Title: NIJ Journal #240. Series: NIJ Journal Author: NIJ Published: National Institute of Justice, July 1999 Subject(s): Criminal justice system 60 pages 140,000 bytes ------------------------------- This is an ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its graphic format, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users). ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Journal #240 July 1999 Putting Ex-offenders Back to Work by Peter Finn A New Role for Courts? by David Rottman and Pamela Casey Foundation Funding: Some Issues to Consider by Kate Chieco and At-A-Glance: o Law Enforcement Stress o Comparing U.S. and U.K. Arrestee Drug Use ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noel Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a centralized national clearinghouse of criminal justice information, is sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs agencies and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Registered users of NCJRS receive the NIJ Journal and NCJRS Catalog free. To become a registered user, write NCJRS User Services, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call 800-851-3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Visit the NCRJS World Wide Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. JR000240 National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director The NIJ Journal is published by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, to announce the Institute's policy-relevant research results and initiatives. The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. For more information about NIJ activities, products, and publications, visit NIJ on the World Wide Web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. NIJ Journal Editorial Board David Boyd Deputy Director for the Office of Science and Technology Sally T. Hillsman Deputy Director for the Office of Research and Evaluation John L. Schwarz Deputy Director for the Office of Development and Communications Christy A. Visher Science Advisor to the Director Saralyn Borrowman Cheryl A. Crawford A. Trent DePersia James O. Finckenauer Mary G. Graham Sharla P. Rausch Gerald P. Soucy Laura Winterfield Managing Editors Brenner Brown, Palladian Partners, Inc. Jolene Hernon, National Institute of Justice ------------------------------- Director's Message The past several years have seen growing recognition of the value of partnerships that work to solve community problems. Today, hard working teams composed of representatives from community groups, the private sector, policy groups, the criminal justice system, and the research community are a significant feature of the criminal justice landscape. NIJ's grant portfolio reflects our strong support of research based on partnerships; since 1994, we have reached out and significantly strengthened and expanded relationships between NIJ and other Federal agencies, private foundations, and researchers and practitioners at the State and local levels. The articles in this issue of the NIJ Journal highlight three important partnerships: (1) corrections agencies, employers, and social services agencies in the community; (2) courts and the public they serve; and (3) criminal justice practitioners and private foundations. Peter Finn's article on employment for ex-offenders describes job placement programs in four States--Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington--and their efforts to provide clients not only job placements, but also basic education classes, life skills training, and support services. Their efforts were built upon partnerships among nonprofit organizations, departments of corrections and other public agencies, employers, and, in one case, members of the clergy. The relationships have flourished as the partners worked toward the common goals of reducing recidivism and the costs of housing growing prison populations. In their article on problem-solving courts, David Rottman and Pamela Casey discuss a new role for courts: that of becoming more responsive to the needs of the community members they serve. This concept--known as therapeutic jurisprudence--engages the court in a collaborative process with local and State agencies to seek opportunities to promote therapeutic outcomes for individuals. Kate Chieco describes a third partnership: that of criminal justice practitioners with private foundations. Chieco points out that while Government --funding supports much criminal justice reform, private foundations are important partners in jump-starting innovative community-based efforts. The article describes recent trends in foundation funding for criminal justice initiatives and offers suggestions on how to identify potential partners in the philanthropic sector and secure their support. Successful partnerships can achieve safer, more livable environments and a more effective criminal justice system for all members of the community. NIJ is committed to fostering partnerships and will continue to feature examples of innovative and successful relationships in future issues of the NIJ Journal. Jeremy Travis Director ------------------------------- CONTENTS Features Job Placement for Offenders: A Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Correctional Costs--Peter Finn Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts --David Rottman and Pamela Casey Private Funding for Criminal Justice Initiatives: What You Should Know About the Grantseeking Process--Kate Chieco At-a-glance The Public Health and Law Enforcement Stress International Drug Use: Comparing British and American Arrestees Departments New & Noteworthy Events Solicitations & Awards NIJ in the Journals Job Placement for Offenders: No intervention, training, or diversion program has consistently reduced recividism across the board. But the programs in this article show great promise. Author Peter Finn describes four efforts that have found success and discusses their differences and similarities. See "Job Placement for Offenders," page 2. Cover photo: Powell Photography, Inc. Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Therapeutic jurisprudence claims that attending to both individuals and the issues in a case leads to more effective dispositions. It asks courts to consider ways to enhance positive outcomes without subordinating due process and other justice values. See "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts," page 12. Photo: Scott Bhla, West County Times ------------------------------- Job Placement for Offenders: A Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Correctional Costs by Peter Finn Many newly released offenders have difficulty reintegrating into society. They may have a substance abuse problem or need a place to live and appropriate clothing; some may need to deal with the bureaucracy of a foster care system to regain custody of their children. Finding permanent employment is perhaps the most common obstacle for many ex-offenders, and one that researchers say may be associated with the chances that they will return to criminal behavior.[1] But offenders frequently face several barriers to finding permanent, unsubsidized employment after release: they often lack occupational skills, have little or no experience seeking employment, and confront employers who are uneasy about hiring individuals with criminal records. A number of programs across the country are preparing inmates and parolees for employment and searching for a job by providing intensive educational and life skills services, social support, and postemployment followup, in addition to traditional job preparation and placement assistance. These programs may have a much better chance of reducing recidivism than previous efforts of the 1960's and 1970's, which emphasized job placement more than job readiness and did not address underlying problems common to many offenders, such as substance abuse, mental illness, or lack of affordable housing.[2] (See "A Snapshot of Offenders, Employment, and Recidivism.") Some of these programs are relatively new, while others have been in existence for more than 25 years. This article describes four such programs: the Safer Foundation in Chicago, the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New York City, Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) in Texas, and the Corrections Clearinghouse (CCH) in Washington. Although each program is unique, they all share programmatic features that can be replicated--basic services involving life skills training, job preparation skills, job placement, social support, and follow-up assistance. However, the diversity in the programs' context and administrative features offers a variety of alternatives for other jurisdictions to consider. Chicago's Safer Foundation Safer Foundation is a nonprofit organization (not a foundation, as the name implies) headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 1972 by two former priests, the original program received a U.S. Department of Justice grant to provide vocational training to prison inmates and to help them get into unions and private industry after being released. By 1997, Safer had expanded to nearly 200 staff members in five additional locations in two States, including a State work release center and the Cook County Jail. The Program. Most of Safer's clients are referred from probation and parole officers, and they receive basic educational and life skills classes and job placement assistance. According to Ron Tonn, Safer's Assistant Vice President for Programming, the program's mission "isn't to get ex-offenders a job but to provide avenues for them to let go of the criminal life and buy into the mainstream; getting and keeping a job is a means to that end." Safer incorporates several unusual features. Under contract to the State, Safer runs the 200-bed Crossroads Community Correctional Center, the largest of four Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) work release centers in the city. Although security is a paramount concern, the Center's major focus is on programs and service delivery, an approach that is difficult to pursue in a traditional DOC-run facility. During orientation week, residents attend nine 90-minute minicourses on such topics as money management, job interviewing techniques, and stress management. Between these courses, Crossroads offers a basic reading and math skills course that uses a small-group peer learning approach in which groups of three to five students help each other with the aid of a professional instructor. Safer also runs PACE Institute, or Program Activities for Correctional Education, a private school in Chicago's 10,000-bed Cook County Jail. Each semester, PACE provides 75-90 pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates with daytime basic education and life skills courses. The basic skills course at the main Safer facility, open to 16- to 21-year-old ex-offenders, is designed primarily to prepare clients to continue their education after Safer. In addition to basic skills development, job developers teach students to complete job applications and prepare for job interviews. During and after the course, a job developer helps students find employment. Safer makes extensive use of trained, closely supervised volunteers, enabling the program to provide services and secure expertise it could not otherwise afford. Under the supervision of a full-time paid coordinator, 200 volunteers provide one-on-one literacy tutoring during the evening as part of the PACE Institute, while 65 volunteers facilitate group discussions at Crossroads Community Correctional Center on topics ranging from parenting skills to goal setting. Evidence of Safer's Effectiveness. Safer Foundation's data suggest the program has been effective in improving clients' basic skills. In-house data show that, for the program year 1995-96, all 72 students who completed Safer's youth basic skills program improved their scores on the General Educational Development (GED) test by an average of 12.5 percent.