldn’t believe it. Guys from the ghetto who never went skiing in their life, all of a sudden they are in Clinton with big skis on their two feet; skiing down a hill in Clinton. The skis they gave the inmates didn’t have the ski poles. You just had the skis on your feet. You had to balance yourself without the two poles. I used to laugh as the inmates came flying down the hill and they would fall, some broke their legs, and but they had waived their ability to file a law suit. You got on the skis at your own risk. The prison wasn’t liable if you hurt yourself. I never got on the skis. Also they had real ice skates and made an ice skating ring. I did get on the ice skates to try it out; it was fun even though I fell a few times. Elmira had a swimming pool for inmates back then. Also I remember in Attica back in 1981 most first timers there had fish tanks inside of their cell, I had a fish tank with real fish. That no longer exists. I remember in Auburn prison the commissary use to sell food items in glass jars; we use to make glass paintings.

Elmira also had a lot of booty bandits. Back then everybody basically resolved all their disputes by fist fighting, not too many fights with knives and razors. Our families used to be able to cook you some chicken at home and bring it to you. They stopped that after somebody tried to conceal contraband hidden inside their home cooked chicken. They always had one inmate to a cell, now on each gallery the first 3 or 4 cells are double bunk. Two men to a tiny cell.

As for phone calls, the officers used to make them for us. He’d dial the phone number for and he would tell you,” You got 7 to 10 minutes.” Today inmates can talk on the phone for 30 minutes straight, they can also call back if nobody is waiting to go next. They used to have free college for all inmates and other helpful educational programs. Now there is no college and there is a very limited amount of educational programs. If you get a misbehavior report you must pay $5.00 for each ticket you get, back then when I first got to prison if you get a misbehavior report (ticket) you didn’t have to pay. I could go on and on about the changes (I will save all of that and much more when I write a book. Hopefully someone out there can help me put the book together.)

Community Court Project Opens in Newark NJ

2011-06-17T07:38:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Newark Mayor Corey Booker helped to launch Newark Community Solutions at a standing room only event in the City Council Chamber at Newark City Hall. Newark, a city working hard to overcome crime and violence, joins a growing list of cities across the globe that are using community courts as part of a larger problem-solving justice approach to improve public safety and community development. Located in Part 2 of the Newark Municipal Court (a.k.a "the Deuce") and presided over by the Hon. Victoria Pratt, Newark Community Solutions is the first community court developed in the State of New Jersey.

Newark Community Solutions was created through a broad partnership organized by the Center for Court Innovation, the parent organization for the Harlem Community Justice Center and this blog.

To read the Star-Ledger coverage of the event click here

Judging Reentry: Judge Grace Bernstein's Thoughts on Harlem's Parole Reentry Court

2011-06-13T07:12:00.000-07:00

Retiring after serving six years as the Reentry Court Judge for the Harlem Community Justice Center’s Parole Reentry Court, Judge Bernstein looks back at her time helping parolees manage their return from prison back home.

What interested you in the Parole Reentry Court?

I liked the idea of working with the parolees and trying to keep them from being violated. The other position I had was to conduct hearings to determine whether they would go back to the community or go to jail, and for how long. And of course, you don’t get to know the parolees in those type of circumstances, only seeing them for a short period of time. I liked the idea of trying to help people break the cycle of incarceration-getting released on parole, getting violated, going back to jail. I was impressed with the program when I first saw it and the opportunity it created to help break that cyle.

As somebody who presided over hearings, what were some of main reasons why individuals who came before you weren’t able to make it on parole?

I think there are three main ones and they are drugs, housing and jobs, though not necessarily in that order. You need to help people find a reason to break the cycle. Having a job that pays a living wage is paramount, because a minimum wage isn’t really a living wage. If a person has a history of selling drugs and returns to that, they will eventually get caught and go to jail, but they know that they are making real money in the meantime and can take care of demands from their families, etc. One of the parolees at the Parole Reentry Court, after getting a decent job once said, “I’m so excited I never made this much money before.” Then under his breath he said, “Except when I was selling drugs.”

As the parole reentry court judge, what was your role?

I saw my role as helping parolees understand their conditions of parole, helping them see the consequences of what would happen if they violated parole, and to help celebrate their accomplishments. I actually felt that acknowledging the positive was one of my most important roles. A lot of the guys very rarely receive positive reinforcement. When a parolee came and his parole officer wanted to put him on the calendar just so we could acknowledge his accomplishment, the individual would just beam. They don’t expect acknowledgement, especially from a judge.

Can you talk about how you think the clients benefit from their participation in the Reentry Court as opposed to traditional parole?

I always think the most important thing is the immediacy of how we respond to issues. The way this program deals with that is paramount to whether the program works or doesn’t work; if everything takes a long time then I feel it’s no different than regular parole. The individuals also have case managers, who take a problem-solving approach to parole issues. If I felt that a person was slipping and needed special help in a certain area, I could call on a case worker or the group specialist to do counseling or find services. I feel the ability for me to speak to someone and say he needs help now, not in a week from now, not in two weeks, not until a program could be set up is one major thing that distinguishes this program. We also encourage the parolees to keep journals describing what is going on in their lives. The journals helped give me a picture of what is going on.

How has the program evolved since you begun?

Honestly, the program has gotten better over time. I think we have an excellent staff and we have access to more programs and more diversity in terms of what to do with a parolee who has a problem. I think the best thing about this program is its ability to change and adapt and find new and better ways of doing things. I love that we now offer Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). I had identified that a long time ago as something we really needed because I saw a lot of parolees that used drugs, but their main problem wasn’t drugs. They weren’t actually addicts, their basic problem was emotional and the way that they thought. Before, there was really no place for them, but now we have CBT.

As you look back at your time in the Reentry Court how you have personally been influenced by your participation?

I think being part of this, I hope, has made me a better ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) because I began to have more of an understanding of what the people who come before me are going through. I remember saying to one man who had relapsed on drugs after his cousin was killed, “Doing drugs is not the way to honor his memory.” He wrote in his journal, “Judge Bernstein doesn’t understand, I use drugs to take away the pain.” I learned a lot from that encounter. Really, I learned a lot from all the encounters I’ve had at the Justice Center.

The next Graduation of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court will take place on Thursday, June 23, 2011 from 6 to 8 PM on the Third Floor Courtroom of the Harlem Community Justice Center, 170 East 121st Street, New York, NY 10035. After the ceremony, a buffet dinner will be served. Please RSVP: Edith Lopez, ELOPEZ1@courts.state.ny.us or (212) 360-4120.

Is Electronic Monitoring A Sign of Privledge?

2011-06-02T08:39:00.000-07:00

Slate's William Saleton considers why electronic monitoring has become an indicator of weath instead of a symbol of shame in his article, Get Out of Jail Unfree.

Why Buying a Hamburger Might Be the Organizing Tool of the Future

2011-05-23T12:08:00.000-07:00

Friendly Toast

By Kate Krontiris (who also recently wrote a thoughtful piece on her own blog
about Open Courts, a live streaming of court proceedings out of the Mass. Supreme Court).

There is a restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts called “The Friendly Toast.” It serves standard diner food with a bit of colorful flare (think: two eggs over easy with hash browns, amongst inflated Barbie dolls, bright green walls, and 1957 kitchen furniture).

What makes the restaurant truly unique, however, is that its next hire will be somebody with a criminal record.

Why? Because its customers want it that way.

The Friendly Toast agreed to hire a formerly incarcerated person if its customers purchased $1,000 in gift certificates. With some organizing help from the Boston Workers Alliance and Haily House, the customers
did just that. This means that the next opening goes to somebody who can do the job and who has a criminal record. The implications for that person and his family are profound: a steady income, membership in a positive community, a structured environment for recalibration to freedom, and the dignity that comes from a day’s work. For The Friendly Toast, the benefits are also clear: a dedicated employee with training from a local non-profit and supervision from the state probation system, the ensuing loyalty of hungry customers who care about the practices of the businesses they patronize, and the positive brand value that comes from doing a good deed.

This is just one example of what Mike Norman thinks will be a sea-change in organizing on community-level initiatives, be it youth employment, environmental sustainability, or child nutrition. Last year, Norman founded SoChange, an online platform that allows individuals to use their spending power to affect change on issues they care about. Any individual or organization can create a project, invite community members to patronize businesses that have agreed to support that project, and track the combined impact. Even businesses can launch initiatives to see what their customers care most about.

Here is Norman talking about how the Friendly Toast reentry project got started:

For Norman, who has one graduate degree in business and is working toward a second in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the SoChange framework offers four key benefits:

• First, it makes immediately apparent to individuals the power of their own purse – and the impact that that power could have in their own communities.

• Second, it creates a mechanism by which neighborhood individuals and businesses can communicate about what issues matter to them. Individuals can send signals to businesses about what they desire as consumers – and businesses can connect with customers who would be willing to patronize their services in return for commitment to a particular cause.

• Third, it fills a need for mid-spectrum civic engagement. For those individuals who desire to do more than make online donations, but who may not have the time to volunteer in a soup kitchen or tutor young people, the SoChange platform provides a leg up the “ladder of engagement.” It fits civic engagement opportunities right into daily buying transactions in a completely local context.

• And finally, it offers scaling potential of a new variety, expanding the reach of local-level initiatives to the national and international levels, and multiplying the power of partnership. A national membership network could, for example, get its members to pre-pay for gift certificates to whichever one of five national brands commits to do the most for a particular cause. Companies would compete not primarily for the sum of money raised, but rather to win those customers who will now feel a kind of ownership over and loyalty to the company whenever they patronize its services in the future. Customer loyalty supports sustainable growth.
What is exciting about this idea for anybody who has tried to crack the stigma of a criminal record in employment is that it demonstrates some good old common sense mixed with a dash of regular practicality.
Any good business wants to know what its customers care about. It may not have the time or savvy to parse through the complexities of all the social issues at play – but it can understand the simple signal of spending. Businesses that know why their customers are spending money in a particular way can then tailor products and services to meet those preferences, particularly if there is guaranteed demand.

Likewise, the residents of a neighborhood actually do care how area businesses behave with respect to a variety of social issues – but neither do they have the time or savvy to research the standards and compliance of every outfit they patronize. A simple mechanism for spending money at those institutions that meet identified social goals makes it easy for individuals to meaningfully demonstrate their preferences. What SoChange offers is an elegant fix for this market failure of information asymmetry and a tangible way for people to organize around issues of concern.

As applied to reentry-related employment issues, one could envision a community campaign to engage, say, ten local businesses in a hiring initiative, partnering with job-training agencies so that when positions open up, there are trained and supported individuals ready to interview. In convincing businesses to participate, reentry strategists would need to demonstrate that there is indeed a sustainable demand for the services of a firm willing to hire individuals with criminal records. This might mean launching a pilot project to test that theory (as in the Friendly Toast experiment) and it most certainly means a strong mechanism for communicating the results of the experiment to potential partner firms. What was so powerful to the owners of The Friendly Toast was that clients were willing to put down their money before anybody had been hired. For those businesses that are not convinced by the promise of future tax credits or bonding insurance for hiring an individual with a record, this up-front show of commitment sends a powerful signal of customer demand. At the $1,000 threshold, there is a kind of implicit guarantee that a business will not back out of its end of the bargain – since it would risk significant reputational damage if it did not fulfill its obligations.

To have an impact at a much larger scale, perhaps reentry initiatives in New York could pair up with similar programs in Detroit or Albuquerque and invite businesses sited in those three cities and selling to similar markets to engage in a hiring challenge that could win them new customers responding to their social commitments. City and state government could play a role in highlighting this innovative partnership, perhaps by offering tax benefits or other incentives to businesses that engage meaningfully.

We do not need big, flashy, new ideas to solve these social problems that take root from market failures. We just need some common sense and a willingness to think more closely about how to realign incentives, so that everybody wins. In that respect, SoChange seems to have a bright future ahead.

HIV and Mass Incarceration: A Recipe for a Super-virus

2011-05-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

While Camping makes predictions about an impending judgement day, Dr. Robert Fullilove, the Associate Dean for Community and Minority Affairs and a Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University at the Mailman School of Health is making a much more likely, and therefore much more disturbing, premonition about the future of HIV in this country. By the year 2015, he says, the HIV virus will have mutuated to the point that a supervirus that is incurable and looks startingly similar to HIV in the 1980s will have been born. What does this have to do with prisons and reentry? While at first glance, it might not be obvious, but after a half an hour talk by Dr. Fullilove, similar to the one he gave yesterday at the Community Service Society's Reentry Roundtable, you will be schooled, and you will be frightened.

How do you create the perfect conditions for the spread of disease? Dr. Fullilove tells us to look to the war on drugs and the subsequent mass incarceration of individuals in confined spaces,without condoms, without access to good medical care, and disruptions in access to HIV medications that require strict adherence.

Here is a very brief, synopsis of the very scary story that he tells:

In 1970, Nixon declared drugs as the public enemy of the state. In 1973, the DEA decided to wage the against drugs by incarcerating those who use them. It is no coincidence that in 1972, 200,000 were locked up, and today, the U.S. is the leader of incarceration in the world, with 2.3 million people in jails or prisons. 1/2 of all arrests today are drug related crime.

Although HIV hit the media in the 80's with the "gay men's health crisis," because the virus has an incubation period of 10-15 years, the disease began being spread at the very same time that the country began criminalizing the use of needles. Fearful of getting caught with a "spike," injection drug users stopped carrying their own needles and began to share them in places they could be left and refused, engaging in the most efficient way of spreading HIV, Hep C, and a host of other diseases.

Now, instead of treating addiction as a public health issue, incarcerate these individuals, predominantly ethnic minorities, for drug use and sales. In New York, take 75% of them from the 7 neighborhoods that have among the highest rates of HIV infection in the country, as high as in areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, and put them together in prisons. Mix different strands of HIV and they will become be more resistant to medication. 40% of incarcerated individuals willl have sex in prison and a large amount will inject drugs, or share needles tatooing. Don't offer condoms and, depending on the state, offer limited HIV/AIDS treatment. No wonder, Fullilove says, that prisons have 3-5 times the rate of HIV infection as the general population. Although extremely effective when given, HIV treatment requires a strict regimen, so when those incarcerated individuals who have access to HIV treatment leave the prison they must take the drug regularly. If not, the virus will mutate and become less responsive to HIV meds. With no immediate access to Medicaid upon release and disruptions in HIV treatment due to release machinations, a "drug holiday," can eventually become deadly. When the individual with HIV returns to his/her community, or jail, and transmits the virus, that virus will be more resistant to treatment. At some point, it will become untreatable.

