2 Panel Introductions Judge Keith Starrett Moderator Judge Robert Francis Panelist Judge Stephen Manley Panelist Charles Robinson - Panelist
3 Dallas SAFPF 4-C Reentry Court Custody Step 1 Initial Assessment, Client ordered to SAFPF as a condition of probation! Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Client waits in jail for a bed. Regular SAFPF 6-Months Special Needs SAFPF 9-Months Ongoing Assessment & Discharge Planning occurs while the client is in the unit.
4 Dallas SAFPF 4-C Reentry Court Reentry Re-Entry Court Program Track 1 Approved home plan Requires family participation Track 2 Transitional housing Housing director participates
5 California Parolee Reentry Court Total of 5 programs in the state Created by state statue Funding provided by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as well as local county rehabilitation funds transferred from the state under Realignment.
6 Program Objectives Introduce and discuss nuts and bolts concepts of a reentry court program. To examine how two programs have implemented the key reentry practices.
8 Target Population Reentry Failure Isn t an Option! Each year more than 700,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons and millions more cycle through local jails. Many are rearrested within 3 years of their release and ½ are reincarcerated. High rates of recidivism = more crime, more victims, and more pressure on an overburdened system. OJP Annual Report 2011
9 Target Population Meeting System Demands Necessary to have a continuum of responses to service the differences that exist with those reentering. Reentry Courts are a part of the continuum but shouldn t be seen as the one size fits all response. It is important to identify the appropriate candidate for inclusion and exclusion in a reentry court program. Providing a great service (program) for the wrong population can lead to undesirable outcomes!
10 Target Population More intensive services should be reserved for higher risk offenders. Validated assessment instruments should be used to help identify appropriate and inappropriate candidates Need for multiple and ongoing assessments Criminal risk Needs What are they (criminogenic vs. noncriminogenic)? Severity Reassessment
11 Target Population
12 Dallas ReEntry Participant Data Prior Arrest History of Study Participants Average Arrests prior to Reentry Court 9 Range of Arrests 1 to 34 Over 20% have 15 or more Prior Offenses ReEntry Courts deal with High Risk Participants
14 Dallas 4-C Re-Entry Court Target Population
15 Dallas 4-C Re-Entry Court Target Population Is anyone excluded?? 2 participants have prior murder convictions 2 participants on probation for murder 6 participants have homicide related charges 45 % have prior aggravated charges 40% on probation for aggravated charges
16 Dallas 4-C - Assessment There Are two types of assessment instruments used in the Dallas 4-C program. Risk Assessment risk of recidivism Wisconsin Risk & Needs Assessment Level of Service Inventory - Revised Clinical Evaluation - level of services needed Done by a trained professional Determines the treatment track
17 Dallas 4-C - Assessment You Cannot Have Too Many 1 st at the Time of Plea or Before Disposition 2 nd During Incarceration or Treatment 3 rd Upon Admission to Reentry Court It s Hard for Participant to Lie 3 Times Clients can always have an assessment done while participating in reentry. Reassess participants while they are in the program.
18 California Parolee Reentry Court Targets high risk and high need offenders in violation status. May be used prior to violation being filed or after a finding of a violation Targets offenders who are substance abusers and mentally ill.
19 California Parolee Reentry Court Requirements of Parole/Probation Offender released from Custody Parole/Probation utilize validated assessments to place clients in appropriate services and programs Parole/Probation mandated to use intermediate interventions and sanctions before a petition may be filed and to document them Reentry Court is the highest level of intervention available to Parole/Probation and is also available to the hearing Judge if a Petition is filed
20 California Parolee Reentry Court Participants Serious /violent and other felony offenders released from prison on parole who are supervised by Parole and are in violation status. Non serious/violent felony offenders released from prison to community supervision by probation, and are in violation status. Newly sentenced felony offenders given a split term of custody followed by supervision by Probation and are in violation status.
21 California Parolee reentry Court Is anyone excluded?? In General No Homicide only Sex Offenders added in 2013
22 California Parolee Reentry Court Supervision Type
23 California Parolee Reentry Court Participants by Risk Level
24 California Parolee Reentry Court Participants by Level of Need 98% use drugs (average of 21 years of use) 37% are mentally ill 86% are unemployed at the time of entry 83% do not have stable housing at entry.