[3] Safer clients' average GED score upon intake was 189, which is approximately equivalent to grade level 5 or 6. By the end of the program, 34 percent of participants scored above 225 and 64 percent scored above 200. Participants' overall average score increased to 213. Of 94 inmates who attended the basic reading and math skills course offered in the work release center that Safer runs, 91 percent improved their basic skills test scores. The improvement for all participants was an average of 16 percent, while 12 percent improved their scores by at least 25 percent. Safer's figures for job placement are particularly significant because the program changed its definition of "placement" in 1996 to include--and to claim government reimbursement for--only participants who remain on the job for at least 30 days. The program helped 1,102 of the 2,759 participants enrolled in the program find work during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996. Using the program's 30-day placement criterion, 650, or 59 percent of those clients who found jobs, officially qualify as placements. Safer has begun to track clients' work histories for 10 months after they have found a job. Among a sample of clients who remained employed for 30 days, 81 percent were still employed (with the same or another employer) after 2 months, 75 percent after 3 months, and 57 percent after 9 months. Of 72 participants completing Safer's basic skills program for youth, 67 percent entered school, vocational training, or employment, with 58 percent of these participants maintaining their placements after 180 days. Ninety-nine percent of participants who completed the program had not been convicted of a new crime after 180 days. Cost Implications. Safer Foundation's 1996 budget was $8,506,142. More than 6 percent of the funds--just over $510,000--came from private contributions and grants, with the rest provided by State and local governments. After excluding the costs of running Crossroads Community Corrections Center and PACE Institute, and other expenses unrelated to the program's job placement services, Safer's cost per participant placed was $1,369 in 1996; its cost per participant placed who remained employed for at least 30 days was $1,956. New York City's Center for Employment Opportunities In the late 1970's, the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit organization in New York City, established what became CEO because many newly released offenders were being rearrested, usually for petty property offenses. At the same time, it appeared that offenders who were able to stay straight were finding day-labor jobs in their own neighborhoods. In 1978, Vera decided to try to develop work crews that could offer day-labor employment in neighborhoods where offenders were living and that lacked these types of jobs. Within a year, Vera added vocational development services because work crew members wanted better jobs and because social problems, such as the lack of health insurance and housing, were making it difficult for many of them to continue crew work. Over time, the program's paramount goal changed to providing ex-offenders with permanent, unsubsidized, higher paying employment, with the work crews seen as an indispensable means of achieving that objective. Vera launched CEO as an independent organization in 1996. The Program. CEO assigns ex-offenders--two-thirds of whom are mandated to join the program as a condition of release from the State's shock incarceration ("boot camp") program--to day-labor work crews. Assigning participants to crews soon after they have been released from prison provides an opportunity to capitalize on the discipline they have acquired in prison before it wears off. The crews provide participants with structure and activity, good work habits, daily income, and a test of their readiness for placement in a permanent job. In mid-1996, 40 crews with more than 200 participants were operating each day in more than 25 locations in all 5 city boroughs. Crews operate from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to midnight. Assignments, paid for by city and State agencies, include providing custodial services to court buildings, painting dormitories and classrooms in schools, providing roadside cleanup along piers and State highways, maintaining nature trails, and performing general grounds-keeping. The program pays crew members at the end of each day in order to provide them with immediate spending money, reinforce dependability, and promote self-esteem. Field supervisors coordinate the required work with the customer's facility manager and train participants in the work requirements. Participants spend their first 4 days at CEO--Monday through Thursday-- attending all-day job readiness classes designed especially for difficult-to-employ populations. On Friday, participants receive a 90-minute orientation to the work crews and meet with their assigned employment counselor to develop an employment plan. Each participant's counselor then picks a day of the week when, instead of working on a crew, the participant comes to the office to pursue job leads the counselor has developed between meetings. Although CEO has placed some participants with large corporations, according to Tani Mills, who runs CEO's vocational development activities, "We have found a niche with small and medium-sized companies: large companies have their own human resource departments, so they don't need CEO so much . . .. Besides, many participants can't handle the anonymity of a