A post-mortem for probation reform


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

justice reinvestmentThe Justice Reinvestment reform package died at some point late last Friday night, passing the Senate but never making it out of the Judiciary Committee in the House. This was a surprising conclusion to nearly a year of momentum building around the issue of mass probation and mass incarceration, and is indicative of the uphill battle any criminal justice reform measures face. Even in an era where conversations about prison spending are front and center, substantive reform faces the same ‘tough on crime’ hurdles it always has.

After a landmark effort to bring together all stakeholders to fix what was commonly referred to as a ‘broken’ system, six pieces of legislation emerged in the spring, with all of them eventually passing the Senate.  The compromise legislation was already almost unrecognizable from the far more progressive recommendations made to the Justice Reinvestment Working Group by the research and consulting group, the Council of State Governments. However it was ultimately a strong package that reflected a diverse array of interests and promised meaningful change and improvements.  The legislation was a testament to the leadership, hard-work, and collaboration by all branches of the government, and spear-headed by the governor, at tackling the third-rail of criminal justice reform.  The group also worked hard to incorporate communities that are so highly impacted by these issues, listening to the concerns of criminal justice advocates, the NAACP, and those directly affected.

Much of the language of the bills essentially codified goals for how to best run probation and sentencing.  The importance was just as much about demonstrating a set of ideals and priorities to all stakeholders, such as the judiciary, the public defender, and the attorney general, as mandating change. For example, a section on correctional impact statements would require an estimation on the effect on the DOC budget for any relevant future legislation. Such a change would not require legislation to implement, but the goal was to use statute to compel progress. As another example, a provision allowing police to bring a mentally ill individual to treatment instead of jail permits a decision that could be made by a cop on the street any way, but is encouraged by legally formalizing the process. As a result, the failure of the bills is even more of a two-sided coin: on the one hand, many of the goals can still be implemented even without legislation. On the other hand, the death of legislation so modest and restrained indicates a strong opposition to reform.

Had the package only contained these more rhetorical modifications, it may have passed.  But at the same time the bills also succeeded in targeting several concrete, important, and seemingly consensus changes that would have substantively reduced correctional spending. Since these provisions were the only ones that ended up receiving any push-back in committee, it seems possible they were what torpedoed the efforts.

These provisions were nowhere near as ambitious as the major policy goals laid out at the start of the process. Most notably, from the beginning of the Justice Reinvestment Working Group, there was conversation about a cap on probation length.  This ultimately morphed into an extremely restricted max for a very small set of charge types that was recommended by the Judiciary as part of the new court rules.  None of the more impactful ideas made it into the legislative package.

However, some important though widely supported changes aimed at reducing correctional costs did emerge.  These included expanding the criteria for medical parole, which would have enabled greater paroled release of sick and dying inmates. Another important change merely gave the parole board more discretion to impose shorter sentences for parole violations, as requested by the board itself.  Another provision created a more formal process for the judiciary to choose to divert criminal cases as it saw fit, another very conditional and discretionary form of reform.  Perhaps the most progressive bill, Senate Bill 2935, would have reduced the maximum sentences for certain assaults and larcenies by creating a tiered system based on severity. While judges and attorneys naturally take severity into account during sentencing, this legislation would have concretely capped the amount of probation or prison time for less severe versions of the crimes.

In some ways, the decision by the House to not pass the legislation leaves the state, at the moment, back where it was in April, 2015, after the forum on mass incarceration at Roger Williams Law School.  At that forum, the members of the entire state criminal justice apparatus spent a day learning about mass incarceration.  The hope was each member would feel emboldened to use their discretion to provide a check to the tough on crime mentality that has driven us to this point.  With the effort and commitment to reform heralded by the governor, supported by the DOC and Judiciary, and passed by the Senate, that imperative remains stronger than ever.

Symposium on mass incarceration confronts challenges, unites system


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Not in more than a decade has Rhode Island confronted the reality of mass incarceration as unflinchingly, as ambitiously and as uncomfortably as it did last Friday.

