Reentry Court Research Articles

Shifting the practice of coercive penal care over time in a problem-solving court

While problem-solving courts represent one area in which rehabilitative efforts have expanded within correctional settings as “coercive penal care,” still unexplored is how the blend of rehabilitative and punitive practices might evolve over time. By conducting interviews and observing a new reentry court, we explore how the court's navigation of coercive penal care transforms over time. We argue that initially, the introduction of rehabilitative goals was mostly subverted by the court's existing punitive criminal legal system and organizational structure. This occurred through court actors prioritizing internal over external goals and metrics in the program, and articulating self-responsibilization narratives for success. As the court progressed, court actors shifted toward emphasizing individualism. Increased individualism occurred in recognition of the complex barriers that participants faced, but presented a double-edged sword: actors focused more on the individual needs of participants beyond program requirements, but also increased individual accountability by participants. This greater emphasis on individualization also allowed court actors to resolve sometimes competing rehabilitative and punitive goals through increased discretion.

Reenvisioning Success

The Supervision to Aid Reentry Program (“STAR”) established by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007 has helped hundreds of people reenter society following their release from prison. Evaluations of the program demonstrate that STAR is successful under a traditional measure of success—recidivism—because it significantly reduces the likelihood of probation revocation for participants and the likelihood of rearrest and probation revocation for graduates. Recidivism rates alone, however, fail to accurately measure and, in fact, obscure some of STAR’s true successes. They fail to assess whether participants have progressed toward ceasing criminal conduct, a process known as desistance, and whether participants’ quality of life has improved. Although less quantifiable, it is important to examine whether STAR is a success based on these more holistic measures. Our analysis of STAR includes voices of participants and indicates that STAR advances desistance and improves quality of life by helping participants to strengthen their relationships with family and pro-social institutions, undergo cognitive transformation, and pursue opportunities for financial and educational advancement. STAR’s success demonstrates that reentry courts remain an integral tool in helping returning citizens reintegrate into society.

Just Relationships: Desistance for Reentry Courts

Just Relationships: Desistance for Reentry Courts

Taking it Personally: How Making Connections Makes a Difference in the Success of Reentry Courts

Taking it Personally: How Making Connections Makes a Difference in the Success of Reentry Courts

Facilitating Successful Reentry Among Justice-involved Veterans: The Role of Veteran and Offender Identity.

Reentry courts facilitate successful offender reintegration into the community following release from incarceration, and many justice-involved veterans may benefit from such services given their elevated risk for deleterious outcomes postrelease. However, effectively engaging court participants is a crucial foundation to achieve the goals of recidivism reduction and global psychosocial improvement. This conceptual article presents an overview of factors that may interfere with a veteran's engagement in reentry court through the lens of both veteran and offender identity. Recommendations for reentry court personnel based on justice-involved veterans' experiences, identity, and unique needs are presented. Careful consideration of these factors and associated practice adaptations may facilitate rapport between reentry court personnel and veteran participants, foster engagement, and ultimately improve outcomes among this unique, at-risk population.

Reentry court judges: the key to the court

Over the last few decades, treatment-oriented court judges have moved away from being neutral arbitrators in an adversarial court process to treatment facilitators. In the problem-solving court model, judges are part of a more therapeutic treatment process with program participants and a courtroom work group. The shift from the use of the traditional criminal justice process toward the use of more treatment-oriented models for some populations highlights the need to systematically document key elements of treatment court models. In particular, it is important to clearly document the role of Reentry Court Judges because they are a key component of the Reentry Court model. The current study used interviews with members of the courtroom work group, as well as a focus group interview of former participants in the program, to help identify the role of the judge and activities the judge engages. Findings revealed that the judges played a supportive, informal role, balanced with a more formal, authoritarian role, and the judges engaged participants in pre-court meetings, as well as courtroom sessions. Further, the judges facilitated interactions with program participants outside the courtroom, demonstrating that the judge is a core component of success for participants in Reentry Court.

The impact of reentry court on recidivism: a randomized controlled trial in Harlem, New York

This randomized controlled trial evaluates the effectiveness of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court, an innovative reentry court model implemented by the Harlem Community Justice Center, examining its impact on recidivism. After random assignment to either the treatment or control groups, the study compares recidivism (rearrest, reconviction, and revocation) among parolees released to Upper Manhattan between 2010 and 2013. Parolees were either assigned to report to the reentry court (N = 213) or to traditional parole for the control group (N = 291). Results from logistic regression models indicate that the court significantly reduced revocations within 18 months of release, when controlling for relevant covariates. Reentry court parolees demonstrated a significant 45% reduction in revocation. There was no evidence of significant differences on rearrest or reconviction. Moderator analysis showed no significant moderating effect for risk score, age, or sex. While the reduction in revocations is promising, the results would be considered mixed, at best. Additional research with larger sample sizes is necessary to further explore differential impacts by risk level. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers must have realistic expectations for recidivism reductions and consider outcomes beyond those found in traditional recidivism research, including potential impacts on quality of life, support networks, family, and community.

