Harlem Parole Reentry Court's December Graduation!

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.

Read More

A Visit to the Dallas Reentry Court

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

Read More

Reentry Courts in the Spotlight at Occasional Series

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

Read More

Drug Court Conference Features Reentry Courts

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

This week I am blogging from the National Drug Court Conference in Boston. This year’s conference includes a Reentry Court track. Reentry Courts, similar to Drug Courts, use the authority of the court to monitor offenders returning to the community

Jeremy Travis in his seminal article, "But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry," helped to focus the nation on prisoner reentry (Sentencing and Corrections, May 2000). Borrowing from the experience of Drug Courts, Travis articulated a bold idea: “judges as reentry managers.” In 2000, nine jurisdictions were funded by the U.S Department of Justice to test the Reentry Court model, including the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. Since that time Reentry Courts have opened around the country. In 2010, a new Reentry Court grant program from the U. S Department of Justice has renewed national interest in the Reentry Court model.

On Tuesday I joined a day long focus group of Reentry Court practitioners from around the country convened by the Center for Court Innovation, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Council of State Government, and Judge Jeff Tauber of Reentry Court Solutions. Judge Tauber and Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center for Court Innovation, served as moderators. Several Reentry Court models were represented and discussed at the roundtable:

Model 1: Drug Court/Court with a reentry component. The judge receives cases referred from prison or jail for monitoring in the community. In this model the judge works closely with probation/parole and treatment providers. In some cases the Drug Court can retain jurisdiction on clients that fail and are sent to prison/jail. Returning them to corrections-based treatment prior to their return to the community.

Model 2: Administrative Court where the supervising agency (parole/probation) utilizes an Administrative Law Judge/Hearing Officer to enhance the normal post-release supervision process. In some jurisdictions, Pennsylvania for example, the Judge and a member of the parole board both sit on cases, although the parole board retains jurisdictions.

Model 3: Pre-Entry Courts as in the case of California were a panel of judges hear probation violation cases and can craft reentry plans as part of the violation process and retain jurisdiction once they are released. In Dallas, assessments are completed pre plea so the judge may consider if a person is eligible for the Reentry Court program as part of the sentencing.


Participants identified the unsustainable growth in corrections cost and the high rates of recidivism for persons on parole/probation. The “crisis in parole” that Travis had cited 10 years ago in his article still exist, yet the growth in evidence-based reentry strategies points the way more firmly towards reform.

Dr. Doug Marlow presented to the group on the research related to reentry and drug courts. According to Marlow reentry efforts must remain true to “evidence-based principles.” He cited the failed Project Greenlight Program, meta analysis of Drug Court studies, the recently released SVORI study, and the recently released evaluation of the Harlem Reentry Court as confirming what we now know:

• Intensive community supervision efforts should focus on high risk offenders and should structure on average 40-70% of their time;
• Corrections-based treatment services are much more effective when paired with community-based treatment;
• Family therapy models do not work for adult offenders, with the exception of models that train family members to respond to a reentrant criminal thinking and behavior;
• The most effective job training occurs when a reentrant first has a job and then receives support and instruction on career development and job search that leads to increased wages and skills;
• Inmates only receive about between 50-66% of their needed services behind bars, this figure declines dramatically post-release, reaching lows of 10% in some cases. Lack of continuity in post-release service access reduces success;
• Reentrants need greater supervision in their first 180 days of release to insure that they access needed services;
• Graduated sanctions applied immediately and consistently in response to behaviors are essential;
• Discretionary release (a.k.a revocable conditions) are the best way to reduce re-incarceration;
• Safe and drug free housing is critical to success, “nothing else matters if this is not in place;”
• And, evidence-based programs to address criminal thinking mediate other efforts. They should be manualized and delivered with a high degree of fidelity.

What does all this mean for Reentry Courts? The new funding is welcomed and will no doubt spur interest in the Reentry Court model. Yet, the national patience for increased social spending may not last long. Reentry Courts must show results over the next three to five years to justify their role in the national community safety infrastructure.

Persons returning from prison and jail will present new challenges for courts. Issues of due process, resources, victim rights, state policy, and local coordination with probation/parole and corrections must be addressed. Courts on their own cannot solve the reentry problem and may be challenged more than ever to work through the community, political, and agency fault lines of reentry. More than Drug Courts and most other problem-solving courts, Reentry Courts rely on effective local collaborations with a broad range of stakeholders. As a community court project, the Justice Center provides a partnership infrastructure that benefits our Reentry Court. Platforms like this blog and our recent work convening the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force allow us to connect with the community, share information, and address key challenges in ways that we could not when our Reentry Court project began in 2001. These synergies have enabled us to do things that most courts would find difficult to do.

I left the focus group feeling energized. Reentry Courts have tremendous potential, as part of the national reentry effort, to improve public safety in our most vulnerable communities by supervising reentrants and helping them to access services.

Read More