big company." Evidence of CEO's Effectiveness. CEO annually placed an average of 766 participants in permanent jobs between 1992 and 1996, for an average placement rate of 70 percent. Approximately 75 percent of placed participants were still on the same job after 1 month, with 60 percent still on the job after 3 months. Half of those who remained on the job for 1 month were still on the same job after 6 months. In 1996, the average hourly wage of placed participants was nearly 50 percent higher than the minimum wage at the time ($4.25). Nearly two-thirds of the jobs provided full benefits. Cost Implications. Program revenue in fiscal year 1996-97 at CEO totaled just over $7.4 million. The program's income in fiscal year 1996 included $1.9 million from government agencies for vocational development (life skills classes and job placement services) and $5.6 million from customers who hired work crews. In 1996, CEO covered all but $416,000 of its work crew expenses with revenue from work crew customers. As a result, in calculating CEO's cost to taxpayers, it is necessary to add only the unreimbursed cost of the work crews to the cost of vocational development activities, for a total of $2,316,800. With an average of 766 placements per year, the average cost per placement to the taxpayer is $3,025. Texas's Project RIO Texas's Project RIO, which started as a two-city pilot program in 1985, has become the most ambitious State government program in the Nation devoted to job placement for ex-offenders. Operating out of the Texas Workforce Commission, RIO's 106 staff members in 62 offices provide job placement services to nearly 16,000 parolees (representing 85 percent of all releasees) each year in 92 Texas towns and cities. As with Safer Foundation and CEO, RIO traces its origins to the need to reduce recidivism. In 1984, the head of the parole division and the chief of job service operations at the Texas Workforce Commission persuaded the Governor to use some of his discretionary money to provide specialized employment services to ex-offenders as a means of keeping them out of prison. As a result, the Governor used Federal funding to pilot test two collaborative experiments in Dallas and Houston. When an independent evaluation suggested that Project RIO was reducing recidivism, the Texas legislature agreed in 1987 to fund the program from general revenues and to expand the program to Texas's five other largest cities. In 1991, the legislature increased RIO funding still further to include parolees and inmates in the rest of the State. The Program. Project RIO provides services to the entire State through full-service offices in each of Texas's seven largest cities. In smaller municipalities, one half-time to three full-time staff work out of local Texas Workforce Commission offices, while in rural communities "itinerant" services providers travel periodically from the local commission offices to spend a day or two a week in various locations. Like Safer Foundation, Project RIO also serves offenders while they are in prison. By providing funds to the existing prison school district, RIO offers inmates life skills classes, individual job readiness counseling, and help assembling birth certificates, Social Security cards, school transcripts, and other needed documents so that they can begin looking for employment the moment they are released. Project RIO's prison activities also serve an important outreach function by publicizing RIO's availability to help every paroled inmate. On release day, RIO staff give every group of departing inmates a 30-minute orientation to the program, including a card with the RIO hotline, which generates approximately 150 calls per month. Project RIO staff also have arranged for a number of employers who have hired RIO participants to spend a day in prison talking to inmates about job opportunities for ex-offenders. Project RIO's services to released offenders include the standard combination of assessment, placement, and followup. Full-service offices also provide clients with a resource room that includes computerized job listings, telephone books, and a telephone. Evidence of Project RIO's Effectiveness. During fiscal year 1995, Project RIO served 15,366 parolees, representing about 40 percent of all ex-offenders and 47 percent of all parolees released from prison that year. Almost 74 percent of clients in 1995--11,371 parolees--found employment at an average wage that was 21 percent above the minimum wage. Project RIO clients appear to be much more likely to get jobs than are ex-offenders who do not participate in the program. An evaluation of RIO found that, after a 1-year followup, 69 percent of program participants found employment, compared with 36 percent of non-RIO parolees, even though both groups of ex-offenders had similar demographic characteristics and risk of reoffending. The evaluators also found that minority ex-offenders did especially well in RIO: 66 percent found employment, compared with only 30 percent of African Americans and 36 percent of Hispanics who were not enrolled in the program.[4] When it comes to recidivism, employed ex-offenders who found jobs through RIO had reduced recidivism rates, compared with unemployed ex-offenders who did not enroll in RIO. During the year after release-- when most recidivism occurs[5]--48 percent of RIO high-risk clients were rearrested, compared with 57 percent of non-RIO parolees; 23 percent were reincarcerated, compared with 38 percent of non-RIO parolees. Project RIO has been of greatest benefit to ex-offenders who were considered the most likely to reoffend.[6] (See "Rearrests and Reincarcerations by Risk of Recidivism and RIO Participation.") It is possible that parolees who were most likely to succeed on their own were the ones who took advantage of RIO's services. However, the evaluators found that there were few differences between RIO participants and nonparticipants and that the differences were unlikely to have influenced the findings.