Beyond Recidivism: An Outcome Evaluation of A Federal Reentry Court and A Critical Discussion of Outcomes that Matter

Relatively little empirical research has documented reentry courts’ effectiveness. Even less scholarship has critically evaluated their varied goals. A quasi-experimental outcome evaluation of a federal reentry court reveals that the program increases access to social services, decreases probation revocations, and increases future employment. However, the program does not reduce the likelihood of new arrests. These findings are interpreted in the context of the collateral consequences of mass incarceration, a desistance from crime lens, and a human rights perspective.

Reflections on What Works with the Reentry Courts in the District of Oregon

Reflections on What Works with the Reentry Courts in the District of Oregon

Does Reentry Court Completion Affect Recidivism Three Years after Exit? Results from a Retrospective Cohort Study

ABSTRACT Reentry courts are a strategy to assist individuals subjected to post-release supervision in the reintegration process, but there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these practices. The current study presents the results of a retrospective cohort study for a sample of 340 participants who exited a reentry court. Specifically, survival analyses were employed to evaluate whether participants’ reentry court completion status affects their likelihood of and timing to recidivism events three years after exiting the program. The results revealed that successful program completion continues to shape recidivism outcomes up to three years after reentry court exit.

The Effect of Reentry Court Participation on Post-Release Supervision Outcomes and Re-Arrest

ABSTRACT This research examines the impact of participation in a federal reentry court program on supervision violations, revocations, and re-arrest. We evaluate a federal reentry court that utilized random selection and random assignment of participants to treatment groups and random selection for control groups. Outcomes examined include: number of supervision violations, non-technical violations, and re-arrests; and relative risk of supervision violation, non-technical violation, supervision revocation, and re-arrest. Negative binomial and Cox regression models suggest that participation in reentry court had little impact on supervision outcomes or re-arrest. Specifically, although the reentry court participants had more supervision violations compared to the control group, on average, there were no other differences based on reentry court participation. The survival analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in supervision outcomes or re-arrest for reentry court participants compared to other study groups. This study contributes to the scant and conflicting literature on reentry court programs.

Harlem Parole Reentry Court: an initiative in offender reintegration

ABSTRACTIn NSW, the parole population is seeing steady growth, and with prison numbers having increased in recent years, we can expect to see more people being discharged onto parole. What does this mean for those communities to which parolees will return, particularly those that consistently struggle with disproportionate rates of incarceration? This article examines the Harlem Parole Reentry Court, which was established in the Harlem neighbourhood of New York City following concerns about effective reintegration of a largely African American population of offenders returning to the Harlem community. The Harlem Parole Reentry Court has produced positive results, particularly in terms of reducing recidivism among its participants. Despite criticisms of the reentry model, such as the high initial cost, this article suggests that a similar reentry court in NSW could assist successful reintegration of parolees, particularly into vulnerable communities.

Diversion at re-entry using criminogenic CBT: Review and prototypical program development.

Society and the criminal justice system prioritize the reduction of reoffending risk as part of any criminal justice intervention. The Sequential Intercept Model identifies five points of interception at which justice-involved individuals can be diverted into a more rehabilitative alternative: (1) law enforcement/emergency services; (2) booking/initial court hearings; (3) jails/courts; (4) re-entry; and (5) community corrections/community support. The present article focuses on diversion as part of Intercept 5 - re-entry planning and specialized services in the community. We describe the challenges associated with diversion at this stage, and review the relevant research. Next, we describe a "criminogenic cognitive behavioral therapy" project that has been developed and implemented as part of a federal re-entry court. Finally, we discuss the implications of the challenges of intervention at this stage, and the recently developed "Re-entry Project," for research, policy, and practice.

Louisiana Reentry Court Promotes Seamless Transition between Sentencing, Incarceration and Post Release Services Some Potential Exportable Elements

This article describes a reentry court program with a number of unusual and “exportable” features that was first established in Louisiana’s 22nd Judicial District (St. Tammany and Washington Parishes) and now being implemented statewide. Under the leadership of Judge William Knight, the program targets “high risk/high needs” offenders with multiple prior felony convictions for nonviolent property and substance abuse offenses who often face prison sentences of 10-25 years but, pursuant to specially enacted legislation, are released after serving two years in prison to then participate in the community-based reentry court program. Among the program’s noteworthy features include: (1) the use of “split sentencing” permitting the sentencing judge to retain jurisdiction following prison release, with the sentencing judge also serving as the reentry court judge retaining supervision authority and ability to support the defendant’s efforts to achieve post-release program goals; (2) seamless transition from institutional confinement to community based services, with the defendant being brought to the court and the sentencing/reentry judge upon release; (3) continuity of the participant/case management relationship from sentencing through incarceration with regular visits of the case manager while he/she is incarcerated; (4) on-going multi-agency collaboration to provide the sentencing, service delivery and supervisory framework for the program; (5) public/private partnerships to promote a continuum of care starting at sentencing through program completion and aftercare, including housing, education, job training, job placement, and family/community support; and (6) regular status hearings conducted by the sentencing/reentry court judge at the prison during the period of incarceration to establish clear expectations for the participant while he or she is incarcerated and to solidify the connection and relationships between the court and the participant prior to release.