And so, warns Dr. Fullilove, by the year 2015, the HIV virus will have mutuated to the point where we will create a supervirus that is incurable and looks startingly similar to HIV in the 1980s.

Equally startling, is that Mr. Fullilove asserts that there are many very simple public policies that could prevent the spread of the disease. To read Dr. Fullilove's work, click here.

"Want to study here? Let me look at your record": PRI features Dr. Weissman on the Use of Records in the Application Process

2011-05-11T13:46:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, at the Prisoner Reentry Institute's Occassional Series on Reentry, Dr. Marsha Weissman of the Center for Community Alternatives presented on the increasing use of criminal records in the college application process. Interestingly, this issue became of increasing concern to the Center for Community Alternatives in 2004 when colleges began accepting the common application. Their clients, excited to return to school, began asking, "How do I answer the criminal conviction question?" Prior to the common application, few schools' own applications asked the much dreaded question.

Dr. Marsha argued that the racial disparities in the criminal justice system coupled with the justice system's expansion undermines the civil rights movement's goal of access to higher education. Without any empiral evidence that students who have had contact with the justice system are riskier to campus public safetly, the use of records to weed out potential candidates is a policy that not only unfairly discriminates, but may serve as a threat to public safety by inhibiting access to the most effective crime reducing tool-education.

Based on a study conducted by CCA partnered and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), of the 292 of surveyed schools of undergraduate level or higher, 74% of schools require criminal record self-disclosure and 20% of colleges conduct background checks. 69% of surveyed schools have special requirements for applicants with criminal justice histories that range from offering a letter of explanation, to providing the production of an official rap sheet which has information otherwise unobtainable to the public. 61% of colleges have some type of CJI related automatic bars to admission for certain types of convictions.

According to Dr. Wesissman, 53% of colleges that collect and use criminal histories in their decision making policies and 60% have no training on interpreting criminal records. For those of us who have seen a RAP sheet, this is especially troubling. RAP sheets frequently contain errors, include the initial charge in addition to the charge for which the individual is convicted, contain information that is supposed to be sealed, and are generally extremely confusing documents.

Among CCA's practice recommendations are:

Remove CJI disclosure from initial application
Limit disclosure to specific convictions
Allow people still on community supervision to enroll if otherwise qualified
Establish fair and evidence-based admissions criteria
Use unbiased and well informed assessments

To read the full report pubished by CCA, click here.

ATI Reentry Coalition Reduces Recidivism and Saves Taxpayer Dollars

2011-05-04T13:26:00.000-07:00

The Alternative To Incarceration (ATI) Reentry Coalition recently released its 2010 report documenting its contribution to public safety and taxpayer savings. According to the report, while the annual yearly cost per person of jailing an adult is $76,000 and incarcerating an adult in prison is $55,000, most ATI programs cost $11,000 and have a combined recidivism rate of less than 20% after two years.

Here are a few highlights of the ATI Reentry Coalition members outcomes:

Of the 43 individuals who were housed in the Fortune Academy's phased permanent housing program, 36 of them remained in pernanemtn housing for at least one year, 36 remained unincarcerated and 97% or residents remained free of parole violations.
In CASES Nathaniel ACT Program, an ATI program for individuals with mental illess who have committed felonies, 67% released from the program were not convicted of a crime in the following two years.
Of the 48 youth classified as delinquent participating in Center for Community Alternative's Alternative to Placement Programs, only 9% were rearrrested and prosecuted in the following years.

To read the entire report, click here.

PRI's Upcoming Occasional Series: The Use of Criminal Records in College Admissions

2011-04-27T13:08:00.000-07:00

From the Center for Community Alternatives:

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I thought you might be interested in the upcoming Occasional Series on Reentry Research sponsored by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Prisoner Reentry Institute. On Friday, May 6 from 9:00 am - 10:30 am, I will be reviewing the results of CCA’s study “ The Use of Criminal Records in College Admissions: Reconsidered.” The study is the first to explore the use of criminal history record screening in the college admissions process. The full report is available on our website at http://www.communityalternatives.org./

The discussants will include Linda Hollmen, Director of Education at New York State Department of Correctional Services and John Molina, Director of I.M.P.A.C.T at Exodus Transitional Community.
The event will be held at John Jay College, 899 Tenth Avenue, between 58th and 59th Streets, Room 630, New York, NY 10019.
To attend RSVP to pri@jjay.cuny.edu.

Best regards,

Marsha Weissman, Ph.D.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Banning Sex Offenders Access to Dating Sites

2011-04-21T13:28:00.000-07:00

Salon writer, Tracey Clark Florye, argues that dating sites should use an evidence-based approach to banning sex offenders from their sites.

Well, she might not use those terms exactly, but take a look at her argument for why low risk sex offenders should have access to sites like match.com.

Can Food Affect Parole Decisions?

2011-04-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

A Columbia Professor and an Israeli research team made an interesting, and disturbing, finding when reviewing the effects of taking a snack break on parole decisions by judges in Israel.

"The team studied more than 1,000 parole decisions made by eight experienced judges in Israel over 50 days in a ten-month period. After a snack or lunch break, 65 percent of cases were granted parole. The rate of favorable rulings then fell gradually, sometimes as low as zero, within each decision session and would return to 65 percent after a break.

Professor Levav commented on the meaning of the study, "The evidence suggests that when judges make repeated rulings, they show an increased tendency to rule in favor of the status quo. This tendency can be overcome by taking a break to eat a meal, which is consistent with previous research that demonstrated the positive impact of a short rest and glucose on mental resource replenishment. However, food might not be the only factor; sometimes a mental break can yield a similar result."

The study was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To read the article describing the study in Medical News Today, click here.

Using Evidence-Based Interventions in Corrections

2011-04-14T09:16:00.000-07:00

Dr. Edward Latessa, Ph.D, is an internationally renowned criminal justice researcher and author. In this series of short interviews recorded by the National Institute of Justice, Dr. Latessa discusses the key concepts related to the use of evidence-based practices in corrections. The segment titles include:

• Key Principles of Reducing Recidivism

• Using Resources to Reduce Recidivism-Learning From Past Programs

• Criminal Risk Assessment.

• Research Informs Expertise

• Program Fidelity and Program Integrity

• Improving Correctional Interventions

• Correctional Practitioners as “Agents of Change”

Each segment is less than five minutes. They provide a nice introduction to the world of evidence-based practices in corrections. Click here to view the videos.

You can also view a recent Power Point presentation by Dr. Latessa presented at the 2011 National Second Chance Act Reentry Conference.

"The Harlem Community Justice Center gratefully acknowledges the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, for allowing us to reproduce, in part or in whole, the video above. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this video are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice."

Blogging from Prison?

2011-04-13T11:37:00.000-07:00

Tired of reading the usual blog? MIT's Center for Civic Media operates a blogging platform to facilitate prisoners' access to broadcast media.

"Between the Bars is a blogging platform for one out of every 142 Americans---prisoners---that makes it easy to blog on paper, using standard postal mail. It consists of software tools to make it easy to upload PDF scans of letters, crowd-sourced transcriptions of the scanned images, and the usual full-featured blogging tools including comments, tagging, RSS feeds, and notifications for friends and family when new posts are available."

The blog offers profiles of each prison blogger and original content in its original form. Check it out here.

Exposing Employment Discrimination: 65 Million 'Need Not Apply'

2011-04-04T06:40:00.000-07:00

The National Employment Law Project's March publication, "65 Million 'Need Not Apply," exposes the blatant discrimination of individuals with criminal convictions across the U.S. by both large companies and small, questions the rational that a criminal record accurate predicts negative work behavior despite some significant evidence otherwise, and highlights recent law suits and policy recommendations that could enhance public safety by protecting the rights of the formerly incarcerated.

It is also one of the first publications, at least that I've seen, that highlights the wave of recent lawsuits that have been brought pursuit to federal law challenging exclusionary hiring practices.

Arroyo v. Accenture, Hudson v. Transit Inc., Mays v. Burlington, Johnson et. al v. Locke.
Dozens of The EEOC charges are also pending against national employers such as Lowe's and Select Truckers Plus.
In 2009, former NY Attorney Andrew Cuomo enforced state protections that regulate criminal background checks for employment in suits against Radio Shack, ChoicePoint, and Aramark.

While enforcing the laws protecing individuals with convictions are crucial, it is equally important to publicize the fact that these lawsuits are regularly occurring. Doing so not only draws employers attention to the law, but emphasizes that discrimination will hit employers where it most hurts, in their pockets.

The publication also focuses on discriminatory job advertisements on Craigs List, where many employers blatantly advertise their illegal blanket bans on hiring individuals with arrests or convictions. Using language like, "We are looking for people with spotless background/criminal history (CORT Furniture Retal), "Applicants must also pass a background investigation showing no felony convictions (Domino's Pizza), and No Felonies or Misd. allowed (Peak Organization, Staffing Firm NYC), NELP found over 300 adds at Criags list that facially discriminate.

To read the full text of the publication, including NELP's policy recommendations, click here.

Understanding The Budget Process

2011-04-01T10:46:00.000-07:00

Understanding the federal, state, and city budget process is a daunting task. It is difficult to keep track of budget negotiations and the impact on issues of concern for the formerly incarcerated. If you are a formerly incarcerated person, or someone who cares about criminal justice issues in New York City ,there are good sources of information that can help you understand the budget process.

This is not an exhaustive list, but a list of resources that we use:

1. New York City Budget Information

New York City Office of Management & Budget: http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/html/home/home.shtml

The NYC Independent Budget Office is a great source for unbiased analysis of the New York City budget. The IBO regularly produces reports on specific areas of the budget and city operations to inform the public and elected officials: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/

To view the IBO City Budget Roadmap see: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/IBORoadmap.pdf

2. New York State Budget

New York State Division of the Budget: http://www.budget.state.ny.us/

The Division of Budget also has a Citizen's Guide to the Budget Process: http://www.budget.state.ny.us/citizen/process/process.html

3. Federal Budget

White House Office of Management and Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

See their budget process overview: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/s10.pdf

Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/

4. Other Good Sources of Information

The Fortune Society's David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy is a great resource for information on major state and federal legislation impacting the criminal justice system. You can join their weekly email blast: http://fortunesociety.org/category/david-rothenberg-center-for-public-policy-drcpp/

The Correctional Association of New York is one of the oldest prisons reform advocacy organization in New York State and the only one with legislative authority to visit and inspect conditions in state prisons. The Association has also been a driving force in the state's drug law reform efforts and reforms in juvenile justice: http://www.correctionalassociation.org/

The Legal Action Center of New York conducts state and national advocacy on justice reform issues: http://www.lac.org/

On the small screen, Inside City Hall is a nightly cable news show on local and state government happenings: http://www.ny1.com/content/about_ny1/program_info/114/inside-city-hall/

Formerly Incarcerated, Now Working For the DA's Office

2011-03-25T11:40:00.000-07:00

This is our second interview profiling individuals working in the reentry field that took an unlikely path to their current destinations. This week features Gregory Russell, a formerly incarcerated man, who now works for the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. As a Case Manager and Community Advocate for the DA's acclaimed ComALERT reentry program, Mr. Russell serves as a mentor to formerly incarcerated clients, assists in employment, and offers advice on staying out of the criminal justice system.

Interviewed by Anisah Thompson

Can you tell me a little bit about your criminal justice background?

Well, I have a lifelong criminal history. The last time I served time, I served for 10 years. I was released in 2006 to parole supervision for fourteen months.

How did you stay out of prison after your last sentence?

I think, when I came home this time my mind was so focused because of the amount of box time [solitary time] I did, so I was tired. I also had a close knit family and I had a tremendous amount of support from them, financially, spiritually, emotionally. They were like my best friends. None of them wanted to see me go through experience of being jail again.

Everything with me was different this time. It was God, my higher power that put me in positions to find employment. Within my first two weeks home I had a job as a personal trainer in New York Sports Club. Ask me how I got it, it was God!

I also think the thing that I did to make sure I secured employment was to change my demeanor. I knew I had to change my look, I had to soften my look so what I did was I invested in suits, and those suits catapulted me into the working force. It wasn’t by any means of a community based organization (CBO) that helped me or trained me in anything. I actually got in by the grace of god. Not to downplay any CBO because there are CBOs that do a pretty good job with assisting formerly incarcerated people.

Tell me how you landed this position at the District Attorney’s Office?
It was epic, it had to be from the movies. First of all, I never thought I would be working in a District Attorney’s office The irony is that the first job I got as a case manager in a CBO was because basically using by using things I was doing my last year in prison when I was working for a Youth Assistance Program (“YAP”) while I was incarcerated. It was a counseling and nurturing type of situation where we had the youth come in from the neighboring high schools in the area and we would counsel them, give them workshops, and presentations. That started me to working on the road to CBO’s and social service, and to working as a case manager at the DA’s Office.

What is like working for the same system that is in charge of prosecution?

When I first told a couple of cousins and uncles, the first thing they said was, “Man you know they checking backgrounds right?”and I was like, “Yeah, they checked my background already.” When I interviewed with the District Attorney Hynes and another assistant DA, they actually had my rap sheet right in front of them. I had given them my social security number before I even had the interview, so I was exposed to highest degree. There was nothing I could have said or got around any of the crimes I committed.

My friends, and most of my peers were shocked that I was working here. A lot of them were excited saying that it actually gave them a ray of hope saying. “If he can be in the District Attorney’s office so can I.” So I felt kind of good, I never got any shade from being in the DA’s Office.

Does having “been there” help you in your job as a case manager?

The clients respond to me in a very positive light, I normally don’t disclose anything about my background until I need to- I like to be able to get off on the right note without having to disclose too much personal information about myself. I try to show them a professional side first and if need be I will go into where I been just to give them a ray of hope. I use my past as a trump card to give inspiration to actually motivate them to want to achieve and get where they need to be or to whereever god has intended for them.

Do you face any unique challenges having been where they are now?