Sounding the Alarm on Mass Incarceration,” a day-long symposium at Roger Williams Law School, drew hundreds of the most prominent and integral members of the Rhode Island criminal justice system to face that very system’s flaws head on. Although the fire has been raging for some time, it was retired Superior Court Judge Judith Savage, the event’s logistical and spiritual leader, that struck the alarm.  Directors and staff from all relevant public agencies, including most of Rhode Island’s Judges, crossed from opposite sides of the aisle, the courtroom, and the prison walls themselves, to sit side by side. The event combined the gravity of a government planning committee with the openness of a public forum.

mass incarceration

The symposium looked into Rhode Island’s prison problem in the same week that US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that the “corrections system is one of the most overlooked, misunderstood institutions we have in our entire government.”  US Attorney General Holder himself recently said, “Too many people go to too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement reason.”

In accord, the local event’s two expert keynote speakers, Bryan Stevenson and Marc Mauer, began the morning with the conclusion that our overuse of prison at its core wastes money combating crime ineffectually and inhumanely. Despite broad consensus that mass incarceration is an American crisis, this was still a radical and controversial assertion in a room filled with the very people who daily are tasked in Rhode Island with sending people to prison.

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, an organization which spearheaded the recent federal reform of crack-cocaine sentencing disparities, presented the room with a stark set of statistics and assertions. In the US, incarceration rates have increased by 500 percent since the 1980’s. We now incarcerate people at five to eight times more than other developed countries. One in three black men will go to prison in their life times. He reviewed a recent study by the National Research Council that concluded that while increased prison rates decrease crime, the “magnitude of this crime reduction is likely small.” From the same report he identified a simple set of causes: a rise in the chance of going to prison upon arrest and an increase in sentence length.  To reverse the trend, these rates must be reduced.

Bryan Stevenson
Bryan Stevenson.

While Mauer deconstructed the crisis with statistics, keynote speaker Bryan Stevenson outlined four emotional and psychological challenges: get proximate, confront racism, remain hopeful, and brave discomfort.  Fittingly, these were the very challenges faced by the audience throughout the day.

Stevenson is the director of the Equal Justice Initiative, an agency based in Alabama that represents poor, wrongfully convicted, or inadequately represented defendants.  His TED talk “We need to talk about justice,” has been viewed over 2 million times. He spoke of hearing a death row prisoner sing while being abused. He told of hugging a child that had been sentenced to adult prison for killing his mother’s abuser as the child confessed to Stevenson of being brutally raped in prison. And he recalled being told “I just love you for fighting for me,” by a severely disabled man about to be executed. A national hero amidst the carnage of our penal system, his stories were at once heart-breaking and inspiring.

One of Stevenson’s themes was the need to confront racism, and the ugly facts of racial disparity within RI’s criminal justice system were dramatically apparent throughout the event.  At the end of the day, former Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Francis Darigan asked the audience to look at our own system for any racial bias.  This sort of examination is extremely challenging, and Stevenson provided a vision of what success would look like.  He compared the legacy of slavery in the United States to the legacy of the Holocaust in Germany. Once in Germany, he was told by a room of lawyers and politicians that Germany could never conceive of inflicting the death penalty after gassing millions in the Holocaust.

“And I think about that because I would be outraged today if I saw the nation state of Germany putting people in gas chambers, and I’d certainly be outraged if they were disproportionately Jewish,” said Stevenson, drawing a powerful comparison to America’s prison system.

Stevenson argued that slavery was not an economic system, it was an ideology of dehumanization, an ideology that, unlike in Germany, has never been purged in the United States.  A successful response to racism in America, he envisioned, would look like Germany’s response to the holocaust.

In addition, “We must get proximate to the challenges we want to solve,” Stevenson exhorted the audience, telling of how his passion and insight into this issue came from getting to know people face to face.  The power of proximity emerged that very day, as the audience heard directly from two men who had spent much of their lives behind bars.

In most similar events, speakers with a criminal record are labeled at the time of introduction–no matter their other accomplishments they are introduced with the distinction of ‘formerly incarcerated,’ making it clear to the audience that they are on stage because they were once in prison. Instead, refreshingly, James Monteiro and Luis Estrada were introduced with the accolades that they have earned outside the walls, accomplishments that would have themselves justified a place at the microphone.

