Reentry courts are specialized courts that help reduce recidivism and improve public safety through the use of judicial oversight. The responsibilities generally assigned to reentry courts include: (1) review offenders' reentry progress and problems: (2) order offenders to participate in various treatment and reintegration programs; (3) use drug and alcohol testing and other checks to monitor compliance; (4) apply graduated sanctions to offenders who do not comply with treatment requirements; (5) provide modest incentive rewards for sustained clean drug tests and other positive behaviors.

The traditional responsibility of the court to an offender ends when a defendant is sentenced by a judge. Judges typically have no role in the broad array of activities that carry out the terms of the sentence, the preparation of the offender for release, or the transition of the offender back into the community. Nevertheless, a combination of trends in sentencing, incarceration, and post-release supervision is affording the opportunity for courts to become the principal force behind these activities. For instance, widely recognized increases in incarceration rates over the past 20 years have led to record numbers of prisoners. Accompanying the increases in incarceration are increases in the amount of time served, primarily due to truth-in-sentencing laws and the shift away from discretionary release. Despite more prisoners being incarcerated and serving longer sentences, the availability of treatment programs in prisons is questionable, and program participation among prisoners has been declining over the past decade (Lynch and Sabol, 2001). Finally, the emphasis on supervision over treatment is also evident outside of correctional institutions, with post-release supervision officers facing increasingly higher caseloads yet lower per capita spending (Petersilia, 1999).

These factors have given rise to a new form of jurisprudence in which the judge is actively involved in overseeing the transition of the offender. The most mature example of this new form of court is the drug court, where the judge manages a caseload of drug-involved offenders. Based on the drug court model, this approach to adjudication has been extended to domestic violence, family treatment, guns, DWI, and reentry. A key component in this type of court is that the court hold the judicial authority to which offenders respond positively. In addition, the frequent appearances before the court with the offer of assistance, coupled with the knowledge of predictable and parsimonious consequences for failure, assist the offender in the reentry process.

A reentry court can take various forms. Two examples include cases defined courts and stand alone reentry courts. A case-defined reentry court can is where a sentencing judge can retain jurisdiction over a case during the entire life of the sentence. Alternatively, a reentry court can be established as a stand-alone court where the court maintains an exclusive docket of reentry cases. In either model, it is expected that the judge would actively engage correctional administrators overseeing the period of imprisonment preceding release.

The emergence of reentry courts is a relatively new phenomenon. As a result very little research exists to demonstrate its effectiveness with adult or juvenile populations returning to the community. One study of adult prisoners in the Harlem Parole Reentry Court (HPRC) produced mixed findings (Farole, 2003). HPRC was established in 2001 in New York City as a pilot demonstration project in East Harlem. The program's purpose was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a collaborative, community-based approach to managing prisoner reentry. The preliminary evaluation of the Reentry Court covering the first 20 months of operations (June 2001 through January 2003) found that overall reconviction rates were not significantly reduced after 1 year. However, results indicate a significant reduction in convictions on non-drug related offenses.

The dearth of research on reentry courts prompted OJP to announce a "call for concept papers" from jurisdictions "willing to test the concept of a reentry court." Of the 21 proposals received from jurisdictions throughout the country, OJP selected nine. These nine sites include: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia. One of the sites (West Virginia) targets juvenile offenders. The sites were responsible for developing strategies to improve the tracking and supervision of offenders upon release, prepare communities to address public safety concerns, and provide the services necessary to help offenders reconnect with their families and the community. Of the nine sites, all but one were able to reach operational status. Among the eight sites that implemented programs, seven are still operational. Most sites offer comprehensive services to their program participants, with case management provided either through a specialized case manager or the supervision officer. Commonly provided services include mental health counseling, physical health care, substance abuse treatment, family counseling, employment and vocational assistance, educational assistance, and housing assistance (Lindquist, Hardison and Lattimore, 2003). Research on the sites is ongoing.

References

Search for Reentry Court Programs