Research

Providing research, evaluations, and studies that promote the evidence-based practices (based in scientific research) in court-based reentry systems, including reentry courts.

Evidence Based Practices Revisited

by

Nov 7, 2010

Although referenced in other  articles on this site, this seems like an appropriate time to reprint (and reaffirm our support for) the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) sponsored report,“Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention” authored by the Crime and Justice Institute. This brief, but critical work (19 pages) lays out the critical principles of evidence based practices that apply to those returning to our communities from jails and prisons.

A companion monograph on the same subject was authored by Peggy Burke and published by NIC in August of 2008 , “TPC Reentry Handbook:  Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model.”

Debt: An Obstacle To Reentry

by

Oct. 17, 2010

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

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

Promising Kentucky Evaluation Discovered

by

Sept. 5

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

NCSC on “Fathering” and “Reentry” Courts

by

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

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

25% OF Americans Say Prisons Do Good Job

by

” Angus Reid Public Opinion” has just released a poll of Americans that finds among other things that:

  • 75% of Americans polled disagree with the statement that “the prison system in the U.S. does a good job at helping prisoners become law-abiding”
  • 72% support alternative penalties other than prison for non-violent offenders.

[The PDF can be found here]

Reentry Court Literature Review

by

Alexandra Lampert, a former judicial fellow with the San Francisco Superior Court Collaborative Courts’ Program, and now attending Stanford Law School, has recently completed a literature  review on reentry courts.  It is informative, providing summaries of a number of articles and evaluations in the reentry court field [Reentry Court Scholarship and Evaluations]

Reentry Court Axiom: Smaller “Margin Of Error”

by

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored Reentry Court “Focus Group”, held in Boston, June 1, arrived at what might be described as a “Reentry Court Axiom”,  that “the greater the risk of  a particpant re-offending, the smaller the “margin of error”, for reentry court practitioners, to get it right”. Reading a transcript of the “Reentry Court  Focus Group” proceedings left me with the strong impression that, while the Reentry Court are largely based on the drug court model,  high-risk offenders returning from jails and prison, would pose a greater challenge than other  participant groups to date.

This conundrum was spelled out in the presentation of Dr. Douglas Marlowe, NADCP Director of Law, Policy, and Science, when he described the above mentioned, “Reentry Court Axiom” and the need to be diligent in the application of “evidence based practices” (see: Dr. Marlowe’s comments).  Other practitioners/experts in the field came to seemingly diferent conclusions. Judges Steven Manley of Santa Clara County , CA, and Chris Carpenter, of Boone County, Mo., agreed that the reentry court population would have to be treated differently than other populations, and that they presented a special challenge for the reentry court professional. But they concluded that allowances woud have to be made to keep the high risk offender in the reentry court; in effect lowering the bar required of reentry court particpants to stay in the program.

After reviewing the transcript, the seeming conflict resolved. Both Dr. Marlowe and the practitioner/experts agreed that this would be a more difficult population, one that would require “evidence-based practices” to be applied faithfully and diligently. But within those “practices” resided the flexibility (and  even necessity) for “lowering the bar”, by applying intermediate sanctions to  non-violent probation/parole violations.  Innovative intermediate sanctions, applied swiftly and with certainty, will allow the Reentry Court  to keep the offender in the community, without violating the participants’ parole/probation, or sending the participant back to prison.

I came away from my co-facilitaiton of the focus group (with Al Siegel, Deputy Director of the Center  for Court Innovations), with an understanding of the difficulty of effectively dealing with the Reentry Court population. But also with the belief that Reentry Court is our last best opportunity  to stem the flood of offenders returning to our prisons. [Reentry Court Focus Group Transcript. June 1, 2010]

NIC: An Important Reentry Court Resource

by

The dilemma for the Reentry Court field is that there is a relative dearth of specific information and scientific literature on Reentry Courts. Some are so disheartened, that they are prepared to put off developing a Reentry Court till research based guidance is provided. I would suggest that it’s far better to make use of relevant research materials and evidence based practices available to the reentry court field now, than wait for specific reentry court publications that may arrive too late to be of use. This is especially true, as the “drug court” that reentry court is modeled after has already been intensely evaluated and shown to be the most effective modality, in dealing with the high-risk offenders, those offenders who are overwhelmingly  leaving our jails and prisons.

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has been an important resource for correctional reform information since 1977. Over the past decade, the NIC has dedicated itself to providing state of the art tools for jurisdictions interested in improving  ” offender reentry” from jails and prisons into their communities. While it’s publications and web-based tools are rarely reentry court specific, they  do provide important and relevant research based information that can be applied to your reentry court program. Importantly, the NIC has adopted an early intervention model, that focuses on the offender’s seamless reentry from the time of sentence (and by inference, the time of arraignment).

