Last fall, The New York Times ran a story on the closing of the highly successful San Francisco Parole Reentry Court. (see “Parole and Probation Courts in San Francisco are Closing After Budget Cuts” ). The story speaks volumes about two things: (1) budget cuts to courts have real consequences and (2) there are emerging new ways that courts can reduce recidivism.

The San Francisco Parole Reentry Court was part of a pilot program that gave the San Francisco Superior Court authority to determine parole conditions, including rehabilitation and supervision as well as sanctions for parole violations. Reentry courts are not without controversy because of the reluctance of many judicial leaders to take on the supervision of parolees which is an executive function in most of the states. Despite that concern, the San Francisco reentry court had strong ­­­­support until this past summer when drastic reductions in state funding caused many California Courts to reassess their financial ability to do a lot. While all of the California courts were affected by budget cuts, San Francisco was one of the worst hit, with over 6 million dollars of debt and the closing down of 25 of the 63 courtrooms countywide. Many if not most of the court’s commissioners in San Francisco were let go.  The San Francisco Superior Court determined that the Parole Reentry court (as well as two smaller reentry courts; a juvenile reentry court and a probation reentry court) would be closed down because they did not provide a core function of the court.