Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming Communities: Reentry, Race, and Politics

9. Reentry Courts

Reentry Courts Being a judge in the reentry court radically transformed the role. In the traditional parole system, an administrative law judge would have contact with parolees, but only during revocation hearings. They would stand before him accused of failing to meet the conditions of their parole or facing allegations of new criminal violations. The judge could only talk to the parolee through his or her counsel, given the rules against ex parte communication with the accused. The hearing might last ten to fifteen minutes, and then the judge would make a decision and the hearing would end. He would only see the parolee once or twice at such hearings. The judge preferred the practice of the reentry court. He had more direct interaction with parolees. He could now speak directly with the parolee about his or her progress and difficulties without the buffer of defense counsel. He could make parolees return to court frequently for drug tests and appearances before him. He could use the authority of the court to compel the behavior that he expected through the use of sanctions to punish behavior and rewards, such as relaxation of sanctions , to encourage compliance. He no longer believes that the independence of the judge should be the hallmark of this court hearing. For better or worse, he takes the job personally.1 According to traditional American jurisprudence, the role of the judge in a criminal case is to oversee courtroom proceedings relating to a defendant ’s guilt or innocence and appropriate disposition of the case. Over the last decade, however, drug courts and other problem-solving courts have been testing another model. Judges in these courts use the power of the courts to set and monitor explicit conditions for a defendant ’s behavior (e.g., “don’t use drugs,” “get regular drug testing,” “go to treatment”). They use a mix of graduated sanctions and incentives as tools to change the defendant’s behavior, and reinforce success if these 9 154 changes are achieved. The concept of a “reentry court,” first introduced in 1999 by Attorney General Janet Reno and Jeremy Travis, then-director of the National Institute of Justice, challenges criminal justice professionals and communities to apply the principles of the drug court to the back end of the system—to use the incentives and sanctions of judicial oversight to effectively address the complex challenges of offender reintegration. Reentry courts—there are now a small number springing up—generally include these core elements: a “reentry transition plan” acknowledged by the court and the ex-prisoner that is tailored to individual risks and needs and addresses an array of employment, treatment , housing, family, and supervision issues. The reentry court must have at its disposal a range of supportive and supervision resources to draw upon in order to implement the plan: regular oversight of the reentry plan by a court authority who has the discretion to swiftly impose a predetermined set of graduated, parsimonious sanctions and incentives to motivate good behavior, community service work, increased supervision levels, additional drug testing or treatment, or short periods of time in lockup, accountability to victims or community via strict attention to ongoing restitution orders, community service requirements, or even a citizen advisory board. Rewards for success, such as graduation ceremonies similar to those seen in drug courts. Aside from these central ingredients, reentry courts will vary tremendously depending on local needs, resources, and statutory frameworks. For example, the first generation of reentry courts includes a Delaware court that focuses on domestic violence cases, an Iowa reentry court for offenders diagnosed with mental health disorders, and a court in Florida that targets substance abusers. Importantly, because the authority for post-prison supervision is often not vested with the judicial branch, reentry courts operate on the basis of a variety of approaches, each consistent with local statutory frameworks. In Ohio, for instance, the Richland County Common Pleas Court judges use split sentences and a shock probation authority to supervise many of the returning inmates. In New York City, an administrative law judge—with authority from the parole board— manages reentry court participants within a community court setting. And in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the reentry court judge has actually been vested with authority by the Indiana Parole Commission to supervise returning prisoners on the commission’s behalf.2 Reentry Courts | 155 A. Background of the Reentry Courts In an era when over 650,000...