Yes, yes, there are unique challenges. I want for them what I have for myself, trying to convince someone that there are better days coming when they are in a state of despair, is kind of a hard. How do you that? There’s no rhyme or reason, no set way all I can do is try to take as many workshops as I can to try to gain new skills to help. How do I motivate someone who has low self esteem? Something I notice about most of the black males coming out of the system is that their self esteem level is at an all-time low. So how do you give someone self esteem? You can’t, the only thing I can do is try to empower them and that’s the premise of my whole make up to trying to empower people to want to do better.

Center for Court Innovation Video

2011-03-21T08:39:00.000-07:00

For fourteen years I have had the privilege of working for an amazing organization, the Center for Court Innovation. While the Center itself is not widely known, many of the projects we have developed or encouraged are, including the Harlem Community Justice Center and Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force. From a small demonstration project in the early 1990's, the Midtown Community Court, the Center's work has spawned hundreds of results driven justice innovations nationally, and increasingly internationally. Every day these projects are connecting addicts to treatment, assisting victims, smoothing the path home for persons leaving prison, and diverting youth from incarceration.

The ideas and practices developed through the Center's work have changed the way our justice system operates for the better. I am proud of the accomplishments represented in the video. It is a testament to the staff and volunteers of the Center and the leadership of our many community and agency partners.

Center For Court Innovation Video

Christopher Watler
Project Director
Harlem Community Justice Center

Will DOCS and the Division of Parole merge under Cuomo?

2011-03-14T11:02:00.000-07:00

Via the NY LAW JOURNAL
Friday, Mar. 11, 2011
p. 1, col. 5

Parole Boards Would Lose Authority Under Cuomo Plan

By Joel Stashenko

ALBANY — Parole boards would lose their authority to set restrictions on the lives of former prisoners under a provision of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's proposed budget.

Mr. Cuomo's proposal would give the commissioner of a newly created Department of Corrections and Community Supervision the power to set details of parole, such as requiring curfews and attendance in drug or alcohol programs, that are currently up to parole commissioners to decide.

The bill also would give the commissioner of the new agency the authority to revoke parole and to shorten its terms. Those decisions now are the ultimate responsibility of the chair of the full Board of Parole, a position the governor wants to abolish.

Mr. Cuomo argues that the merger of the Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole would streamline operations of both agencies, better coordinate pre- and post-release programming for offenders and help save an estimated $271 million from the agencies' current spending of just over $3 billion for corrections and $189 million for parole. The combined agencies' projected spending of $2.94 billion takes into account savings from the proposed elimination of 3,500 beds in the prison system at still-to-be-identified facilities.

Details are spelled out in a budget bill Mr. Cuomo sent to lawmakers last month (A4012-A/S2812).

However, one Republican senator who is a former parole board member expressed concern at a state budget hearing earlier this week that the proposal would put too much power into the hands of a single official likely to be more attuned to the needs of the prisons than to parole.

"While I have tremendous respect for the current [corrections] commissioner [Brian Fischer], what we're doing is allowing one person to potentially manipulate the prison population, in a good way or bad way," said Senator Patrick M. Gallivan, of Elma, a former sheriff of Erie County and a parole board commissioner from 2005-2010.

Elizabeth Glazer, Mr. Cuomo's deputy secretary for public safety, responded that parole boards would
continue to make the ultimate decision of whether an inmate should be released.

"The first and most critical piece is that the parole board itself remains independent and that is written into the legislation, that the structure remains and the key decision to release or not remains with the board," Ms. Glazer said.

Mr. Gallivan acknowledged in an interview that parole boards would continue to make release decisions but said that he is worried about the long-term implications of ceding the power to revoke parole to the new commissioner.

"There are two ways to look at it," Mr. Gallivan said. "You talk to conservatives and they say they are worried that a liberal commissioner will let everyone out of prison. You talk to liberals, and they say a conservative commissioner would never let anyone out. My point is that you no longer would have an independent body making decisions about who's in prison or out of prison or who has to come back."

Smaller Parole Boards?

Mr. Cuomo also has proposed reducing to 13 from 19 the number of authorized commissioners from whom parole boards are drawn.

There are about 15,000 fewer prisoners than there were in 1999, when the prison population peaked at 71,600 inmates. Moreover, most felons now receive determinate sentences, Ms. Glazer noted.

She said that the number of parole hearings has fallen by 43 percent in the last decade, meaning that fewer commissioners are needed. There currently are six unfilled positions, and the commissioners have had no trouble keeping up with their workload, she said.

Traditionally, three commissioners have heard applications for parole.

"Right now, we don't anticipate a reduction," Ms. Glazer said. "I don't think this will happen. I think the way in which we have been operating so far, with the 13 [commissioners] has permitted us to operate with the three-man boards and I anticipate that will continue."

If two-member boards were used, a second panel would have to hear any cases in which there is a tie.

Parole commissioners make $101,600 each. The chair of the board makes $120,800.

Middletown attorney Robert N. Isseks, who represents inmates before the parole board, contended that the current commissioners are overworked as it is.

"We feel the more on the panel the better," Mr. Isseks said in an interview. "The caseload for commissioners now could be up to 100 hearings a day, where the commissioners get the paperwork that day and the hearings are perfunctory and last maybe five to seven minutes, more or less, and the commissioners are only half listening at best because they are looking at the paperwork for the next case."

Albert O'Connor of the Defenders Association said that smaller parole panels would make release harder for some inmates.

"When you have three members, you have a more diverse panel," Mr. O'Connor said. "You have an opportunity for a commissioner to persuade a colleague. When you cut that down to two, obviously, it's unlikelier that you'll connect with a board member. The chances of gaining release are diminished for the harder cases, for ones where there might be some historical reluctance to release."

In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, parole commissioners conducted 29,059 interviews of inmates. About 40 percent of inmates were released, including 9 percent serving time for violent offenses and 3 percent for sex offenses.

Ms. Glazer also defended Mr. Cuomo's proposal to create a new Division of Criminal Justice Services by consolidating the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the Office of Victim Services, the Commission of Correction and the current Division of Criminal Justice Services. Mr. Cuomo estimates that consolidation will save $6.4 million in the next fiscal year.

Veteran Businessman now in the Business of Reentry

2011-03-11T07:47:00.000-08:00

John Kirkland, The Doe Fund

This week begins our series of three interviews profiling individuals working in the reentry field that took an unlikely path to their current destinations. This week, we focus on John Kirkland, a Senior Career Development Specialist at The Doe Fund, a non-profit organization that offers “holistic programs that meet the needs of a diverse population working to break the cycles of homelessness, addiction, and criminal recidivism.” A former business man with 30 years of experience working for major corporations, Mr. Kirkland never imagined that he would find his life’s passion helping individuals returning from prison find jobs. I sat down with Mr. Kirkland at Times Square Ink, a community based non-profit organization that helps formerly incarcerated individuals transition back into the work force, where Mr. Kirkland’s first encountered the reentry world.

What is your education and employment background?

I have a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in Business Administration. I worked for almost 30 years in the corporate world, doing corporate development and long range- planning for major corporations like Bristol Meyers Squibb, & Pillsbury, Land O’ Llakes, and General Mills. That was my first career.

Can you tell me a bit about the Doe Fund and what your role is there?

The Doe Fund is a transitional facility designed for people who are homeless, over 75% of whom are also formerly incarcerated individuals and suffer from substance abuse issues. During their stay at our program, we help get them ready to re-integrate into both society and the workforce by supporting them in their sobriety, building their job skills, and getting them housing. The idea is that once they have their job they can move out and be self sustaining members of society, to go from being a totally dependent individual to being a totally independent individual.

I am a Senior Career Development Specialist at one of our facilities, the Porter Avenue Facility in Brooklyn which houses 400 individuals. I supervise Career Development at Porter, which includes myself and two other individuals. Our main goal is to help people develop job readiness skills and find a job.

How does someone who worked in corporate America for 30 years come to work with formerly incarcerated individuals?

Laughs. It does not seem like a likely story. I had left the work force for personal reasons a few years earlier, mostly to attend to kids who had been neglected after thirty years of corporate work and travel. I moved back to NY in 2005 and I decided I wanted to go back to work. I had an extremely difficult job search. My timing was wrong in the market and I had been out of work for a long time and didn’t realize how hard it is to re-enter. I was having a really hard time and experienced quite a bit of depression. My wife told me I had to get out of the house, go volunteer.

I heard about New York Cares through the Mayor’s Office and registered. I started doing a lot of different volunteer work, and one day I saw this posting for Times Square Ink to help formerly incarcerated individuals with resumes. I tell you honestly, I was not sure that I was going to do that. I thought, I don’t know if I want to get involved with criminals. But then I thought, wait a minute, how bad could this be? So I tried it.

What were your initial fears about helping formerly incarcerated individuals?

I think like a lot of people, I have no familiarity, no relationship with anyone who has ever been in prison, who has ever been convicted of any kind of serious crime. The only people I ever had any experience with were people in movies or in novels that I read. When you don’t know something, you often look at it from a position of fear.
So what swayed you?

It’s easy to be swayed. One of the first things you realize is that each individual person has their own story and how badly they want help. And I was just so immediately taken by how easy it was for me to help them. Because I’ve done resumes and interviews for thirty years of my life it’s a skill and it’s easy for me to give that way. The thing that was most powerful was the degree of gratitude that came back at me, the gratitude from people for such small things. It was amazing and very transformational for me. One day I said to the staff here that I really would like to volunteer full time. I wanted to come here every day and so I did.

What your initial impression of the individuals was that you were working with?

My initial impression was mostly extremely positive. These are regular, real people who for whatever reason have gotten themselves on the wrong side of the law and want to get back to a real and honest life. When you see all of the barriers they have to encounter, you want to help because the individuals in front of you have skills and experience and are fundamentally great people. When you sit here for a while, everyday it builds on you more and more that it is just wrong to cast these individuals aside, that we are just wasting people.

Any initial difficulties or culture clashes?

One of the funniest exchanges I had with one was when were just talking in a break and I sort of asked him, “So, what’s your background?” He said, “Well, I was in the pharmaceutical business.” So, I said “Oh, I was in the pharmaceutical business too. I worked for Bristol Myers Squibb, who did you work for?” He said, “No, no, no, in the hood” and I got it.

Do you find this career more fulfilling than your last one?

Way more fulfilling. Absolutely way more fulfilling. Not that work in business can’t be fulfilling, but the business that I worked at can be sort of removed from individuals, it’s the big picture kind of thing. But in my current line of work, there you are with people who are improving themselves and you get to see their lives change in front of you, and that’s amazing.

As part of your job, you reach out to employers to try to find job placements. How do you respond to the question, “Why should I hire someone with a conviction history when there are tons of people out there who don’t have conviction history and need a job?”

First of all when you’re hiring someone to do a job, you want make sure that that person has the skills to do the job, the experiences they need to do the job and the commitment and enthusiasm to do the job. My experience dealing with formerly incarcerated individuals, at least those have gotten this far through the job search process at The Doe Fund or those at other Work Force Intermediaries, is that these are the people who have overcome tremendous obstacles to get to that point. When you think about the experience of where these people were before they made it out- abuse, drug addiction, incarceration, homelessness- and now they’ve gotten to the point where they are prepared to go out on a job interview, that is a tremendous accomplishment. In my mind, it takes a huge amount of conviction and character to say, “I want a real job in society. I want to take care of my wife and kids the way I am supposed to, the way I know I should. I did those things in the past, it’s true that I have a conviction, but that was then and I am a different person now.”

These individuals I work with are men and women who had to climb their mountain, and their mountain was higher and tougher than most of ours. I think that as a business person, that is the type of determination and commitment that you want in an employee.

Do you plan on staying in the reentry world?

Yes, I’m not leaving this field. I like dealing with the formerly incarcerated individuals. It is a history that takes special effort to overcome. If your homeless and you get a house no one ever has to know you were homeless. That doesn’t come up on a background check, nor does substance abuse, nor does mental illness or being an alcoholic or a bad parent. One of the things you realize when you work with this population is that these individuals have to reveal their conviction every time the box shows up on the application. We’ve all looked at the applications before, and thought, doesn’t apply to me , but it applies to them. When I got here and saw people who had to deal with that I said, “I got to work on this.” It’s just a little box but that’s a big deal as you know. A lot of people who are in these groups face tremendous psychological and emotional reactions to that box and being asked that question.
What I find is one of the most fulfilling things I experience helping people get over their fear of that question, to learn that they can find the positive in it. They can fight that question by answering, “Yes, that was the real tough time in my life but I got over that and look how far I’ve come.”

Crime is down, are you less afraid?

2011-02-16T06:19:00.000-08:00

In his week's Headcase, Slate's Christopher Beam investigates why drops in the crime rate rarely seem to make us feel more safe.

A Different Kind of Democracy: The "Political Consequences of the Carceral State"

2011-02-14T11:40:00.000-08:00

In a recent diavlog on bloggingheads.tv.com, Professor Vesla Weaver of the University of Virginia, and Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, go head to head in a debate that is intitially focused on Ms. Weaver's new article, "Political Consequences of the Carceral State." The discussion soon evolves into a much broader, and somewhat contentious, discussion of topical criminal justice issues, ranging from the disparity of arrest rates between white and black communities, and disagreements over criminal justice stats.

Even more interesting than the debate is the article itself, which examines the ways that involvement with the criminal justice system influences political attitudes and behaviors. As Ms. Weaver describes in the debate, many individuals in communities with high police presence "see a fundamentally different kind of democracy." This "democracy" is one to avoid at all cost. These interactions not only influence one's level of public trust in democratic institutions and processes, but effect his/her liklihood of civic engagement, from voting to attending a PTA meeting. Read the article here.

Calculating Recidivism Rates with the Push of a Button

2011-02-08T11:35:00.000-08:00

Via change.org

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics has posted an online analysis tool that allows users to calculate recidivism rates for persons released from state prisons. Recidivism rates may be generated for the entire sample of 35,000 released prisoners or for released prisoners with specific demographic, criminal history, and sentence attributes. The tool uses data collected by BJS on a sample of inmates released from state prisons in 1994 and followed for three yerars. A new BJS study on the recidivism of state prisoners released in 2005 is due next year.