The NIC “ TPC Reentry Handbook (Transition from Prison to Community) was developed  [in 2008] as a resource for a broad range of stakeholders involved in improving transition and reentry practices (p.3)”. The National Institute of Corrections and project partner the Urban Institute developed its “Transition from Jail to Community” project (TJC) with a similar purpose, with its  TJC Implementation Toolkit coming on line just last month.  According to the NIC blurb, “This web-based learning resource guides local criminal justice agencies and community-based organizations through implementation of the TJC model, in whole or in part.”  It would appear these publications and web-based tools ought to be part of every reentry court’s library.

Dr.Marlowe speaks out for Reentry Courts

by

Dr. Doug Marlowe, speaking in Boston this month on the latest research on reentry programs, concluded that  excluding reentry court,  most every state-of-the-art reentry modality had shown little impact on recidivism.

Dr.Doug Marlowe, Chief of Science, Policy, and Law at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), made his comments at a presentation for a Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored Focus Group on Reentry Courts,  held on June 1, 2010.

While the presentation only dealt  peripherally with reentry courts, its  implications to the field were significant.  Dr.Marlowe’s message was that present coercive and non-coercive reentry efforts don’t work. Even when we use the most sophisticated programs and state-of-the-art technology,  they have not shown themselves to be appreciably better than no program at all.

Presented through a  logical progression of easily followed power point slides (attached below), Dr. Marlowe examined the failures of a number of reentry programs, culminating in the recent SVORI (Serious & Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) meta-analysis. Following the trail of $100 million and 2,391 participants over a 3 year period, the SVORI evaluation concluded that even the best non-court based programs showed higher re-incarceration rates than the control group (though rearrest rates were somewhat lower).

Dr. Marlowe’s conclusion (among others) was that returning offenders were not likely to engage in the highly structured and intensive programs  required for successful reentry, without graduated sanctions and incentives, the mark of the reentry court. While the jury may be out as to the ultimate success of the reentry court, we have reason to believe they will be highly successful with the high risk offenders returning  from our jails and prisons ( as the drug court model they emulate, has been extraordinarily effective when dealing with the high risk offender in the community).

[See  “Reentry of Drug Offenders”; Dr.Douglas Marlowe, J.D., PH.D ]

Best Practices Family Tool Kit Available

by

Having recently discovered the Best Practices Family Tool Kit , I can reccomend it highly to the reentry court practitioner. The “Ohio Institute on Correctional Best Practices” has produced a clear, concise, and highly relevant publication on family issues of returning offenders. As the Ohio Institute describes its publication, “it aims to systematically identify empirical evidence regarding strategies, programs and practices geared towards involving offenders’ families during incarceration and reentry. It highlights practices and program strategies that are proven, promising or exemplary best practices and provides references for more extensive reading. The objective of this tool kit is to provide information that will better inform policymakers, practitioners and researchers on maintaining and strengthening appropriate family relationships during incarceration and community reintegration”. It also contains a superb bibliography for those who wish to  understand the  critical issues relating to the family, the returning offender  left behind.

New Guide To Ex-Offender Housing

by

The Council of State Governments has published a guide to housing options for ex-offenders. The publication entitled, “Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide” was written by Katherine Cortes and Shawn Rogers and released June 1, 2010.

The Council describes it’s publication this way; “The policy guide provides practical steps that lawmakers and others can take to increase public safety through better access to affordable housing for individuals released to the community. It offers an overview of several commonly accessed housing options and also examines three distinct approaches to increasing the availability of these options: improving access, increasing housing stock and revitalizing neighborhoods.”


How NADCP got its start

by

The  NADCP Conference is history. Over 3000 participants and 3o workshop tracks over a 3 day period. The openning Plenary session was the most moving part of the Conference, with dozens of former addicts and their families giving testimonials on how drug court had changed their lives. Followed by presentations by Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson and her boss Attorney General Eric Holder.  Both gave wonderful speeches in support of Drug courts and were cheered with great enthusism.

Which brought to mind the story of how NADCP got its start. In 1995, Laurie Robinson and I were both at a TASC Conference in Orlando, Florida. Laurie was Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office  of Justice Programs (OJP). I was president of a fledgling non-profit organization made up of about a dozen drug court judges and working out of a file cabinet in my court chambers in Oakland, California. I had spoken to Laurie on previous ocassions, but knew her slightly.

When I ran into her at the hotel swimming pool, we talked about the conference briefly and then discussed the state of the Drug Court field. We agreed that Drug Courts were a grassroots phenomenum that needed to provide its own technical assistance through its own drug court professionals. By the time we had finished our conversation, Laurie had decided to provide funding for the development of drug court standards. That was the year that OJP funded “Defining Drug Courts: The Ten Key Components”, a document that became something of a bible to the field.   Although the actual funding wasn’t a great deal of money, it was enough to get a fledgling organization, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, off the ground.