25 California Parolee Reentry Court Participants by Race/Ethnicity
26 California Reentry Courts -Assessment Initial Assessment: Parolee Violator Decision Making Instrument -Validated Followed by local Needs assessment - Validated Followed by repeated reassessments based on program progress, lack thereof, relapse, decompensation, rearrest Reasessments done immediately, often in the courtroom or in custody in some programs
27 Target Population What questions do you have for the panel?
29 Services Provided Assess and target criminogenic needs for change to reduce the probability of recidivism. Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn t Work) Revised Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project
30 Services Provided Criminogenic needs are intermediate targets and should be the focus of correctional programming. Antisocial Attitudes Antisocial Peers Substance Abuse Impulsivity Employment Family Dysfunction
31 Services Provided The most effective interventions are behavioral Focus on current factors that influence behavior Action oriented The most effective behavioral models Involve structured social learning where new skills are modeled and reinforced. Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors
32 Services Provided Address other needs that may interfere (present a barrier to) with treating dynamic risk factors. Housing Mental Health Motivation Child Care Transportation Other
33 Dallas 4 -C
34 Dallas 4-C Services Provided Evaluations help determine the level & type of services needed Housing Job training & placement Education Drug treatment Counseling services Criminogenic treatment
35 California Reentry courts NO Tracks No special tracks within reentry court or distinction between offenders needing Some programs special emphasis on Women suffering from sever trauma Some programs greater emphasis on co-occurring disorders of substance abuse and mental illness Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors
36 California Reentry Services Provided Housing Substance abuse treatment Mental Health Treatment including medications Therapy (cognitive and trauma) Case Management Long term residential for special needs clients Crisis Residential Benefits and medical Transportation
37 Services Provided What questions do you have for the panel?
39 The Reentry Court Team The purpose of the team? Who is on the team? What role do team members fill? Consistent members of the team vs. others who may share information with the team How often do teams meet? What is the purpose and intent of the meeting?
40 Dallas SAFPF 4-C Reentry Court Team Judge Supervision Field Officer Public Defender Assistant District Attorney Assessor Counselor
41 California Reentry Court Team Judge Parole Agents Probation Officers Public Defender Assistant District Attorney Treatment /Services assessors Case Managers Treatment /Services programs
42 The Team What questions do you have for the panel?
45 Responding to Behavior Parameters for Effectiveness Certainty Celerity Magnitude Perception of Fairness Red Flags Learned Helplessness
46 Dallas 4-C SAFPF Reentry Court Rules Do NOT Run Do NOT Lie Goals No new arrest Employment in a job with career potential Reduction in relapse and recidivism rates
47 California Reentry Courts Rules Stay in Housing Stay in Treatment See Agent/Probation Come to Court Goals No new arrest/alternatives to violations Compliance with medications Clean tests Reduction in Relapse Returns to Prison
48 Responding to Behavior What questions do you have for the panel?
50 Program Evaluation Clearly defined process & fidelity Process & Outcome Evaluations Purpose Considerations Part of early discussions Control/Comparison groups Who can benefit
51 Dallas County Reentry Court Study 70 SAFPF Regular Participants SAFPF + Reentry Court 70 SAFPF Regular Participants SAFPF Only
52 Dallas County Reentry Court Study Revocations over a 3 year period Control Re-Entry Revoked 69% (48) 33% (23) Technical 52% (25) 48% (11) New Offenses 48% (23) 52% (12) 52% Reduction Revocations
53 Dallas County Reentry Court Study New arrest 3 years after reentry court Percent Arrested Control 49% (34) Re-Entry 29% (20) Total New Arrests % Reduction New Arrests
54 Dallas County Reentry Court Study Probation Status 3 Years after Reentry Control Re-Entry Revoked 69% (48) 33% (23) On Probation or Complete 20% (14) 60% (42) Absconded 11% (8) 7% (5)
55 Dallas County Reentry Court Study Status and Post-Prison Release Arrests for Revoked Participants Revoked by Year 3 Control 48 Re-Entry 23 In Prison Released Percent of Released Re-arrested 18 5 Number of Re-arrests 29 7
56 Dallas County Reentry Court Study Conclusions The addition of Reentry Courts to the SAFPF program significantly reduced revocation rates for a high risk population. The addition of Reentry Courts to the SAFPF program led to fewer new arrests and ultimately fewer victims in the community. Higher revocation rates did not result in fewer victims.
57 California Parolee Reentry Court ONGOING INDEPENDENT EVALUATION Coordinated by the AOC for presentation to the Legislature
58 California Reentry Courts Reentry Court Participants Prison returns at the end of one year
59 California Parolee Reentry Court Participants vs. Nonparticipants at one year
60 California Parolee Reentry Court 33% Graduation Rate (over 50% still in treatment) 97% of homeless participants secure housing 26% obtained permanent housing 42% of unemployed participants secured a job 18% obtained a higher level of education
61 California Reentry Courts Special Finding: Mentally ill participants do well in reentry courts Historically data shows that parolees with a documented mental health condition have a 36% higher risk of committing parole violations in the general parole population. In reentry courts, mentally ill parolees were as likely to succeed as those parolees who were not mentally ill.