BJS says the tool defines recidivism in a variety of ways and allows users to choose the measure that best fits their needs or to compare the various measures of recidivism for the same group of releases. As one example, of black men released between the ages of 21 and 25, more than 80 percent were rearrested within three years and 35 percent were reimprisoned.

http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/recidivism/index.cfm

Governor's Budget Maintains Some Support for Prisoner Reentry

2011-02-02T11:52:00.000-08:00

Governor Cuomo has proposed steep cuts in New York State spending as part of his first budget released yesterday. Citing declines in the state’s inmate and parole populations, his budget projects that 1500 fewer parolees will be under supervision in the coming year fiscal year that begins April 1, 2011. As a result, the budget projects a savings of 3.7 million from a reduction in Parole staffing as well as 1.8 million in Parole “staffing controls” that are anticipated to reduce overtime. The Governor is also proposing that the State’s Division of Parole merge with the Department of Corrections.

The Budget also chops 273 million from the NYS Department of Correctional Services resulting from the closure of one minimum security prison and half of another in January 2011 (the current fiscal year). The Budget recommends closing an additional 2 prisons in the next fiscal year. The state’s prisons population, which peaked at 71,600 in 1999, is expected to drop another 2100 in the current and next fiscal year to a total of 57,600 inmates – a 21% decrease.

It is not all bad news for advocates of smart criminal justice policies. The Budget also includes continued support for the state’s prisoner reentry initiative. The NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will continue to coordinate the state’s reentry effort. The Budget includes 3.3 million dollars for local Country Reentry Task Force programs (this funding supports the work of the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force). The Budget also includes the following statement of support for Parole’s reentry efforts.

“As part of the effort to reduce recidivism through a focus on community re-entry, the Division of Parole will continue its cooperative efforts with the Department of Correctional Services to expand re-entry programs. The goal is to create a more seamless system for assessing the needs of offenders, ensuring access to services, maintaining accurate records of offender information, and addressing other factors essential to successful community re-entry.”

New York State has reduced both crime and incarceration over the past ten years through the adoption of progressive smart on crime polices. The proposed budget signals support for smart justice policies like reentry.

To read the criminal justice portion of the Governor’s Budget click here.

Four Reentry Recommendations from Malcolm Young

2011-02-01T09:02:00.000-08:00

In his blog post on The Open Foundation Society's blog yesterday entitled, "Unlocking Opportunity for People Leaving Prison", Malcolm Young, Director of the Program for Prison Reentry Strategies at the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law and a 2010 Soros Justice Fellow, articulates four reentry strategies principles that should guide reentry planning. These strategies deal with the the realities of the labor market and the obstacles inherent in returning formerly incarcerated individuals to the same communities they left.

1.To address the shortage of public funding for reentry programming, work-related programs should engage private business in the design, delivery, funding, and follow-up to their reentry programming. Businesses are best equipped to define their future workforce requirements. And as it stands, businesses spend a lot of money on training. If corrections provides training that is a benefit to employers and industries, it seems reasonable that the beneficiaries might share the cost.

2. To be relevant in a highly competitive labor market and to gain public support, reentry programs should target jobs in new and expanding businesses where there is not yet a trained work force competing for those jobs.

3. Because most prisoners have no choice but to return to their old neighborhoods, reentry programs should play an active role in helping to build positive communities. Employment reentry programs should work hand-in-hand with programs that advance community and economic development (and should be funded with a portion of the considerable federal, state, and local funds now spent on community development projects).

4. To replicate the success of people like Louis Sawyer, corrections should put a priority on designing and implementing holistic reentry programs that build on strengths, foster motivation, and substantively prepare and connect people leaving prison to particular jobs in advance of their release.

Keeping Families Together, Supportive Housing Webinar

2011-01-26T07:02:00.000-08:00

The Impact of Supportive Housing on Chronically Homeless, Child Welfare Involved Families Webinar

February 2, 2011

2:00pm ET

We invite you to participate in an exclusive 60-minute webinar co-hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Corporation for Supportive Housing to share evaluative data from the cutting-edge Keeping Families Together pilot program. The evaluation demonstrates the impact of supportive housing on families who are chronically homeless and child welfare involved. The Keeping Families Together pilot program was designed to answer the question: “With the right combination of affordable housing and supportive services, can highly vulnerable families provide a stable, healthy environment for their children, thus preventing child welfare involvement?”

Between October 2007 and July 2009, 29 New York City families participated in the program. These families all had significant, sometimes intergenerational, histories of chronic homelessness, child welfare involvement, substance abuse or mental illness, interpersonal violence and trauma.

Evaluation results show that the Keeping Families Together pilot program holds real promise through a holistic approach to affordable housing and services that preserves families experiencing serious challenges. The pilot shows that we can bring families back from the brink of major crisis and reduce the cycle of homelessness and involvement with child welfare and other agencies.

Scheduled for Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (EST) / 11:00 a.m. (PST), this webinar will provide a framework for the Keeping Families Together program and discuss evaluation results. Following the 40-minute presentation, all speakers will be available to answer your questions during a 20-minute Q&A session.

What you will learn:

The importance of connectivity in helping vulnerable families-specifically the impact of supportive housing on families who are chronically homeless and involved with child welfare.
Overview of the Keeping Families Together model-a practical approach that holds significant promise for preserving vulnerable families and improving their health.
Results from the Metis Associates evaluation on the Keeping Families Together pilot program.

Speakers will include:

Nancy Barrand, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Connie Temple, Corporation for Supportive Housing
Richard Cho, Corporation for Supportive Housing
Alison Harte, Corporation for Supportive Housing-Keeping Families Together
Metis Associates
Eric Nicklas, Child Welfare Expert and Former Keeping Families Together Workgroup Member

The deadline to register for this event is Monday, January 31. All participants will also have an opportunity to download an in-depth brochure detailing the program and a summary of the study results.

To register:
   1. Go to https://rwjf.webex.com/rwjf/onstage/g.php? t=a&d=571998536
      2. Select Register.
      3. On the registration form, enter your information and then select Submit.

We encourage you to join us on Wednesday, February 2.

You are receiving this email because you requested to be added to our HomeFront e-newsletter mailing list. Thank you! Our CFC Number is: 45368

Unsubscribe cfisler@courts.state.ny.us from this list.

Our mailing address is:
Corporation for Supportive Housing 50 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10004

Our telephone:
212-986-2966

Copyright (C) 2008 Corporation for Supportive Housing All rights reserved.

Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile

Jobs as a Crime Prevention Strategy

2011-01-25T10:54:00.000-08:00

It is one of the reentry movement's biggest challenges: encouraging employers to give individuals with criminal histories the opportunity to work, thus promoting stability and reducing recidivism. A New York Times article published yesterday, "States Help Ex-Convicts Find Work," tells the nation how states around the country are trying to make individuals with records more palatable to employers through training and employment programs, and work subsidies.

Repurposing Resources, Repurposing People: Why Osborne Went Green

2011-01-24T15:52:00.000-08:00

At last Wednesday's Reentry Roundtable at The Community Service Society, John Valverde, told an audience of community advocates, law enforcement, and formerly incarcerated individuals why the Osborne Association decided to "go green" by beginning its Green Career Center one year ago. The Center's Director, Mr. Valverde, said that it was no coincidence that the neighborhoods most impacted by pollution-borne illness and incarceration are one of the same.These are the neighborhoods, like the South Bronx where the Green Career Center is located, that have historically been targeted for environmentally destructive land uses and burdened by unjust criminal justice policies. Civil Rights, he expressed, and environmental justice go hand and hand.

The Green Career Center represents how formerly incarcerated individuals can become "part of the solution." Mr. Valverde passionately noted that, "If we don't include the most oppressed communities, those most impacted by environmental injustice, the Green Movement will fair. We will have left the poor and most impacted behind." With this philosophy, Osborne's Green Center seeks to create leaders in a green economy that happen to be formerly incarcerated as well. "If resources can be repurposed," he said, "so can people's lives."

The Green Career Center offers a 6 week long training program that offers two weeks of soft training skills and four weeks of hard skills (including weatherization, green construction, and math and science, among others). Participants are also trained on environmental literacy and environmental justice.Assistance with job placement follows the formal curriculum. For more information on Osborne's Green Career Center, click here.

Finding a Castle

2011-01-18T15:59:00.000-08:00

Today's New York Times' Opinionator, "For Ex-Prisoners, A Haven Away From the Streets," written by Tina Rosenberg hits exactly the right note as she describes released individuals' critical need for "pro-social" interactions and environments. The Opinion piece highlights the Fortune's Society's success in offering its Castle tenants/clients exactly that.

"Former prisoners go back to their old neighborhoods and meet up with their old gang, or new people of the only type they may be comfortable with — criminals. But what people need is to stop hanging out with associates who tempt them with promises of easy money or drug-filled nights. They need to start hanging out with people who think about the consequences of their actions, who value legitimate jobs, sobriety and family — people who go to their A.A. meetings and G.E.D. classes, who are trying to rebuild their lives."

At the Task Force and Parole Reentry programs here at the Justice Center, we so often witness individuals released from prison only to the return to the same conditions they left and surrounded by the same individuals who influenced their decision-making prior to prison. It is part of our jobs to help connect our clients with environments and opportunities that offer them role models, community, and hope. There are not enough of Fortune's Castle's to go around (oh, how we wish there were!),but the concept is a critical one--we must assist clients, in whatever setting to which they are released, navigate towards finding their own Castles.

GAINS Center to host Collateral Consequences Webinar January 18

2011-01-12T13:57:00.000-08:00

Collateral Consequences: Involvement in the Criminal Justice System

Tuesday, January 18th – 3:00-5:00pm ET
The SAMHSA National GAINS Center is pleased to announce its upcoming Collateral Consequences: Involvement in the Criminal Justice System webinar as part of its technical assistance to justice-involved consumer/veteran focused initiatives across the nation.

“Collateral consequences” are indirect barriers individuals involved in the criminal justice system face as a result of their past experiences. These collateral consequences are often hidden and hard to identify until an individual is faced with having to directly deal with these consequences. They frequently impact on such areas as housing, employment and other benefits. Consequences are diverse and vary from state to state.

This webinar will: (1) identify many of the “collateral consequences” faced by people with histories of involvement in the criminal justice system; (2) identify strategies for eliminating or mitigating these consequences; and (3) provide concrete strategies for planners, service recipients, providers and advocates to use when addressing these barriers.

Learning Objectives:

Participants will learn the following:

· What constitutes a collateral consequence

· The impact of collateral consequences in areas such as housing and employment

· Strategies for eliminating or mitigating collateral consequences, including less than honorable discharges

· How supporting staff and prospective staff address collateral consequences

· New shifts and public policy directions

Speakers:

Guy Gambill

Justice Policy Institute

Sean Clark

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Mental Health Services

Gretchen Rohr

DC Jail & Prison Advocacy Project, University Legal Services

Clarence Jordan

ValueOptions Behavioral Health Services

Roberta Meyers-Peeples

Legal Action Center’s National H.I.R.E. Network

Call/Login Information

· To participate, simply call 1-888-456-0336. Your conference number is PW2346131 and your audience passcode is: JDTR.

· On your computer, go to the following link: https://www.mymeetings.com/emeet/join/index.jsp?customHeader=mymeetings&netId=PW2346131&netPass=JDTR&netType=conference&acceptTerms=on

It is usually helpful to join the call 15 minutes in advance, so we can ensure that your technology is working properly. Space is limited.

Columbia University School of Social Work to host Reentry Skill Building Conference

2011-01-10T11:30:00.000-08:00

Build your skills in the Criminal Justice field at our first-ever conference!

Saturday, January 29^th, 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM

Columbia University School of Social Work

1255 Amsterdam Ave. (between 121^st and 122^nd Streets)

[A,B,C or D to 125^th; 1 to 125^th; M11 or M60 buses]

FREE ADMISSION!

Light breakfast and lunch will be served!

Workshop leaders and presentations from formerly incarcerated people as well as leading organizations including the Children’s Defense Fund, Osborne Association, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Safe Horizon Mediation Center, Families for Freedom, GEMS, Bronx Defenders and many more!

Register and get up-to-date information at criminaljusticecaucus.wordpress.com.

Questions? Comments? Email criminaljusticecaucus@gmail.com or call 973.271.7579.

Co-sponsors include Columbia President & Provost Student Event Fund, CUSSW Office of Student Services, CUSSW Student Union Executive Board, API Caucus, Black Caucus, Feminist Caucus, Hapa Caucus, International Social Welfare Caucus, Latin@ Caucus, Men’s Caucus, and Policy Caucus.

Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force spotlighted in the Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy

2011-01-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

The Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy has just published an article written by Harlem Community Justice Center's very own Project Director, Christopher Watler, and former HCJC employee and founder of this blog, Kate Krontiris (now a master in public policy candidate at the John F. Kennedy School of Government). Chris and Kate were crucial architects behind the Task Force. Their article, "Rethinking Prisoner Reentry in Harlem" traces "the development of the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force in the context of reentry reform efforts in New York State."

Cell Phones In Cells

2011-01-03T07:51:00.000-08:00

Vistors smuggle them in. Guards sell them. Family or friends toss them over fences.

No, not drugs, but something authorities are saying are much more dangerous: Smart Phones.

Check out today's New York Time's fascinating article, "Outlawed, Cell Phones Are Thriving in Prisons" here.

Offered in the article is also a brief commentary on why limited use of cell phones might be helpful in assisting prisoners' reentry.

Therapy in Cages

2010-12-29T12:35:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, The LA Times published an article describing the controversy around providing inmates with psychiatric illnesses theraputic interventions while locked in metal cages. Read the story and take a look at the photo here.

This morning, an LA Times editorial echoed a San Francisco psychiatrist's Pablo Stewart's sentiments regarding the practice, calling it "horrendous" and commented that, "The tension between security concerns and medical requirements is real, but we doubt that cages are the answer."

The psychiatrist noted that some inmates receive caged therapy right up to the day they're paroled. "So one day you're so dangerous that you have to be in a cage and the person talking to you is sitting at a distance wearing a flak jacket, the next day you're sitting on a bus," he said. "That's scary.