Fighting America’s Highest Incarceration Rates with Offender Programming: Process Evaluation Implications from the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Reentry Court

Reentry programs, when adequately funded and delivered with fidelity, can render recidivism reduction and other positive outcomes such as abstinence and employment stability. This paper reports process evaluation findings for the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Reentry Court program, a joint SAMHSA/BJA-sponsored multiphase programming intervention for high-risk/high-need offenders featuring job readiness training in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and transition services during reentry, including program engagement, job placement, and treatment services continuation in the community under strict judicial supervision. Research procedures entailed 1) observation of court appearances, treatment team meetings, educational activities, and counseling sessions, 2) review of all program participant case files enabling progress tracking, and 3) in-depth and focus group interviews with program stakeholders both at Angola and post-release in community settings. Findings relate the evidence based nature and quality of services delivery to date, as well as fidelity demonstrated across major programmatic domains. Program improvement opportunities, outcome evaluation implications, and performance measures signaling early success center discussion around vanguard elements of the court and evaluation design, respectively.

Specialty courts: Who's in and are they working?

The effectiveness of specialty courts has been well established in the literature; however, previous studies have not taken into account referral biases that may exist based on offenders' race, socioeconomic status (SES), attorney status, and so forth. The current study hypothesized that (a) Participants who are racially diverse, of lower SES, and represented by privately retained attorneys would be referred less frequently to specialty courts, and (b) Participants in specialty courts would evidence reductions in missed court appointments and failed urinary analyses (UAs) compared with peers not enrolled in specialty courts. Participants (N = 274) were probationers who were involved in 1 of 3 specialty court programs (i.e., drug, driving while intoxicated [DWI], or reentry courts) or a matched sample of probationers not in specialty court services. Results indicated that, in general and with few exceptions, specialty courts did not have differential referral rates based on offender demographics including race, ethnicity, SES, or attorney status (court appointed vs. privately retained). Results examining the effectiveness of the specialty courts were mixed. Participants in the in-prison treatment program reentry court missed a greater proportion of scheduled court meetings than did their matched sample counterparts; however, the other specialty court programs did not significantly differ from their matched-sample counterparts. Participants in the DWI court had a significantly smaller proportion of UA failures to total UAs than did their matched sample peers; however, the drug court and reentry court programs did not significantly differ from their matched sample counterparts. Implications, future directions, and limitations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Team member’s perceptions on a sex offender reentry court’s failure to launch: a pilot study

ABSTRACTConvicted sex offenders released from prison compared to non-sex offenders face a unique reentry environment that is a challenging undertaking for the criminal justice and community agencies that manage them. In order to coordinate multi-agency sex offender management, some states have turned to the courts to bring together these agencies with disparate missions and responsibilities. But, not all efforts at coordination are successful. This pilot study, using qualitative retrospective interviews with stakeholders, examined a cancelled sex offender reentry court, Title 33, to uncover why this innovation failed. The thematic analysis results showed that Title 33 was unable to successfully implement many best practices, which ultimately contributed to its failure.

Reentry Courts

Reentry Courts

‘What on earth can this possibly mean’? French reentry courts and experts' risk assessment

Against the backdrop of ten years of punitive criminal justice policies, the number of cases in which risk assessments by psychiatrist experts are mandatory has considerably increased in France. Because of complex and deeply ingrained cultural factors, most experts and academics oppose the use of actuarial or other structured judgement tools, which they assimilate to these policy changes. Parallel to this, the reentry judges in charge of making release and other community sentence decisions have maintained a strong rehabilitative and desistance-focused culture. Drawing on interviews with these judges and experts, the author wanted to assess the judges' expectations of experts' reports, their opinion on actuarial tools, and how they perceived experts and their aptitude to assess risk. The study showed that French reentry judges manage to keep experts' conclusions at bay when they do not fit with their desistance goals, as they can draw upon their own expertise and that of probation services. They do not have much faith in the professionalism and methodology of experts, and would like them to better demonstrate how they reach their conclusions. Moreover, criminogenic needs assessment would be much more useful to them than static risk assessment, which raises the issue as to why this is not the French probation services' role. Reentry judges who never encountered a report which uses a structured tool are influenced by the French ideological debate; those who have read such reports are unanimously in favour of such tools. It thus seems clear that they would like experts to be more strongly guided by science, but are not yet fully aware of what this entails.

A Decoupled System: Federal Criminal Justice and the Structural Limits of Transformation

The United States federal criminal justice system is changing. Actuarial risk assessment instruments and evidence-based practices play increasingly important roles; federal reentry court programs have been implemented across the country. Yet, while promising, these developments may not be enough to stem the growth and costs of federal criminal justice. The highly politicized nature of crime and punishment may limit the potential for change. Even within the federal criminal justice system, the decoupled nature of bureaucracies, in which stakeholders make decisions for which they are not financially responsible, makes meaningful change problematic. States, however, have demonstrated that structural changes can foster efficient use of resources and improve fiscal stewardship. A number of statutory, structural, and procedural modifications could help to reorganize a continuum of fragmented bureaucracies into a cohesive federal reentry-centered system.