James Monteiro is a published spoken word poet, the founder and director of the Billy Taylor House, a community organization that supports young adults in Providence’s Mount Hope neighborhood, and the Director of Prison Programs for College Unbound.  He also spent ten years in prison in Baltimore. In a discussion moderated by Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson of the US Court of Appeals, Monteiro spoke of peering through a tiny prison window as his son left a prison visit in tears, saying he decided at that point to stop blaming others for his situation and to take responsibility.  “It had always been your fault,” he said, pointing at the audience.  After that, Monteiro said, “Education changed my life.” He earned an associate’s degree while incarcerated, a bachelor’s degree after release, and now runs a prison education program.

Luis Estrada’s journey to the stage was nothing short of unbelievable.  He earned several degrees while serving 22 years in prison for robbery, won a motion in the United States Supreme Court from prison, and was offered a job by former Providence Mayor Angel Taveras’s law-firm prior to leaving prison.  Since his release ten years ago, he has dedicated his life to running political campaigns and assisting reentry and addiction recovery work across the state while at the same pursuing a successful career as Office Manager at the law firm Sullivan, Whitehead, and Delucca.

The unique juxtaposition of the day was highlighted when Estrada commented, “Judge Bourcier sentenced me to seventy years for my first offense,” and an audience of judges nodded in recognition of their former colleague’s actions.

The rationality for Rhode Island’s current long probation sentences was called into question by the experiences of Estrada, who will be on probation until he is 83 years old.  He remarked that on the way to the event that day he had to call to report that he would be leaving the state as the highways took him through Massachusetts.  Later that day, an audience member commented during Q&A that “There is no reason these two men are still on probation.”  While the group struggled to identify specific solutions, that point seemed like it must have been dramatically clear to all policymakers in the room.  Pieces of legislation to reduce RI’s long probation sentences have been considered in the past (here and here), and Estrada’s experience reminded everyone of the need for such efforts.

“Injustice prevails where hopelessness persists,” proclaimed Stevenson in his opening remarks.  Despite the overwhelming challenges confronted by the members of the audience, some sort of optimism pervaded the day.  Estrada and Monteiro, convicts turned model citizens, certainly served as beacons for hope. However, Teny Gross, director of the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence, pointed out that Estrada and Monteiro are extraordinary.  “You have to be extraordinary just to live a normal life,” said Gross, describing Estrada and Monteiro’s quest to move from poverty to a middle class world.

Several panelists pointed to ongoing programs that offer paths to reform. Molly Baldwin, director of ROCA, stated that her organization has reduced recidivism by 65 percent amongst high risk youth.  ROCA is a nationally renowned organization in Massachusetts that piloted, amongst other things, a Social Impact Bond funding model.  In this “Pay for Success” design, a venture capital firm provides the up-front money to help the state invest in services to prevent crime and re-incarceration, and the state only pays them back if the project succeeds.  This funding structure allows the state to begin the process of retooling its criminal justice system from a mass incarceration model to a prevention model.

An array of current local efforts were also discussed.  John Houston of Justice Assistance and Brad Brockmann of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, discussed their collaboration to improve awaiting trial discharge planning in order to stop addiction and mental-health fueled reoffending.  Solangel Rodriguez discussed OpenDoor’s efforts to help felons find work.  Teny Gross described his institute’s work preventing violent crime.  Assistant Attorney General Stacey Veroni referenced the RI Drug Court, the RI Veteran’s Court, and Justice Assistance’s program to divert into community supervision those that would otherwise be held without bail.  Chief Public Defender Mary McElroy discussed legislation to “turn off the spigot” by reclassifying several petty misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct, to civil offenses.

But the largest reform conversation was about probation. “Mass probation” is a nationwide phenomenon, but it is especially true here. We have the fourth highest rate of people on probation and are one of three states with the lowest possible standard of proof for revocation hearings.  One in 34 adult white men are on probation in this state, one in six adult black men.  In complete unison, each agency agreed that mass probation was a problem that should be tackled.