On Whom does Work Work?: Findings on CEO's impact on recidivism

2010-12-23T09:22:00.000-08:00

The Urban Institute's recently published study on The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) impact of recidivism on formerly incarcerated individuals, entitled "Recidivism Effects of CEO Program Vary By Former Prisoner's Risk of Reoffending," has some interesting findings for program enrollees, for those of us working on the ground in reentry, and for policy makers.

For those of you who aren't familiar with CEO, it is one New York's City most highly regarded transitional employment programs designed to assist formerly incarcerated individuals increase their employability and find long term employment. The program is particularly appealing to many of those in our Reentry Court and Task Force Case Management programs because following a four day training, CEO offers short term job placements with an immediate daily income of around $40.00. A representative from CEO is available every Thursday to our reentry clients to do a face to face intake.

The study, conducted through random assignment, determined that those individuals who are at a "high risk" of recidivism are most likely to benefit from the programming. In the study, "high risk individuals" were defined by age (younger individuals), gender (male), and number of prior arrests (9 or more). The study determined that "for former prisoners in the high-risk subgroup, CEO significantly reduced the probability of rearrest, the probability of reconviction, and the number of rearrests in Year 2 following random assignment", while "those in the low-risk category who participated in CEO had outcomes that [were] similar to the control group’s.

Interestingly, participation in CEO, an employment program, did not increase one’s likelihood of
obtaining unsubsidized employment." The obvious conclusion then, is that securing employment is not the factor that positively impacted the high risk participants. It seems likely that the pro-social interaction with program staff and the structured time were responsible for the recidivism outcomes.

Read the study in full here.

Eighteen Harlem Parole Reentry Court Participants Graduate!

2010-12-22T08:34:00.000-08:00

"I can be changed by what happens to me. But I refuse to be reduced by it." Maya Angelou (included as a quote in the December 2010 Parole Reentry Court Graduation program)

Last Tuesday evening, December 14th, was the fourteenth graduation ceremony of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court at the Harlem Community Justice Center. Along with the eighteen graduates, fifty family members, community members, partner agency representatives and colleagues were in attendance.

The graduation is one of our favorite events at the Harlem Community Justice Center, as it gives us the opportunity to celebrate the struggles that our participants overcame after prison and the successes they have achieved since coming home. Our keynote speaker, Glenn Martin, Vice President for Development and Communications at the Fortune Society, who usually speaks about the politics of prison and reentry and the need for reform, spoke instead about his own accomplishments since serving a prison term nine years ago and narrated how he "summoned the courage, like [our graduates], to make changes in his life" realizing that he "could continue to be part of the problem or part of the solution." Recognizing the tremendous "discomfort," that making these changes required, Glenn offered words of congratulations and inspiration to our Parole Reentry participants and suggested that "today is a day to celebrate" but also a day to recognize that "there are a host of choices ahead to make." Glenn commended the Parole Reentry Court as a "space for men and women to grow," one that has offered many individuals "their first chance" to be free from prison.

Other words of encouragement and inspiration were delivered from former Parole Reentry participant, Braulio, who chronicled his journey from prison back into the community. Now, an owner of multiple businesses with a regular work schedule of 8am to 12am, Braulio echoed Glenn Martin's message that success and fulfillment is attainable after prison. He encouraged the graduates to "face their fears" and seek to out the "uncomfortable" situations and challenges in life that foster positive change and growth.

Parole Reentry Judge, Grace Bernstein, spoke of the lessons she had learned from the graduates, seeing their "courage to confront the problems in every day life," and thanked the participants for "allowing [her] into their lives."

After the speaker's concluded, HCJC and Parole Staff had the opportunity to personally recognize each graduate for their accomplishments since leaving prison. As one spectator noted, the absolute highlight of the evening was witnessing the look of pride and accomplishment on the face of each graduate as he/she accepted his/her graduation certificate.

Congratulations to the December 2010 Parole Reentry Court graduates, and to the staff that is so dedicated to their success!

Inside Jobs: Prison Labor

2010-12-17T08:55:00.000-08:00

This week inmates in Georgia organized a prison protest in four prisons through the use of cell phones which are considered contraband. While how they acquired the cell phones has been of interest to many (likely from Corrections Officers for approximately $400 a piece), what they were protesting brings into focus an issue that critics of the prison industrial complex have long criticized, the politics of prison labor.

More than 90% of inmates in the U.S. are working inside prisons, most of whom get paid from 9 to 25 cents a hour. Depending on the state, a portion of these earnings go to victim rights funds, court dues, child support, room and board fees.

According to Richard Davidson, Deputy Secretary of Florida Department of Corrections, on NPR's, "Inmates' Jobs from Call Centers to Paint Mixing," there are three types of prison work: work that help keep the prison running (laundry, custodial and kitchen work), prison industry work where the prison itself manages a business ( manufacturing furniture, printing press), and the newest development in
prison labor-private industries entering the facilities, setting up shop, and allegedly pay the going rate.

Callers to the broadcast different views of prison labor based on their own experiences in prison. One man referred to the work as "slave labor," recalling his experience of being woken up at 3:30am , getting strip searched, working, and returning to his dormitory to get only three hours of sleep. Often, he witnessed others beaten for the money they earned. He also reminded listeners that inmates have to pay for their necessities, so they wouldn't have soap or a toothbrush if they didn't work.

Another caller, who worked in a lower security federal prison spoke about his prison job, receiving food for the compound, recalled how the responsbility given to him and his freedom to interact with individuals outside the prison was essential for his rehablitation.

Davidson echoed the role of work as a rehabilitative intervention, "..The primary purposes of our programs is to reduce the recidivism rate. We have approximately 88 percent of the inmates who are in our
prisons leaving one day. Our general recidivism rate is 33 percent, but for inmates who go through our industries, that recidivism rate drops. . . to about 14%.

To hhear more formerly incarcerated individual's views on work in prison, as well as an employer who hires prisoners for her copy, click here for the broadcast.

Former DCJS Commissioner Denise O'Donnell to head the Bureau of Justice Assistance

2010-12-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

President Obama has nominated former New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Commissioner Denise E. O’Donnell to lead the U.S Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance. During Ms. O'Donnell's tenure at DCJS she oversaw the development of the state's reentry plan, including the development of County Reentry Task Force programs. Below is the text from the White House press release.

****
Denise E. O’Donnell recently served as New York State Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, where she oversaw 11 homeland security and criminal justice agencies with a combined annual budget of $4.7 billion. From 2007 to 2010, Ms. O’Donnell served as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, where she managed several crime reduction efforts, including the collection and analysis of crime data, criminal background investigations, juvenile justice, and the administration of state and federal criminal justice grants. Prior to her appointment, Ms. O’Donnell was a litigation partner at Hodgson Russ, LLP. During the Clinton Administration, she was appointed as United States Attorney for the Western District of New York (1997-2001). Ms. O’Donnell joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District in 1985 as a prosecutor and was later promoted to First Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1993. Earlier in her career, she served as a law clerk to the late Justice M. Dolores Denman of the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Ms. O’Donnell is currently active on various legal and professional organizations, including the New York State Justice Task Force, the Criminal Justice Council of the New York City Bar Association, and the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association. She has lectured at the SUNY Buffalo School of Law and with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Education. Ms. O’Donnell holds a B.A. from Canisius College and an M.S.W and J.D., summa cum laude, from the State University of New York at Buffalo.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/09/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

Prison Privatization, Reentry, and Children

2010-12-13T08:59:00.000-08:00

Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, calls on Americans to dismantle the prison industrial complex, terminate the Cradle to Prison pipeline, and make prisoner reentry a priority in her article, "Commodification of Offenders: Prison Industrial Complex."

Access to Medicaid for Individuals Leaving Prisons

2010-12-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

This past Tuesday, the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force convened its Quarterly Meeting. The meeting focused on Medicaid access for individuals leaving prisons and featured NYC Human Resource Administration's Director of Eligibility Services, Maria Ortiz-Quezada. To date, few New York State Correction facilities have received the training through the Human Resources Administration required to submit Medicaid applications directly from prison facilities. With no Medicaid access upon release, formerly incarcerated populations experience delays in accessing medical care, prescription drugs,substance abuse treatment during the most crucial period of their reentry. This group is subject to disproportionate public health issues than the general population, including higher rates of childhood abuse, homelessness, HIV infection and other infectious or chronic diseases, drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, and physical or sexual abuse. The barriers to rapid attachment to drug, mental health,and medical treatment represent a missed opportunity to immediately engage formerly incarcerated populations.

The good news is that at least a few correctional facilities, including Queensboro Correctional Facility, Arthur Kill, Bayview, and Rikers apply individuals for Medicaid prior to release. Anecdotally, the individuals that we receive into our programs from Queensboro and Bayview are able to access treatment immediately upon release. However, because those individuals returning from upstate facilities can't apply until they begin programming here at the Justice Center, it often takes over a month or longer for them to receive substantive drug treatment or prescription coverage. One accommodation providers make to facilitate treatment is to allow individuals to do intake prior to receiving Medicaid coverage. When Medicaid coverage begins, the client can begin counseling immediately.

As a result of bill signed into law by Spitzer in 2007, individuals who were receiving Medicaid prior to incarceration and who were incarcerated as of 4/08, have their Medicaid reactivated immediately upon release from prison. On a daily basis, Medicaid receives a list of released detainees/prisoners and automatically reactivates the case. If the case is not automatically reactivated, the individual can go to any local Medicaid office with a photo ID or release papers or call 1-800-505-5678.

and the case will be reactivated. If he/she was incarcerated prior to 4/08, he/she must reapply for Medicaid as if he/she had never applied before. The reapplication process will take at least 45 days.

As a general matter, NY State is one of the most generous states for Medicaid coverage as single individuals are covered through the S/CC (Single/Childless Couple) categorization so long as his/her income does not exceed $707.00. However, if the applicant has children, they should make sure to apply under the LIF (Low Income Families) category, as it provides better access. Even if there is no entitlement to Medicaid, client may be eligible for Family Health Plus. For more information on Medicaid Eligibility, you can click here or contact Ms. Quezada-Ortiz at ortiz-quezadam@hra.nyc.gov.

Join us at Harlem Community Justice Center to celebrate our Reentry Court Graduates!

2010-12-08T08:23:00.000-08:00

Join the us as we celebrate our Harlem Parole Reentry Court graduates. The graduation ceremony brings together friends, family members, and the community to celebrate this important milestone in the reentry journey for our graduates and their families. The ceremony will take place as follows:

Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Time: 6 to 8 PM

Venue: Harlem Community Justice Center

170 East 121st Street (Between 3rd & Lexington Avenues)

New York, NY 10035

Our Keynote Speaker will be Glenn E. Martin, Vice President of Development & Public Affairs for the Fortune Society. A hot buffet dinner will be served after the ceremony.

Begun in 2001, the Harlem Parole Reentry Court helps parolees from the Harlem community make the transition from life in prison to responsible citizenship during the first six months of their release. The Reentry Court, a Second Chance Act funded program, works collaboratively with the NYS Division of Parole, NYC Mayor’s Office and a range of local partners. To learn more about the Reentry Court visit our webpage by clicking here.
I hope you will join us for this special event. Please RSVP to: elopez1@courts.state.ny.us / 212-360-4120, by December 13th.

Queensboro Resource Fair Helps Inmates Prepare for Release

2010-12-06T09:45:00.000-08:00

This past Friday, The Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force, in collaboration with Brooklyn's ComALERT and Queensboro Correctional Facility hosted a Resource Fair for the over 400 inmates incarcerated at Queensboro preparing for their upcoming release. Over 25 reentry focused, community-based providers spread throughout the prison's Gymnasium to offer information, advice, and words of encouragement to releasees. One provider noted that, "I think Resource Fairs like these are important to let incarcerated folks know that there are supports in the community when they are released and that we are thinking of them even when they feel like they have been abandoned by the world." Another provider commented that,"If an incarcerated individual meets a provider prior to their release, they are more likely to follow up and come in to take advantage of our services post-release. It adds that human component." The Task Force thanks all of our member and partners for making the Resource Fair a success.

In our ongoing efforts to facilitate the transition from prison back into the community, The Task Force is updating our Coming Home Guide and will be doing a mailing to all state prisons' Transitional Services Departments in the New Year. If you are a Manhattan service provider and are not in the guide or wish to provide updated information, please email Anisah Thompson at athompson@courts.state.ny.us.

Do "getting tough on crime" policies work to deter criminal behavior?

2010-11-30T12:37:00.000-08:00

A recent publication by the Sentencing Project, Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty versus Severity of Punishment written by Valerie Wright, Ph.D. tackles the question: Does the threat of an enhanced sanction provide any deterrant benefit" to someone who might otherwise commit a crime? The paper postulates that more severe santions do not have any significant effect on reducing crime because:

Research demonstrates that the "general public tends to underestimate the severity of sanctions generally imposed" and are often unaware of any enhanced sentencing structure.
Deterrance theory "assumes people are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behavior," however 1/2 of prisoners are under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their offense.

However, according to Wright, research demonstrates that increasing the certainty of punishment does serve to deter criminal behavior. For more on this topic, see HOPE probation's research brief.

Nor do harsher sentences appear to reduce recidivsim. In one 1999 study involving over 300,000 offenders, longer sentences actually increased the liklihood of a return to prison. Those who remained in the community had the lowest liklihood of recidivism.

Click here to read the Sentencing Project's latest paper in full.

Pro-Football Player Maurice Clarett Embraces His Second Chances

2010-11-23T14:10:00.000-08:00

After spending three and a half years in prison, former NFL draft pick, Maurice Clarett is grateful for his second chances. The Washington Post article, "'Blessed' Clarett plans to keep playing football," reports that that the Omaha Nighthawks are considering putting him on the team's protected list for next season. Despite his 2006 conviction for aggravated robbery and carrying a concealed weapon and various other public tribulations, Mr. Clarett played for theNighthawks this past season. Mr. Clarett told the A.P that the Nighthawks' opportunity has been "a blessing from God." During his time in prison Clarett wrote a blog, "The Mind of Maurice Clarett" in which he shared his innermost thoughts with readers, narrated his "transformation" and expressed his intention to remain out of prison: "I am never coming back here, believe that. Never, I am cool on this. It is first-class living from the day I get out. I WILL NEVER SETTLE FOR LESS, EVER AGAIN. That goes for communication, personal relationships, housing, education, friendships, and travel arrangements. Everything. I have the fire in my eyes." Now that the season is over, Clarett plans on taking classes at Ohio State this Spring and completing his degree in gerontology.