[7] Cost Implications. In 1995, the Texas legislature provided Project RIO with $15 million for 2 years. Of this, $4.69 million was funneled through the Texas Workforce Com-mission to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for its prison-and parole-related RIO contributions, and $2.9 million was paid to the State prison's school district. This left the Workforce Commission with approximately $4.1 million per year for running Project RIO. The program spent $361 in 1995 for each of the 11,371 clients who were placed in jobs. Washington State's Corrections Clearinghouse The decline of the Seattle area airplane manufacturing industry in the early 1970's resulted in fewer job opportunities and a less optimistic outlook for newly released inmates seeking employment. The Washington State legislature responded by providing funding for the Employment Security Department to establish an Ex-Offender Work Orientation Program to help ex-offenders find jobs. Based on that effort's success, the Employment Security Department and the Department of Corrections formalized their relationship in 1976 by establishing the Corrections Clearinghouse (CCH). Over time, CCH's original mission--to coordinate job search activities for adult offenders being released from prison--expanded to include providing services within correctional facilities and serving juvenile offenders. In 1997, CCH employed 23 professional staff members. The Program. The Corrections Clearinghouse provides direct services and acts as a central point for brokering and coordinating the services available through a network of State and local agencies. In terms of direct services, CCH staff in adult prisons offer several prerelease employment-related courses, as well as vocational assessments in one facility and industrial safety courses in two facilities. At the Washington Corrections Center for Women, CCH offers two transition-to-trades initiatives tailored to women. One initiative, funded by three unions, guarantees union membership to women who successfully complete an inprison trades-related apprenticeship coaching program, thereby improving their chances of being hired after release. Juvenile institution managers can choose from a menu of services CCH offers, ranging from vocational testing to employment preparation classes. However, CCH's most requested service is assessment of individual juveniles' employability and development of a portfolio outlining the offender's needs and a service strategy for meeting them. At five prisons, CCH instructors register their students with the Employment Security Department, enabling them to access the department's JobNet computerized job data bank so that they can discover job leads while still in prison. CCH contracts with six community-based organizations and one employment security job service center to operate the "Ex-O" program, which provides job search assistance to adult and juvenile ex-offenders, including ongoing postplacement services. Service providers also are contracted to help clients gain promotions that provide higher wages. The program brokers a number of services--that is, acts as the agent for other groups to pool their resources and collaborate to provide new services. Staff members arrange meetings among high-level administrators of two or more groups that are responsible for addressing similar problems. CCH may provide one-time travel expenses so the groups can begin working together. For example, CCH brokered the establishment of a college program for ex-offenders in recovery for chemical dependency. Called Vocational Opportunity Training and Education (VOTE), the program consists of a 7-week return-to-work workshop, along with counseling to address alcohol and other drug abuse recovery issues. Initially, CCH and the Employment Security Department matched contributions from a local college and the State Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse to pilot test the program. When the program proved a success, the college and division made it permanent. CCH has coordinated numerous activities, but one in particular stands out. The Case Management Resource Directory is a listing of 2,500 resources in Washington State, from places to obtain free clothing to substance abuse treatment, that employment specialists, welfare offices, and others can use to steer clients to sources of help. CCH staff arranged with a correctional center and the local college's inmate computer instructor to devise a prison industry program involving six inmates who designed and wrote the computer software for the disk version of the directory, update the entries quarterly, and staff toll-free telephone and fax lines for ordering copies, receiving updates, and adding resources.[8] Evidence of CCH's Effectiveness. In fiscal years 1997-98, at least 3,082 inmates completed a CCH program. The seven Ex-O contractors enrolled 1,312 ex-offenders, 59 percent of whom found work. Of these, 99 percent were still employed after 15 days and 68 percent were employed after 45 days. A 1994 study conducted by CCH staff with the assistance of the DOC's Office of Research compared the recidivism rates of 500 Ex-O clients who found employment with the historical recidivism rate among all department releasees. (Recidivism excluded ex-offenders who might have been jailed.) The recidivism rate for the Ex-O clients after 1 year was 3 percent, compared with 10 percent for all releasees. After 5 years, the recidivism rate was 15 percent for the Ex-O clients, compared with 30 percent for all releasees. However, the study did not control for the possibility that the Ex-O clients might have been lower risk or more motivated than other releasees. Cost Implications. The