Department of Corrections Director A. T. Wall said the number of probationers far exceeds the capacity of his staff to appropriately supervise them, saying that officers must “triage” cases to deal with the overflow.  He remarked that in 2007, policy makers had come together to avert a prison overcrowding problem.  That process resulted in groundbreaking good-time legislation and a marked reduction in the prison population with little political fallout or crime ramifications (in fact, as the DOC data showed, recidivism rates actually decreased slightly from 2004 to 2010).  That 2007 discussion also included several ideas regarding probation reform, which in combination with the ideas discussed at the forum, could serve as a starting point for a renewed push.  Wall called for a followup proactive discussion to solve the probation crisis, and his concerns were reiterated by Veroni, McElroy, Colonel O’Donnell, the Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police, and several members of the audience.

Laura Pisaturo, the new Parole Board Chair, also stated that any changes would be difficult.  “We must have the courage to implement best practices,” she said, “There are no easy solutions.”

Though participants did not come to a consensus on what the hard solutions would be, they made substantial progress for a single day’s work.  What happens next remains to be seen, but, “I’m not going anywhere,” vowed Judge Savage in her closing, offering a promise and a challenge to the audience she had brought together.

Sen. Whitehouse and how to deal with prison reform in America


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

sheldon-whitehouseOn Monday a group of people will sit down at Open Doors and talk about Senator Whitehouse’s bill to create a federal parole system.

The bill is hailed as a “prison reform bill,” and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee; a clear indication of the shifting tide on political ideology over the past few years.  This ebbing of the ‘Tough on Crime’ rhetoric includes many people who were bipartisan architects of the prison industry itself, and jibes with Attorney General Eric Holder’s public desire to make the system “more just.”  Of course, this indicates he believes it is currently less just than it should be.  The voices you have heard over the past several years talking “reform” are the result of those of us who have been peeing in the pool long enough to warm it up so everybody can get in.  Even if just a toe, they’re getting in.

lockedup_pieThis prison reform bill is quite overstated however, and falls well short of what the public is truly calling for- something Senator Whitehouse appeared to be going for with his former bill to create a commission of experts that would propose a national overhaul.  The Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2014 will have no impact on state prisoners, where six times more men, women and children are serving prison terms than under federal law.  Furthermore, it will have no impact on the 722,000 people currently sitting in a local jail- a snapshot of the 12 million who cycle through that system.  Its not easy for the feds to control state crime and punishment under the law, but like anything else: the feds could put strings attached to all the financial subsidies of a bursting prison industry.

What’s in it for Rhode Island?

The bill will impact a few Rhode Islanders and tens of thousands of people nationally who will now gain an opportunity at parole, but what the bill deems “Prerelease Custody.”  They can do this by engaging in what we once considered educational and rehabilitative programming, but the bill deems “Recidivism Reduction” programming.  This wordsmithing is no different than calling oneself a “Pre-Owned Car Dealer” (which is what they do, these days).  To assess the merits, it is important not to be distracted by shiny new things.

The Good Time credits earned by federal inmates are not for everybody, and they are not time off one’s sentence the way they commonly are applied to state custody.  Furthermore, parolees in halfway houses and on electronic monitoring pay for their own incarceration, sometimes to their own financial ruin.  Thus, this is not a handout by any means yet does pose a possibility for the prison system to generate additional revenues from the predominantly low-income and struggling families trying to rebuild a life after prison.

Slavery by another name: Prison Labor

The bill prioritizes an expansion of prison labor, viewed as a form of rehabilitation and method of reducing recidivism.  It is impossible to discount the value of having a prison job for the prisoner, even at 12 cents per hour of income.  However, it is difficult not to think of one ominous phrase “Arbeit Macht Frei” infamously posted over Camp Auschwitz.  Work makes you free.  A prison worker gets time off their sentence, and this bill calls for the Bureau of Prisons to review in what ways the prison labor force can be used to make goods currently manufactured overseas, so as not to cut into the free labor pool.

The use of prison labor is controversial, to say the least.  Some critics have called for a repeal of the 13th Amendment, which provides for slavery of anyone convicted of a crime.  This provision allowed for the massive “convict lease labor” that built a considerable amount of American infrastructure after slavery was abolished.  The legal framework that is said to have freed Black America also allowed for people to be rounded up and placed, fundamentally, back where, essentially, Black America had been liberated from.