Fortune Society to Host Certificate of Relief From Disabilities Clinic

2010-11-22T13:28:00.000-08:00

Via the Fortune Society:

The David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy and the Criminal Justice Committee of the NYC Bar Association will be hosting a Certificate of Relief From Disabilities and Certificate of Good Conduct Clinic for formerly incarcerated people who need assistance with the application process.

A Certificate can help when you are looking for work or applying for an occupational license. When you apply for a job or a license and you have a Certificate, an employer or licensing agency must consider it as evidence that you are “rehabilitated.” This means that your conviction should not result in your being rejected for employment or refused a license unless there is other evidence that you are not qualified.

Members of the Criminal Justice Committee ofthe NYC Bar Association will be working with DRCPP to evaluate applicants for eligibility criteria, assist with filling out the application, and help with the filing of the application itself.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO RSVP:

Please email Tam Phan at tphan@fortunesociety.org, making sure to put “certificate clinic” in the subject line, as well as your name, phone number, email address. Tam can also be reached by phone at 212-691-7554 x435.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a training or forum on the topic. It is specifically for men and women with criminal histories who may benefit from the service.

Certificate of Relief/Good Conduct Clinic

TIME & DATE

December 8th from 6:30-9:00pm

LOCATION

The Fortune Society

29-76 Northern Boulevard,

Long Island City, NY 11101

www.fortunesociety.org

Thinking Reentry in Indian Country

2010-11-19T11:03:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to participate on a reentry panel at the Tribal Jail Administrators’ Forum in Albuquerque, New Mexico which was sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The forum was organized, at least in part, to respond to the growing needs for interagency solutions to “the high and disproportionate rate of confined Indian offenders in secure facilities on and off Indian lands.” Individuals who are members of one of the 564 federally recognized Indian tribes, and who commit crimes on tribal land, can be subject to a tribal justice system, an indigenous justice system, a Court of Indian Offenses, or, in some instances, the U.S. federal justice system or state justice system. According to Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian County, tribal justice entities and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage approximately 82 jails and detention facilitates. The Jails in Indian County study determined that the incarceration rate for American Indian/Alaska Natives is about 21% higher than the overall incarceration rate for non AI/AN peoples. Although AL/AN populations only comprise 1% of the U.S. population, Indian offense constitute about 10% of all federal cases.

A response to the to the increasing incarceration rate of Indian people has been to restore dilapidated correction facilities and to build new ones. While some of the conference participants expressed disagreement with growing the capacity of correction facilities (preferring to rely on more traditional and community based interventions such as restorative justice, mentoring, or healing), others felt that increasing the capacity of secure institutions was a necessary move. Some efforts are being made to ensure that new facilities incorporate Indian values by including a healing space, outdoor ovens, and the presence of tribal symbols.

As always, higher incarceration rates means that more individuals will become formerly incarcerated and require support services to successfully reintegrate. To talk about these concerns, two experts on reentry in Indian County, Ida Melton, National Reentry Resource Center and Candida Hunter, Hualapi Tribe, Green Reentry Initiative, and I, spoke on a Reentry panel. Ms. Ida Melton highlighted some of the key barriers to reentry in Indian Country including, a lack of formal relationships between state and federal prisons or jail facilities with tribes or tribal justice authority, little communication between federal prisons, and in some instances jails, that an incarcerated individual is retuning home, a lack of culturally competent care or services in the facilitates, the distance of correctional facilitates from tribal lands, and little funding for reentry programming. Ms. Melton also stressed the need to incorporate culturally competent strategies, engaging the values of the individual’s tribal membership (which vary depending on which tribe the individual is returning to) when creating which reentry programming. Candida Hunter highlighted the juvenile reentry program that she operates in Indian Country which focuses on fostering a sense of responsibility and healing through gardening and creating community. Although the cultural divide between individuals returning to New York City, and those returning to Indian Country is notable, my presentation focused on a core component of any successful reentry programming-the engagement of the community and interagency collaboration.

Involving Victim's in Reentry Planning: National Reentry Resource Center's Victims and Reentry Webinar

2010-11-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

The National Reentry Resource Center Announces a Victims and Reentry Webinar

This free webinar will cover promising and replicable practices and program models for involving crime victims and victim services in offender reentry planning processes. Although reentry planning has long focused on the needs of offenders, there has often been a lack of attention paid to the needs of the crime victims, who are potentially re-traumatized when their offenders prepare to reenter their communities. This webinar will help participants identify ways to assess and address victims’ needs, invite and include victim services in reentry planning conversations, and develop victim-offender programming that focuses on offender accountability.

When: December 2, 2010, 2:00 p.m. ET

This webinar, facilitated by Leah Kane, policy analyst at the Council of State Governments Justice Center, will feature a presentation by Trudy M. Gregorie, Justice Solutions.

A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation.

Click here to register for this webinar.

Will New York State Finally Close Unneeded State Prisons?

2010-11-11T10:04:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Governor Elect, Andrew Cuomo visited Sing Sing Correctional Facility and indicated that closing state prisons who house fewer and fewer prisoners may be a key part of his strategy to reduce the state’s budget.

Via the New York Times, “On the prison side, the census is dropping; that’s good news,” Mr. Cuomo said. “We are locking up fewer people. But then you need fewer facilities. And the shrinkage of that system is going to be something that has to be thought through and managed.”

He said the state could not afford to have on its payroll state workers who have no real duties.

“I understand the economic consequences of losing state jobs,” Mr. Cuomo said. “The answer can’t be we are going to employ state workers who literally have no function.”

Corrections Counselors, Parole Officers, and Community Based Organizations Unite for Reentry Skills Training in Brooklyn, NY

2010-11-08T15:01:00.000-08:00

Late last month, on October 25 & 26, 2010, two of the Harlem Community Justice Center's Reentry Case Managers and I had the privilege of attending the New York State Reentry Skills Training, organized by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Department of Correctional Services, and the Division of Parole in coorperation with the Kings County District Attorney's Office. The training focused on implementing evidence based practices (practices supported by research that are proven to reduce criminality and recidivsm!) in correctional agencies, parole, and community-based organizations.

The skills taught during the trainings brought to life many of the principles embraced in the National Institute of Corrections's Transition from Prison to the Community Model (TPC model). In 2004, New York was one of eight states invited to participate in the NIC's Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative. Chaired by the Division of Criminal Justice Services, a multi-agency Statewide Offender Reentry Task Force was organized to implement the TPC model of reentry in New York. According to DCJS, The NewYork TPC model "represents an ideal reentry system in New York State that has fully implemented each of the TPC model and evidence based proactices. The model weaves together each of New York's myriad reentry projects adn initiatives intoa single, coordinated system of reentry and will serve as a blueprint for all future efforts."

The eight principles of effective reentry that are in New York's TPC model can be found here.

While there were two tracks of training at the conference, the Reentry Case Managers and I attended the Motivational Interviewing (MI) track along with New York State Parole Officers and Corrections Counselors from various New York State Prisons. We had the opportunity to train with two engaging and dynamic doctors, Dr. Fader and Dr. Cole, both of whom have been practicing motivational interviewing for decades. Motivational Interviewing is defined as "a collaborative conversation to strengthen a person's own motivation for and a commitment to change." Motivation Interviewing has been proven to be an effective intervention with offenders. The Core MI Attitudes of MI, as described on Dr. Fader's website and training, can be described as:

• Evocation (Ideas for change should come from the individual)
• Collaboration (Counslor and client are equals)
• Respect for Autonomy (The client has the right to change or not to change)

The guiding principals of Motivation Interventions are: Feedback on personal risks, taking personal responsibility for changing, advice to change when appropriate, helping create a menu of options for change when asked for , relaying empathy, eliciting a sense of self efficacy.

At the beginning of the training, the trainees in my group expressed very different approaches towards their work with inmates or parolees. One Corrections Counselor remarked that she gets so frustrated with the inmates that she works at that she tells them to, "Just change!" Dr. Cole asked her jokingly if that strategy would work with her. She laughed and indicated that it would not, but remained unconvinced that MI was an approach she would take inside a prison. Others expressed that MI seemed like a "social work" approach and wouldn't work with inmates or parolees, either due to the attitude of the inmate or security risks. One parole officer expressed how difficult it would be to use MI with parolees who were legally required to abide by certain conditions and failing to do so ("Why am I going to ask a parolee how he/she feels about a condition of their parole when the bottom line is they have to do it?") Others indicated that they already use MI principles in their work and had formed alliances with inmates/parolees as a result.

After two intensive days of practicing MI techniques, (Dr. Fader even brought in an actor to role play as a parolee) and vibrant, emotional discussions around "what works" with incarcerated or formerly incarcerated populations, there was one thing everyone agreed on--even if they would need to adapt MI to the setting they worked with, there were aspects of the practice would prove helpful in guiding their clients towards change. Although I have attended Motivation Interviewing training before, this training blew the others out of the water! As a Task Force that fully embraces the use of MI, the Reentry Case Managers and I were eager to return to work to practice our MI skills.

What is Justice Reinvestment?

2010-11-02T08:42:00.000-07:00

It's a buzz word that reentry community has been increasingly hearing about--Justice Reinvestment. What exactly is it and how do we use this strategy to increase public safety by redistributing resources from within jails, prisons, and our community?

A new report by the Urban Institute provides a comprehensive look at justice reinvestment and how to begin planning and implementing reinvestment strategies in any jurisdiction.

"Justice reinvestment is a systemwide process designed for local leaders who want to rethink how they allocate resources throughout their criminal justice and social service systems. It is for city and county officials who are aiming not just to contain criminal justice costs, but also to achieve a greater public safety impact from current resources. Importantly, justice reinvestment is not a single decision, project, or strategy. Rather, it is a multistaged and ongoing process whereby local stakeholders collaborate across city and county systems to identify drivers of criminal justice costs and then develop and implement new ways of reinvesting scarce resources–both in the community and within the jail system–in a manner that yields a more costbeneficial
impact on public safety. This chapter provides an overview of the process that embodies thorough justice reinvestment undertaking, with subsequent chapters providing more detail on each of these six critical steps:
1. Engage in ongoing interagency strategic planning;
2. Collect and analyze relevant criminal justice data;
3. Develop and implement alternative strategies;
4. Document costs and potential savings;
5. Reinvest savings in the community and the jail; and
6. Assess the impact of reinvestment strategies."

Operation Halloween Keeps Kids Safe

2010-11-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

If there was every an argument for how the State’s Division of Parole helps to keep communities safe it can be found in today’s Daily News. The article profiles two dedicated parole officers who spent their Halloween visiting known sex offenders in Bushwick Brooklyn. According to the article, sex offenders cannot display Halloween decorations, and must be indoors and cannot answer their doors between 6pm and 6 am Halloween night.

Free Housing & Reentry Webinar

2010-10-29T10:45:00.000-07:00

The National Reentry Resource Center is hosting a free online web event on reentry and housing on November 9, 2010, at 2:00 pm. The expert panel will include:

Andy McMahon, Associate Director, Corporation for Supportive Housing
Nadine Scamp, COO, and Mary Buchner, Director of Treatment Services, Volunteers of America, Texas, Gulf Coast Region
Stephen Norman, Executive Director, King County Housing Authority and Vice President, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities

To learn more and to register for the event click here.

A Visit to the Dallas Reentry Court

2010-10-22T10:58:00.000-07:00

This post is the last in a series posted by Christopher Watler, Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center, from the International Community Courts Conference held in Dallas, Texas October 19-10, 2010.

Yesterday I visited the Dallas County Reentry Court program at the invitation of Julie Turnbull, Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County. While the Presiding Judge, the Hon. Robert Francis, was not available, I did have a chance to meet with the amazing team of case managers and probation officers that work with the program.

The Reentry Court concept began in Dallas in 2001 as a way to provide intensive aftercare supervision and services for inmates returning from the state’s Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). Research by Dr. Teresa May-William at Southern Methodist University (currently Deputy Director of the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections Department) found that the Reentry Court produced reductions in re-arrests and re-convictions compared to a control group. The Texas Legislature provided additional funding in 2009 to enhance the Reentry Court component to a full time program.

Clients enter the SAFPF facility which operates as a segregated treatment unit in a dedicated state prison facility where they spend six to nine months receiving inpatient treatment. They are released to the Reentry Court program for a 90 day intensive stabilization program that includes counseling, AA/NA, workforce development and community service. The program uses a 50 session cognitive restructuring curriculum delivered twice a week in the first three months. Clients are required to attain employment, remain drug free, and not incur a new criminal case. Through weekly court hearings and home visits by the field parole officer clients are managed in the community.

Non-compliant clients are subject to immediate jail pending a remand hearing were they face return to the SAFPF units for another round of in-facility treatment. Clients who are compliant after the 90 day period receive a more relaxed hearing schedule and reporting requirements for the remainder of their time on probation in the community. The post-release period last a total of 12 months after which clients who do not complete their probation are transferred to a regularly probation caseload for the rest of their term.

I observed a staffing meeting that takes place before each court session and normally includes the probation staff, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and sheriff’s office. The staffing reviewed all open cases and new intakes, but the bulk of the session was devoted to discussion of the non-complaint cases. This meeting was similar to drug court staffings I have observed in the past. A list of all current clients was reviewed and staff had an opportunity to identify client achievements for later praise during the hearing.

The highlight of the visit was observing a 45 minute meeting with all of the clients; including a group of four new clients recently released from SAFPF, and a few family members who sat next to me on a bench in the court room. The field probation officer, Mark Faust, facilitated a conversation that felt more like an NA meeting. One new client indicated that he was giving 100%. He was working full time and was attending two NA meetings a week. Faust challenged him by asserting that NA suggests new participants attend 90 meetings in 90 days, and the Reentry Court requires at least three meetings a week. “The addicts suggest 90 meetings and the Court three, but you say you are doing 100% attending two meetings per week,” said Faust. Undeterred the client persisted citing his busy work schedule. Faust asked the group to chime in. One client indicated that he also did not take the program seriously and “got back in trouble… now I learned and am doing better.. you should follow the program.” Faust then asked the group by a show of hands how many were working while they were using drugs; about half the group raised their hands. Turning to the client he said “it is like watching a train wreck… you think you are doing well but you are already sowing the seeds of your relapse." The take-a-way for the new client was that the addiction is the central reason why he was in the situation he was in. If he was not taking his treatment seriously he was already failing. It was an impressive display of a cognitive restructuring approach. It reinforced for me the importance of correction staff, probation and parole officers integrating cognitive restructuring techniques into their supervision skill set.