Corrections Clearinghouse's 1997-98 budget was $3,209,131. The program receives slightly more than half of its funding from the Employment Security Department's Penalty and Interest Fund. (Employers who are delinquent in paying their State unemployment insurance taxes pay penalties and interest into the fund.) The Department of Social and Health Services provides CCH with $644,992, $500,000 of which is earmarked by the State legislature for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. The Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse provides the department's remaining $144,992 for the VOTE program. In fiscal year 1996-97, CCH spent $361,500 on Ex-O contractors. In helping 766 ex-offenders to secure jobs through Ex-O contractors, CCH's cost per placement was $465; with an enrollment of 1,312 ex-offenders, its cost per enrollee was $276. Replication Issues and Success Factors The ultimate goal of the four programs is to change the mindset of ex-offenders so that they buy into the mainstream philosophy of holding an honest job and preferring the "straight life" to a life of crime. While job placements are one strategy for achieving this goal, program staff believe that, to be successful in preventing recidivism, they also must provide basic education classes, life skills training, support services, and where possible, begin to reach this population before inmates are released. Unique circumstances helped each of these programs to get established and succeed. It was the efforts of two socially conscious former priests in Chicago--one of whom remained as president until 1995--that made Safer Foundation a reality. An unusual justice system reform organization in New York City made it possible to launch CEO. The program's work crews succeeded in part because the city's massive public transportation system enables members to commute easily from home to work. Several unusual factors helped Project RIO to flourish, including consistently high employer demand for workers and the need to reduce the enormous cost of housing the second highest number of State prison inmates in the Nation. In addition, because the Texas Workforce Commission has had offices around the State since 1935--most with good reputations in their local jurisdictions--Project RIO had a head start in getting cooperation from employers to hire ex-offenders. The decline of the Seattle area airplane manufacturing industry in the 1970's and some prison riots, coupled with the Employment Security Department Deputy Assistant Commissioner's experience as a former parole officer, generated the momentum to establish the Corrections Clearinghouse. Although many jurisdictions should be able to replicate these types of programs, there appear to be two key prerequisites to success: collaboration with other agencies and the provision of support services and followup to clients. Collaboration With Other Agencies. All four programs rely heavily on good working relationships with other agencies--especially their respective State departments of corrections--for allowing access to inmates in prison or securing referrals after their release. As one program director said, "We are a guest in the House of Corrections." The relationship between each of the four programs and its respective corrections department has evolved into a partnership because each organization shares the same two goals: reducing recidivism and corrections costs. All four programs constantly face the challenge of balancing the needs of multiple clients--inmates and ex-offenders, State agencies, employers, and, in Safer's case, private funders. For example, although employers consider Safer's post-placement support services essential to keeping ex-offenders on the job, the program has had to shape its grant proposals--and therefore its services--to accommodate the public sector's primary interest in placing ex-offenders in jobs, not providing follow-up services. Providing Support Services and Followup. Many ex-offenders have problems related to substance abuse, affordable housing, child care, emotional difficulties, and other barriers to securing and maintaining employment. As a result, all four programs devote resources to helping ex-offenders address these problems. Of course, individual job developers vary considerably in the amount of time and creativity they devote to helping clients with these problems. The best, however, are like the employment specialist in Austin, Texas, who arranged for a client whose jaw was broken and wired due to a volleyball collision just before he left prison to get free cans of a liquid diet supplement, clothing, medical care, and eyeglasses. All four programs also follow up with clients after placement. Safer has specially designated case managers, called "lifeguards," who do nothing but remain in touch with placed clients for a year after they have found jobs, offering help with any problems that arise, from finding child care to meeting a parole mandate to entering substance abuse counseling. Job developers at CEO continue to monitor placed participants' performance for 6 months, including, as needed, telephoning the employer, visiting the work site, and counseling the employee. The program's computerized case tracking system produces monthly reports that indicate when follow-up contacts are due. The program continues to offer job development and support services indefinitely to former participants who run into problems through no fault of their own. A Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism As of June 1998, State prison systems in the United States housed more than 1 million inmates, a more than two-fold increase over 1985's inmate population.