Over the years, besides being a partner in the creation of NADCP, Laurie has continued to be a strong supporter and  persuasive advocate for drug courts and problem solving courts. I thought about that as 3000 plus gave her a well deserved standing ovation at the NADCP conference.

RCS Adds New Resource Tool

by

RCS is pleased to announce a new resource tool, titled [RESOURCE MAPS], found at the top of the far left “RESOURCES” column.

[RESOURCE MAPS] provides a general overview and live links for all significant publications and other information, related to Reentry Courts, both on site and linked to this site. More importantly, it provides specific audiences, whether  conventional or online,  with special resource suggestions for their individual information needs (typically keyed to a numbered agenda).

This new tool allowed RCS to provide suggested reading for both a BJA sponsored Reentry Court Focus Group as well as the full day Reentry Court Symposium, and a state court managers presentation recently held at the Boston NADCP Conference. In each case, an agenda was numbered and keyed to a specific “RESOURCE MAP” in the far left column. Use the keyed agenda and specific resource map to follow the presentations you attended, or at home, through suggested publications and linked resources.

Reentry Court RFP: A New “Evidence-Base” Standard

by

Note: Deadline for applications; June 3, 2010

This is the second of several articles  on the “Second Chance Act” Reentry Court Solicitation. In this analysis,  I will review the RFP from a Evidence Based Sentencing (EBS) Perspective.

The new BJA Rentry Court Solicitation clearly differs from those for previous Problem-Solving Courts. In some ways it is the first of its kind. At an initial reading, one notes the lack of any reference to the “Drug Court Ten Key Components”. As recently as February of this year, Drug Courts, along with, DUI, Mental Health, Veterans, and Community Court applicants were required to show how thir programs complied with the Ten Key components. So while Reentry Courts emerged from the drug court court field, there appears to be some recognition that they are substantially different from them.

Under this solicitaiton, reentry court applicants   must adhere to the “Six Core Components” (see p.3), as described in the 2003 publication, Reentry Courts Process Evaluation (Phase 1), reflecting the research and experience of nine reentry court research sites that were  part of  a previous, short lived Reentry Court Initiative  (RCI: 2000). A review of that document, as well as other historical documents, would be a good place to begin this application process (NCJR Reentry Court Documents)

More importantly, the entire focus of this RFP takes us in a new direction.  While problem solving court applicants must follow the statutory prohibition against violent offenders as participants, found in the drug court solicitation (42 U.S.C. 3797u-2; found at p1,f1), there is no such prohibition for reentry courts. The perceived intent of the reentry court solicitiaition is to reduce recidicism of serious offenders through the application of  Evidence Based Sentencing Practices (referred euphemisticaly  in the RFP as “evidence based activities”).

Importantly, this is the first BJA problem-solving court RFP that requires the identification of high risk offenders through the application of a validated risk/needs assessment tool, a key component of any EBP based sentencing strategy (note: high risk in this context refers to the risk to reoffend). While EBP began in the medical and treatment fields (and is a part of some BJA RFPs as they relate to treatment programs), this Reentry Court Solicitation breaks new ground, in prioritizing those applications that will apply evidence-based practices to problem-solving court components.

Inquiries about this “Request For Proposal” should be directed to Dr. Gary Dennis, Senior Policy Advisor For Corrections, at (202) 305-9059 or [email protected].

EXTRA: A Special Internet Tool To Learn EBP

by

A new internet tool is now available to teach “Evidence Based Practices” (EBP)  to the criminal justice field. Although specifically targeting lecturers and trainers, this free, interactive “Model Curriculum for Judges”, can be an effective interactive educational tool for anyone.  “Evidence-Based Sentencing To Improve Public Safety & Reduce Recidivism”, was developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), in partnership with  the National Judicial College (NJC), and the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI).

Evidence Based Practices (EBP),  originated in the medical field and only recently has been applied in the corrections field.  Evidence-Based Sentencing (EBS), as defined by the National Center for State Courts, are “those practices used in the field of community corrections that are proven by the best research evidence to reduce offender recidivism”. In my opinion, a working knowledge of this science based sentencing approach is critical for every reentry court judge and  related personnel. I’ve spent many  hours acquainting myself with the curriculum ( 6 hours of video , powerpoint and other materials). The NCSC interactive internet courseis the best introductory educational tool available on EBP and should be used extensively by  the reentry court field.

© 2007 -  Reentry Court Solutions. All Rights Reserved.


Reentry Court Solutions Powered by Communications Team