Resources:

Click here to review the cognitive restructuring curriculum used by the program on Amazon.com.

Read an overview of the program by Judge Francis on the Dallas Bar Association website here.

Read a Power Point overview of Dr. Teresa May Williams research findings here.

You can learn more about Reentry Courts by visiting the following sites:

Reentry Court Solutions
The Harlem Parole Reentry Court

"The Ones With Life After Their Name": An Interview with Former New York State Parole Board Member, Tom Grant

2010-10-21T11:14:00.000-07:00

Tom Grant, Former Parole Board Member,
NY State Division of Parole 2004-2010

How do you describe the experience of serving on a panel of three individuals who have the power to grant freedom to someone serving a term of incarceration? How do you make the decision to release someone back into society? How can the decision-making process be altered to increase fairness and address public safety concerns?

These are just a few of the topics that I discussed with former Parole Board member, Tom Grant. Appointed to the New York State Division of Parole's Board of Parole by George Pataki in 2004, Mr. Grant’s concluded his six year term in June 2010. During his time on the Board, he, and up to 18 fellow Board members were charged under Executive Law §259 with the duty of making release decisions for individuals with indeterminate sentences, establishing release conditions, and making parole revocation decisions for certain classes of parolees. Inmates become eligible for release on parole following the termination of the minimum of their sentence and appear before three members of the Parole Board without legal representation. In making their decision, Parole Board members must comply with Executive Law §259-i which mandates that the Board consider a variety of factors including the inmate’s institutional record, program goals and accomplishments of the inmate, their plans upon release, the seriousness of the offense, and the individuals’ criminal history, including adjustments to previous probation and parole.

With his term on the Parole Board behind him, Mr. Grant looked back at his experience as a Commissioner and looked ahead to the future of the Parole Board.

How did you come to be appointed as a member of the Board of Parole?

Immediately prior to my appointment to the Parole Board, I was the Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Board of Parole at the Division of Parole. Prior to that, I worked in the State Legislature and in the State Senate for about 19 years. Part of my employment included working on the Senate Codes Committee which handles a lot of criminal justice issues and also on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What is the process for receiving the appointment?

Executive Law §259-b(2) outlines the qualifications required for an appointment. The appointment is a political process; a person is nominated by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate.

What interested you in serving on the Board?

I had a long standing interest in criminal justice issues, but over the years I became more interested in a micro approach than a macro approach. Many times you make criminal justice policy based on trends, but I became more and more interested in individual cases. What types of situations do individuals find themselves in that lead them to incarceration? What happened in that person’s life that caused them to appear before three strangers who would judge whether they would get released or not?

What type of training do you receive as a member of the Parole Board?

There is a bit of a vetting process when you get appointed by the Governor’s Office, looking at your interests and your background. When you get confirmed by the Senate, you receive an overview of what the Division and the Board is all about and training from the Division of Parole’s Counsel’s Office and Operation’s Office. Operations outlines which programs are available to the people who come before you as an inmate and what programs will be available to them when they are released. Most important is the training given by the Counsel’s office. You learn the requirements of Executive Law §259 and the standards under the law for release consideration. There is also a lot of on the job training. You observe the interviewing process for a couple of weeks. Quite frankly, the process itself is pretty simple. The nuts and bolts of the interview are pretty much rudimentary. However, the more and more you experience from a first hand basis, the better you become as a Parole Board Commissioner.

Does the Parole Board ever have an occasion to meet with inmate or victim advocacy groups?

Bob Dennison (former Chairman of the Board of Parole) was very involved in having us do trainings like that, inviting advocacy groups to speak in front of the Parole Board. He would arrange field trips where we could go to facilities like The Osborne Association and The Fortune Society and see what they were doing. That was helpful to me because they specialize in people who have been incarcerated a long time. A difficult thing for a Parole Board Commissioner is to imagine how people will adjust. Just the technological advances! If you got sentenced in the 70s, look at the world now! You are expecting someone who has been incarcerated for 30 years to do it on their own? That is one of the things that the Fortune Society is able to do-not just help people integrate to a lawful life because most of them are done participating in illegal behavior, but get them past the culture shock of coming out into a world that is substantially different than the one they left 25, 30 years ago.

Do you remember the first individual that came before you?

Yes, it was a drug possession case. I just noticed recently that he successfully completed parole supervision, but when I first saw him, I was taken aback. I asked myself, “How can I release someone like that?” The first case you see is the worst case you see. It takes a while as a Parole Board member to get perspective on the population you are looking at, individuals who have committed felonies and are incarcerated. The longer you are on the Board, the better perspective you get. That is why I think that when people initially get on the Board, just because they have less experiential knowledge, sometimes they don’t understand some of the accomplishments an individual who comes before them was able to achieve. As you spend more time on the Board, you are able to compare and contrast people who go before you.

Sometimes, depending on your perspective when you get on the Board you might have a “lock um up and throw away the key” attitude in the back of your head. But you shouldn’t write these individuals off. The more you learn about reentry programs such as Fortune and Osborne, you realize there is room for reentry. The work that the Upper Manhattan ReentryTask Force does shows the practical benefit of reentry to the community. Reentry improves community safety. Your work demonstrates all the positive things that can occur for formerly incarcerated individuals when they have support in the community. That’s why it is important when you first get on the Board to keep an open mind.

However, it’s the same thing from the other perspective. If you come from more of a social work background, you may look the other way and say, “Why is this guy here, this guy should have never been incarcerated.” If you come from that perspective you have to take a careful look as well and consider that the person may have been justifiably incarcerated.

Did you find that some Parole Board member clash in their philosophies?

Yes, very much so. It takes two members to grant release. The clash reveals itself in the deliberation process. After you interview someone, you discover there are tremendous differences of opinion, which is good. You don’t want to have a unanimous opinion. You want thoughtful consideration. You want thoughtful decision-making. I used to love the give and take you have in the deliberations. That was one of my favorite parts of being on the Board. Dennison encouraged dissent. Before he become Chairman, dissent was very unusual, decisions were almost always unanimous. There was a real interest in collegiality. One of Bob Dennison’s real accomplishments was encouraging dissent. He would encourage you to prepare a written dissent if you felt that strongly. I think from a lot of the unanimous decisions in the past, people would get the wrong impression. They thought the decision was basically a rubber stamp. I didn’t find that to be the case, but I can see a lot of situations where maybe there was a push to have a unanimous decision.

What do you think of criticism that the Parole Board frequently overly focuses or exclusively focuses on the severity of the crime without considering the rehabilitative accomplishments of an inmate?

I think it is vitally important to consider the instant offense, you have to. You’d often have someone come before the Board who had committed a very, very heartbreaking crime when he was 18 or 19. He had been given a sentence commensurate with that, a lengthy sentence. When I’d see him, 25 or 30 years later, I would want to compare that person with the person who committed the instant offense. How had he changed? I was one of the people who strongly considered the instant offense, but in comparison with how that person was now.

I don’t think that any member of the Parole Board should say that the instant offense is so horrendous that a person should never be released. That is not what the statute says. People who feel that certain individuals should never been released should contact their state legislators and lobby to change the statute. Everyone who appears before the Parole Board must be considered for release consideration under the law. It would be illegal not to consider someone based soley on the instant offense.

Would you advocate using an evidence-based risk assessment tool that has the capacity to assess an individual’s likelihood of reoffending as part of the release decision process?

That would be very, very important. The current Chairwoman of the Division of Parole, Andrea Evans, https://www.parole.state.ny.us/welcome.html is working on developing a risk assessment modality. Now that the statute has been switched from an indeterminate sentencing structure to determinate structure, most of the cases the Parole Board will see are the A1 violent felons. (maximum sentence is life). If you look at the research, the recidivism rate of A1 violent felons is remarkably low. I think a lot of the data is already out there through decades of research, but I think a risk assessment is useful as well.

Does the Parole Board use that research to inform its release decisions?

Just like any job, some people look to the research studies, some do not. I took the research very seriously. I took each case very seriously, but the cases I took most seriously were the ones that had life at the end of their names. If you saw a case that wasn’t life, that person was going to get out at some point either through conditional release or maxing out. If you have someone with life at the end of their name, there is the potential that life is actually life. When I was first appointed to the Board, I made an effort to take a look at the research around long-term incarcerated people and I was encouraged. The recidivism rate is very, very low. There is no reputable research that I’ve seen over the past couple of decades that would contradict that. There are always those cases out there and they get a lot of media attention as they should, but you look at the recidivism statistics of people that the Parole Board has let out, hardly anything really.

How were you able to set aside your work at the end of the day?

It is an easy job if you don’t care and you are not thoughtful about it. Its like any job-some people take it more seriously than others. I think the more thoughtful members and the more legendary Parole Board members agonize about their decisions a lot. When I was on the Board we used to go to the correction facilities (much is teleconference now), you would go to eat after and spend time talking about the case. You take a lot it home, you think about a lot of them.

Can you give me an example of the type of case that you found yourself thinking about?

I happened to see one individual twice during my time on the Parole Board. It was a heartbreaking crime that the individual committed, but he had done remarkably well inside. Off the charts, I don’t think he even had a disciplinary infraction. He had gone way past his minimum. He had been denied by two or three Parole Boards. It was a shooting and he had an accomplice. We got bogged down on the logistics because it was unclear who might have actually fired the fatal shot. We denied him. I then thought about the case for two years. I said to myself, “I’ll reexamine this, if I ever seen this guy again,” but it’s all random who comes before you so I didn’t know if I would see him again. Four years go by, and I see him and the same thing comes up. He was still doing well. In my opinion, he had no more likelihood of committing a crime than you or I. I voted to release him and the two other members voted to keep him in. He is still in. He has life at the end of his name. I still think about it. We got bogged down with the logistics. He may never go home. That is one of the ones I think about.

Do you ever get to know how someone is doing in the community?

Generally you only know if they have committed some horrible crime, but sometimes you jot their names down and see how they are doing. Particularly if they were one of the ones that were accepted to The Fortune Society, you’d hear how they were. Sometimes when you go there you’d run into someone there who was on your panel and you could get to ask how they were doing. Sometime it works out well and that is pretty gratifying.

What are reforms to the Parole Board that you believe should be made?

I think there should be term limitations for Parole Board members. Your decision making should just be based on Executive Law §259. I think in the past there may have been some Parole Board Commissioners, who, in the back of their head thought they might want to get reappointed. I am not saying this happens, but they could be influenced based on public reactions that are separate from the statute. Term limitation would take care of that to some extent.

The second amendment I would suggest is for those going in front of the Board for an A1 felony. What I would suggest the Parole Board do, and I think this would satisfy individuals from a conservative side and the liberal side, is offer the option of a hearing. That inmate would be able call witnesses on his behalf, perhaps the person who he would be living with, maybe someone from Fortune. Corrections counselors would be subpoenaed to testify so there would be no criticism that they appeared before the Parole Board on the inmates behalf. On the other side, the DA could be represented, victims if they chose could come in and talk about how they and their family have been affected. It will take longer, but it gets the issues out there.

One of the criticisms from the conservative point of view is that the inmate can charm the Board and the Parole Board might not be cognizant of all of the details that landed the inmate there. On the other side, the prisoner advocates often say the decisions are pro forma, but if you have people coming in and advocating for you, the Parole Board has more information to make a decision. It is going to take longer, but logistically you can do it. If you couple that with term limitation, I think it would encourage parole board members to take even more care in their decision making.

What is next for you?

I am a mediator. I just got appointed to the Restorative Justice Commission in the Albany Dioceses. I believe in restorative justice and parallel justice. I am active with Friends and Families of Homicide victims and also working closely with prisoner’s rights groups. There is more commonality you would think between the offenders and victims. The system right now is a good system, but sometimes it doesn’t work as well as you like. The more knowledge and groups you can get together, the better. We should be trying to repair harms. Many times punishment is appropriate, but you also want to give victims a sense of why these things happened to them and offer prisoners a chance for redemption.

Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

2010-10-20T12:50:00.000-07:00

This week we are blogging from the first International Community Courts Conference in Dallas, Texas. The Conference brings together over 150 justice leaders from around the world. The Conference is sponsored by the Center for Court Innovation and the U.S Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, with assistance from the Dallas City Attorney’s Office.

Begun in New York in the early 1990’s, community courts are neighborhood focused court projects that improve public safety by promoting offender accountability through the use of alternative sanctions and improved connections to social services.

There has been a lot of discussion at the Conference about evidence-based interventions. As justice reformers and communities work to address crime locally there is a wealth of research now available to assist in determining the most cost-effective successful approaches.

Today, Elaine Borakove, President of the Justice Management Institute, presented on evidence-based practices in criminal justice. She defined evidence-based interventions as: " a practice or intervention that has been subjected to rigorous scientific research." According to Ms. Borakove it is important to understand the quality of the research that is used to justify a program as evidence-based. The National Institute of Corrections Research Support Gradient highlights the varying degrees of evidence available as well as the eight principles for reducing recidivism. To learn more visit the NIC Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Community Corrections page.

Justice is About Fairness, Tolerance and Care"

2010-10-20T12:49:00.000-07:00

I love the title quote from Kerry Walker, Director of the Neighborhood Justice Center in Yarra, a neighborhood in Melbourne Australia. Begun in 2007, the Yarra Center is one example of how the community court model, started here in New York City, has been adopted around the world. It was one of three community courts highlighted on a panel at the International Conference of Community Courts.

Yarra is a highly diverse community with many of the same urban issues we face in upper Manhattan. Ms. Walker described one public housing facility where over 60 languages are spoken. I had a chance to talk with her about her work afterwards. I was impressed by the Justice Centre's use of restorative justice approaches. In one example, she described working with a local high crime housing facility were they are teaching the staff and residents mediation skills as part of a larger approach to reform the governance structure of the facility initiated by the residents. While the Yarra project is still fairly new, they have already seen drops in crime and some increased evidence of public trust in the justice system.