62 Program Evaluation What questions do you have for the panel?
Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary... 4 Postrelease Community Supervision... 9 Parolee Revocation... 30 Jail Population Management... 31 2 P age Acronyms AB Assembly Bill 109 & 117 HWLA Healthy
Adult Drug Treatment Court Programs Office of Problem- Solving Courts Maryland s Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Adult Drug Treatment Court Programs MARYLAND S GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
26 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTENSIVE SUPERVISION COURT DUI TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 A. MISSION STATEMENT... 1 B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES... 1
The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings Final Report Submitted by: Shelley Johnson, M.S. Project Director and Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Principal Investigator University of Cincinnati
Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Programs Office of Problem- Solving Courts Maryland s Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Programs MARYLAND S GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND
JFA Institute Conducting Justice and Corrections Research for Effective Policy Making Evaluation of the San Diego County Community Corrections Programs Prepared by James Austin, Ph.D. Roger Ocker Robert
Specialty Courts in Rural Pennsylvania: Establishment, Practice and Effectiveness Specialty Courts in Rural Pennsylvania: Establishment, Practice and Effectiveness By: Martha A. Troxell, J.D., LL.M. and
AN ASSESSMENT OF FOUR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS MARCH 2006 By: Kerry Lowden Kim English Office of Research and Statistics Division of Criminal Justice 700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO
Fina~~26/ll Denver Sobriety Court Program Memorandum of Agreement Introduction The Denver Sobriety Court (Sobriety Court) was established in 2010 through efforts of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission
Criminal Justice Advisory Council Plan of Action 2009-2011 1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL PLAN OF ACTION This Plan of Action is the result of numerous conversations with key stakeholders of the Criminal
Development and Implementation of Drug Court Systems Judge Jeff Tauber Director C. West Huddleston Deputy Director May 1999 Monograph Series 2 Development and Implementation of Drug Court Systems Prepared
Fall 09 Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community Prepared by the Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition Washington,
RESEARCH REPORT January 2003 Drug Treatment in the Criminal Justice System: The Current State of Knowledge Daniel P. Mears Laura Winterfield John Hunsaker Gretchen E. Moore Ruth M. White research for safer
POLICY STATEMENT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Policy Subject: Policy Number: Alcohol and Other Drugs Treatment Programs 7.4.1 Date of Issue: Authority: Effective Date: December
NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM & DRUG ABUSE Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, Chair Assessing the Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Treatment Under Rockefeller Drug Law Reform February 2012
Family/Dependency Drug Treatment Court Programs Office of Problem- Solving Courts Maryland s Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Family/Dependency Drug Treatment Court Programs MARYLAND S GUIDELINES
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND BEST PRACTICES IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS A Review of the Literature Prepared for the NC DOC Substance Abuse Advisory Council North Carolina Department of Correction
Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (Adult Offenders in District Court) Process Evaluation FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Gray Barton Executive Director Office of Problem-Solving Courts 2011-D Commerce Park
Changing Direction? State Sentencing Reforms 2004 2006 Ryan S. King March 2007 For further information: The Sentencing Project 514 10 th St. NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 628-0871 www.sentencingproject.org
Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment Literature Review June 2011 Institute for Social Research University of New Mexico Prepared for: Department of Substance Abuse Programs, Bernalillo County INSTITUTE
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A STATE OF MINNESOTA EVALUATION REPORT Sex Offender Treatment Programs JULY 1994 Report No. 94-07 PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION Centennial Building - Suite 140 658 Cedar
San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court Process and Outcome Evaluation Final Report Submitted to: San Joaquin County Collaborative Courts and the California Office of Traffic Safety Submitted by: NPC Research
MAY 03 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Research for Practice Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT Breaking the
Reentry into the Community after Addiction Treatment within NJ s Prison and Jails New Jersey Reentry Roundtable January 24, 2003 Douglas Ziedonis, MD, MPH Nancy Violette, LCSW, CADC 1 It is in New Jersey
INSTITUTE FOR SOIAL RESEARH UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXIO Working Paper No.: 13 PRISON AND PAROLE TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR SUBSTANE ABUSERS: NATIONWIDE AND IN NEW MEXIO Prepared for the New Mexico riminal and Juvenile
ACE! The Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence CRIMINOLOGY, LAW & SOCIETY, S GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 Solutions For Justice Professionals With goals to safely manage the offender
Substance Abuse Prevention and Chapter 5 Treatment Programs Targeted to Specific Subpopulations In addition to the services provided to the general public through the Division of Mental Health, Developmental