Today, prison labor exploiters capitalize upon incarcerated people’s desire to stay busy rather than sit on a bunk all day.  This sort of macro-management does not take into account the relevance of a worker’s feelings.  People in the system are treated with the callousness of lab rats, which may be all fine in the punishment phase, yet counterproductive when doing anti-recidivism, rehabilitative, or reentry programming.  Does Johnny have a job, a home, or health care?  Check.  The assessments never ask if Johnny is happy.

Reentry programming still being run by those who have never reentered

The Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act also focuses on reviewing current reentry programs and developing federal pilot programs based on the best practices.  This is an admirable goal and an obvious step to take.  The challenge is to correctly assess best practices, and then implement what might feel controversial.  For example, many policies prevent formerly incarcerated people (FIP) from affiliating with one another, and yet this bill references mentorships.  It is likely that the drafters visualized a well-intentioned citizen with no criminal involvement and demonstrated success showing the way to someone getting out of prison.  Yet such a person has very little to offer in the sense of mentorship.  An FIP often grows frustrated with social workers, mentors, and probation officers who feign to understand the pressures of post-prison life.  The best mentors are role models, and in this scenario will be FIPs.

This legislation also puts a considerable focus on risk assessment models, as though they are a new pathway to success.  However, these tools have been in use for decades, and nowhere in the bill is there a call to study their individual accuracies.  Rhode Island, for example, uses the LSI-R scoring system.  The irony of in-custody assessments, that take all of forty five minutes to conduct, then a few minutes per year to update, are how a high-risk prisoner can be a low-risk free person.  Conformity in prison does not translate to the attributes required for successful living in free society.  Furthermore, an antagonistic interviewer will likely invoke anti-social responses from a someone, thus along with their past criminal activity, setting the foundation for an entire course of reentry opportunity.

The fundamental flaw in many prison-related programs, particularly after the Bush Administration’s Second Chance Act, is the lack of involvement of affected people.  The roundtable at Open Doors consists of their director Sol Rodriguez, DOC Director A.T. Wall, chiefs of the Providence and State police forces, the federal and state public defenders, Crossroads (a homeless shelter), and possibly someone(s) that Open Doors has been working with.   The stakeholder list is upside down.  Law enforcement does not have a stake in my successful reentry.  In fact, they have a stake in my failed reentry- so yes, they are a stakeholder, but in a perverse manner.  After being punished by a group of people, be it months or decades, there is no trust in place for the punisher to then be the healer.  For the government to believe otherwise only underscores these misconceptions and miscommunications of trying to reposition the pawns on the board.

The second class citizens

The public defender and Open Doors are not run by people who have “been there, done that.”  When efforts like this use those agencies to speak for a disempowered population, it only further delegitimizes people with criminal histories, only furthers the second-class citizenship, and continues to render us without a voice.  Rather than confronting any counter-narrative an FIP presents to policy reform, we are often disregarded as unruly, unmanageable, or uncivilized.  Yet we are the ones seeing our selves and our family members dropping off the map, figuratively and literally, every day.  Reducing recidivism and increasing public safety can only be done by a full restoration of people to being equal and valued members of society, especially the overwhelming number who are (on paper) “citizens” of America.

Efforts like these are akin to watching someone fish without bait.  As expensive a boat, pole, and hook they use… they just don’t realize why the fish don’t simply leap onto the hook.

The Roundtable will be held at 10:30-11:30 am at Open Doors, 485 Plainfield St., in Providence.  There is no open mic, but interested community members might find ways to urge Senator Whitehouse to become even more bold on the Senate floor. 

Decriminalizing Marijuana Rally Today at State House

I’m writing to follow up on Becky’s post. When you watch the video you’ll learn that Rhode Island currently spends 40.5 million dollars annually policing, and adjudicating and incarcerating the users of marijuana. We could save 11 million of that through decriminalizing possession of marijuana under 1 oz, and instead treat addiction while preserving families and communities.

link to decriminalization video

Hope to see you Tuesday, in the State House rotunda, 3:30 pm.