With the higher incidents of crime and delinquency in some upper Manhattan public housing developments, perhaps there is some inspiration we could draw from the approach in Yarra!

Click here to read an evaluation of the Yarra project.

"A Long Strange Trip"

2010-10-19T12:32:00.000-07:00

This week we are blogging from the first International Community Courts Conference in Dallas, Texas. The Conference brings together over 150 justice leaders from around the world. The Conference is sponsored by the Center for Court Innovation and the U.S Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, with assistance from the Dallas City Attorney’s Office.

Begun in New York in the early 1990’s, community courts are neighborhood focused court projects that improve public safety by promoting offender accountability through the use of alternative sanctions and improved connections to social services.

The first International Community Court Conference opened today in Dallas, Texas, drawing justice system leaders from around the world. Greg Berman, Director of the Center for Court Innovation, described the “long strange trip” of the development of community courts as “swimming upstream.” “Crime like the weather was not something you could do something about,” according to Berman who helped spearhead the development of the nation’s first community court in Midtown Manhattan. Berman’s critique of crime policy highlighted two challenges confronting justice reformers in the early 1990’s; first, the belief that the best response to crime was to arrest and lock up offenders, and, second, a belief that “nothing works” in rehabilitation of offenders which was derived from seminal research by Robert Marthinson and his colleagues in the mid 1970s. Today we are reaching a consensus on evidence-based practices that do work, indicated Berman. He highlighted the experience of New York City and State that has managed to significantly reduce incarceration and index crime rates. Berman outlined three contributions community courts have made to the justice reform movement: 1) Low-level offending matters and should be taken seriously, 2) Reducing crime and incarceration are not mutually exclusive goals, and 3) Local communities are “co-producers” of public safety and should be effectively engaged by the justice system.

The Conference also heard from U.S Attorney General Eric Holder via video, and Mary Lou Leary, Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Reentry Courts in the Spotlight at Occasional Series

2010-10-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

Today the John Jay College Prisoner Reentry Institute’s Occasional Series on Reentry featured a presentation on a groundbreaking study of the Harlem Reentry Court. Dr. Zachary Hamilton, Assistant Professor at Washington State University’s Criminal Justice Program, described his study of the Harlem Reentry Court. Dr. Hamilton, former Senior Researcher at the Center for Court Innovation, described the study’s findings to a packed audience that included the President of the College, Jeremy Travis. Discussants on the panel included the Hon. Leo Sorokin, Federal Magistrate for a reentry court program in Boston, and Braulio Rodriguez, former Harlem Reentry Court participant.

Reentry Court’s are a relatively new justice innovation that seek to smooth the transition from prison to community. Modeled in part on drug courts, participants are subject to greater supervision depending on their risk of re-offending and have access to an array of services to address their treatment, housing, employment and social engagement needs. Parole/probation and the judge work as part of a team to monitor compliance and support success. By some estimates there are between 30 and 60 reentry court projects in state and federal courts.
For more information and a copy of the power point visit the Prisoner Reentry Institute’s Occasional Series Page.

The next presentation in the series will take place on Friday, November 12: 9:00 - 10:30 am.
Topic: Parole Release Decisions: Impact of Victim and Non-victim Input on Parole-Eligible Inmates
Presenter(s): Joel M. Caplan, Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

John Jay College: 899 Tenth Avenue, NYC (btwn. 58th and 59th Streets), Room 630.

RSVP to pri@jjay.cuny.edu

New San Francisco Reentry Court Initiatives

2010-10-14T10:29:00.000-07:00

Via the San Franciso Examiner

New Courts Aim to Curb Repeat Criminal Offenders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

San Francisco is about to launch two new courtroom initiatives that help people on parole and probation get reacquainted with life on the outside, says the San Francisco Examiner. The programs are funded through federal stimulus grants totaling almost $2 million. The biggest chunk will go toward a Superior Court Parole Reentry Court, which will offer services to inmates leaving state prison. Those "wraparound services" include employment help, education, mental health counseling, and housing services. It's part of a growing emphasis on "problem-solving courts," which include a courtroom that concentrates on drug offenders and the Community Justice Center that handles "quality-of-life" crimes, such as homeless problems, public urination, aggressive panhandling or being drunk in public.

A Probation Accountability Court will concentrate on people who break their probation. Instead of going back to jail, the offender will have another chance to enter services, says Chief Probation Officer Wendy Still. Efforts to reduce the number of probationers who reoffend could end up paying off by the end of 2010. A new state law provides for tracking. If a department can lower its recidivism level, the savings realized by sending fewer inmates to prison goes back to the local agency.

$110 Million U.S. Aid Set For Inmate Re-Entry, Justice Reinvestment

2010-10-08T10:44:00.000-07:00

Via, The Crime Report

$110 Million U.S. Aid Set For Inmate Re-Entry, Justice Reinvestment

Friday, October 8th, 2010 7:41 am

The Justice Department today announced $110 million in grants for prisoner re-entry programs and the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. The department also is starting a new initiative known as Project Reentry ”to strengthen our recidivism and reentry work,” Attorney General Eric Holder told a European Offenders Employment Forum in Washington, D.C. Holder noted that, ”Many employers are not eager to hire former prisoners, and – in today’s economic climate – these individuals often find themselves at the back of the line.”

He also said that in the U.S., 1 in 28 children has a parent behind bars. ”These kids often struggle with anxiety, depression, learning problems, and aggression – undermining their own chances to succeed,” Holder said. ”In many cases, maintaining family relationships during incarceration can improve the lives of these children and reduce recidivism rates later on.” He added: “When quality, employment-centered programs are made available during and after incarceration, one demonstration showed they can cut recidivism rates in half.” The funding addresses areas including job training, education, mentoring, substance abuse and mental health treatment, family-based services, literacy classes, housing and employment assistance. It includes $10 million for evaluation.

Link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/FY2010_awards_solicitation.htm

John Jay's Occasional Reentry Series Oct. 15: Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism

2010-10-06T13:28:00.000-07:00

Our former researcher, now Assistant Professor at Washington State University, Zachary Hamilton, will be presenting at the Prisoner Reentry Institute's Occasional Series on Reentry Research on October 15th of this month. His presentation will review the results of an evaluation he conducted on the impact of the Harlem Community Justice Center's Parole Reentry Court on parolee recidivism rates. Read the full study here and hope to see you there!

Occasional Series on Reentry Research

Friday, October 15: 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court

Zachary Hamilton

Assistant Professor, Criminal Justice Program

Washington State University

Discussants will include

Honorable Leo Sorokin

United States Magistrate Judge

Boston, MA

and

Braulio Rodriguez

Participant, Harlem Reentry Court

Reentry courts have been identified by practitioners and policy makers as a promising way to address the challenges that prisoner reentry poses for communities and individuals returning home. This research presents findings from an evaluation of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. Results indicate a significant reduction in re-convictions for new crimes but an increase in parole revocations for technical violations, suggesting a “supervision effect.” Policy implications will also be discussed.

Event will take place at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 Tenth Avenue (b/w W. 58th and 59th Streets), Room 630.

RSVP to pri@jjay.cuny.edu.

Events will be webcast live via the National Reentry Resource Center website.

When a Debt Goes Unpaid: The Impact of Surcharges, Fees, and Incarceration on Reentry

2010-10-04T11:53:00.000-07:00

Over the last few weeks, three studies have been published that explore the costs of involvement with the criminal justice system that linger far after a person has served their time for an offense.

The Pew Center's recent study, Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility, details the often hidden consequences of an individuals conviction on their potential for economic achievement upon reentry. Among other findings, the report concluded that former inmates make 40% less than prior to incarceration and that incarceration will cost a former inmate (on average) 9 weeks of employment a year and $1.76 per hour in pay, for a total loss of $15,600 per year. The study also examines the profound impact the decreased earning potential of former inmates has on a family's ability to escape poverty.

The Brennan Center for Justice and the ACLU both released their own studies this week, detailing the types of fees defendants are forced to pay regardless of indigence, often leading to deeper involvement in the criminal justice system. The Brennan's study, "Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry," explore fees imposed on indigent individuals when they exercise the right to counsel guaranteed in the Constitution, restitution fees, court surcharges, and parole fees. The ACLU study, In for a Penny, The Rise of a America's New Debtor Prison, presents the results of a "yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford."

Reaching Out to The Private Sector

2010-09-29T12:03:00.000-07:00

This week we are blogging from the 6th Annual National Community Prosecution Conference in Washington D.C. The Conference brings together innovative prosecutorial leaders from across the nation to explore the latest innovations in crime prevention and intervention. The Conference is organized by the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation and the U.S Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Target is well known for its retail stores and its ubiquitous red target corporate logo. What is less well know is that Target is also a major supporter of law enforcement through partnerships with over two thousand state, local and federal agencies, according to Brad Brekke, Vice President of Asset Protection. The initiative, Target & Blue, provides training and technical assistance to local police department’s exposing police professionals to best practices in the corporate sector. It is part of Target's larger corporate giving effort supporting education, the arts, and social services.

As Target sought to enter urban markets they realized that their risks would rise, but their resources to address them would not. Partnering with law enforcement is an essential element of their business strategy. Partnerships based on “mutual benefit” are best, according to Brekke. “We noticed that as partnerships go up, crime goes down and businesses go up,” said Brekke. One example cited is Target’s funding of crime cameras in a Minneapolis business district. Law enforcement worked with the community on the initiative. The results: lower crime and increased business investment. To build partnerships with the private sector Brekke suggested prosectors work on: 1) identifying the best partners, 2) focusing on an issue, 3) making introductions, 4) formulating a program, and 4) celebrating success. It is also important to measure the results of your partnership.

Community prosecutors should get to know business owners, advised Captain Josh Ederheimer of the District’s Metropolitan Police Department. Inviting business leaders to visit your office is one way to make a connection. Meet their needs first; ask how you can help them. Ederheimer also advised that you take the “Washington Post test:” Determine how your partnership will look from the outside; be transparent and keep good records; make sure your office vets any arrangements where private partners are providing travel or other resources; and when possible establish MOU’s.

Other panelist included Tom Zugibe, District Attorney of Rockland County, and Mitch Roth, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney from Hawaii.

Measuring Results in Community Prosecution

2010-09-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

“I drove it like I stole it.”
- Jimmy Johnson, NASCAR driver

This morning’s panel focused on measuring results for community prosecution. Panelist Tom Zugibe, Rockland County District Attorney, and Rachel Porter Senior Researcher at the Center for Court Innovation discussed a project to assist the Office in developing performance measures. Julius Lang, Deputy Director of National Technical Assistance moderated.

Effective community prosecution efforts must measure their results in order to drive change. Sounds simple, but it is not. Most prosecutors measure the success of their office based on convictions, in fact, even among community prosecutors conviction rates are still highly prized. Performance indicators are best used to “clarify what is going on in an office,” according to Porter. Indicators also have to measure impacts; reductions in crime and reduced recidivism are prime examples.

Being transparent about success and failure presents a challenge for elected prosecutors, according to Thomas Carr the Boulder Colorado City Attorney. Carr described a situation where a community court project he championed was showing less than stellar results on an evaluation (the program was succesful in extending the time between re-offending which translated into fewer crimes and fewer cases in court). This information was used against him in an election. Identifying problems, developing responses to those problems and communicating the situation publically can help to immunize prosecutors against backlash when a specific initiative is not meeting its goals, according to Julius Lang. Lang highlighted a new effort by the Center for Court Innovation and BJA to understand and learn from failure in criminal justice reform.

To learn more about how to measure community prosecution visit BJA's Performance Measures site.

A Conversation with National Leaders in Prosecution

2010-09-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

We are blogging from the 6th Annual National Community Prosecution Conference in Washington D.C. The Conference brings together innovative prosecutorial leaders from across the nation to explore the latest innovations in crime prevention and intervention. The Conference is organized by the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation and the U.S Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Four of the nation’s leading prosecutor’s sat down to discuss their perspectives on Community Prosecution at the 6th Annual Community Prosecution Conference.

Seth Williams, the recently elected District Attorney of Philadelphia, had the most colorful quote of the day in describing his crime prevention philosophy: “The people of Philadelphia prefer not to be shot, rather than being shot and having their case handled well by the DA’s Office.” According to Williams, in Philadelphia 5% of the offenders commit 60% of the crimes. He stressed the importance of not re-inventing the wheel; his office is actively “borrowing” innovations from other community prosecutors around the country.

Michael Shrunk, the veteran District Attorney of Multnomah County, Oregon, and Charles J. Hynes, Brooklyn, New York District Attorney, described their offices’ many innovations. Both leaders developed the earliest acknowledged community prosecution programs. Hynes highlighted his reentry program, COMAlert, and his drug treatment alternative to incarceration program, DTAP, both have been independently evaluated as effective. Shrunk’s office implemented the Neighborhood Prosecutor’s Program in Portland and was a driving force by Portland’s drug court and community court projects.

Improving public trust and confidence in the justice system is an important outcome of community prosecution, according to Anita Alveraz, State’s Attorney for Cook County Illinois, who described her recent efforts to revive community prosecution in Chicago.

The 21st century prosecutor must work to ensure justice for victims and the community, while providing opportunities for offenders to become law abiding citizens. Even in the face of budget cuts and a deepening distrust of government, the panel conveyed that community prosecutors are making a difference.

Prosecuting in the 21st Century

2010-09-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

Steven Jansen, Vice-President of APA

Community Prosecution is a philosophy of justice that promotes pro-active problem-solving, crime prevention and community partnerships to enhance responses to crime.

The 6^th Annual National Community Prosecution kicked off today with remarks from an all star casts. Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson described Community Prosecution as the “future of the prosecution field.” Video remarks from Attorney General Eric Holder stressed the work of Community Prosecutors in promoting collaborations that reduce crime and improve public trust and confidence in law enforcement. “Rather than waiting for the bodies to float down the river, you need to get up stream to stop the bodies from going in the stream to begin with, said Glenn Ivey, Prince George’s County State’s Attorney. D.C was a fitting venue for this year’s event. Attorney General Eric Holder started the first Community Prosecution proram in D.C in the mid-1990s. Now over half of all prosecutors’ offices nationally used some element of community prosecution, according to Assistant Attorney General Robinson.