[9] As the prison population grows, there is substantial pressure on public officials to reduce the number of prisoners or, as is increasingly the case, to build more prisons. One method of controlling prison populations is to reduce the high rate of recidivism among ex-offenders. The evidence suggests that programs like Safer Foundation, CEO, Project RIO, and the Corrections Clearinghouse can succeed in placing a large number of ex-offenders in jobs. The data are insufficient to state conclusively that these types of programs are succeeding in helping large numbers of ex-offenders to remain employed and to avoid reincarceration. Nevertheless, the programs hold sufficient promise of achieving these goals to warrant replication--as one piece of society's multipronged effort to reduce recidivism. Notes 1. Berk, R.A., K.J. Lenihan, and P.H. Rossi, "Crime and Poverty: Some Experimental Evidence From Ex-Offenders," American Sociological Review, 45(1980):766-86; Harer, M.D., "Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releasees in 1987: A Preliminary Report," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation, Unpublished Paper, 1987; McGinnis, R.D., K.L. Klocksiem, and C. Wiedeman, "Probation and Employment: A Report on the Bergen County, New Jersey, Probation Department," Offender Rehabilitation, 1(1977):323-33; Piehl, A.M., "Learning While Doing Time," Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Unpublished Manuscript, 1994. 2. McDonald, D.C., "Offender Employment and Training Programs: A Review of the Research," Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., Unpublished Manuscript, 1994. 3. The GED is administered by the American Council on Education. It is designed to measure high school equivalency by comparing test-takers' knowledge and skills in five subject areas with those of recent high school graduates. The minimum passing standard set by the GED Testing Service is a minimum score of 40 on each test and an average of 45 overall--or 225 total standard score points. Most U.S. jurisdictions use this passing score requirement. According to Tonn, it is possible to score 160-165 points simply by guessing, so Safer considers scores in the range of 165-225 "functional." 4. Menon, R.C., D. Blakely, D. Carmichael, and L. Silver, An Evaluation of Project RIO Outcomes: An Evaluative Report, Austin, TX: Texas A&M University, Public Policy Resources Laboratory, 1992. 5. Beck, R. A., and B.E. Shipley, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 1989; Hoffman, P., and B. Meierhoefer, "Post-Release Experiences of Federal Prisoners: A Six-Year Follow-Up," Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(1979):193-216. 6. Menon et al., An Evaluation of Project RIO Outcomes: An Evaluative Report, 1992. 7. Ibid. 8. In 1997, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provided funding to CCH to convert the Case Management Resource Directory into a computer program that States, counties, or any other geographic area could customize for their jurisdictions using inmate labor. Upon completion of the 18-month project, NIC's Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement expects to seek funding to provide technical assistance to State and local correctional systems that are interested in implementing the system. 9. Gilliard, Darrell K., Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1999 (NCJ 173414). ------------------------------- about the author Peter Finn is an associate at Abt Associates Inc., a public policy and business research and consulting company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His recent research has focused on life skills programs for inmates and job placement programs for ex-offenders. This article updates his previous article in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(1/2), 1998, pp. 89-106. ------------------------------- A Snapshot of Offenders, Employment, and Recidivism In informal polls, inmates often rank employment as one of their most serious problems. Below is a summary of some facts and figures about offenders, employment, and recidivism. o Number of inmates in jails and prisons, 1996:[1] Jails: 510,000 Prisons: 1,127,500 o Number of releasees from Federal and State facilities, 1996:[2] 1.1 million o Average recidivism rate after 4 years following release from prison, 1996:[3] 32.5 percent o Among adult probationers, the percentage who had a disciplinary hearing, by employment status, 1995:[4] Employed: 16 percent Unemployed: 23 percent o Percentage of jail inmates who were employed or unemployed before their most recent offense, 1996:[5] Employed: 64 percent Unemployed: 36 percent 1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1996: Executive Summary, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1999 (NCJ 171684). 2. Camp, C.G. and G.M. Camp, The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1997, pp. 46-47. 3. Camp, C.G. and G.M. Camp, The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1997, pp. 46-47. 4. Bonczar, Thomas P., Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995, BJS Special Report, December 1997 (NCJ 164267). 5. Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996, BJS Special Report, April 1998 (NCJ 164620). ------------------------------- For More Information Publications The following documents are available from the NIJ Web page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or by contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, 1- 800-851-3420. Use the NCJ number when ordering. Chicago's Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders by Peter Finn, NIJ Program Focus, June 1998 (NCJ 167575). Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center for Employment Opportunities by Peter Finn, March 1998 (NCJ 168102). Texas Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) by Peter Finn, NIJ Program Focus, June 1998 (NCJ 168637). Washington State's Corrections Clearinghouse: A Comprehensive Approach to Offender Employment by Peter Finn, July 1999 (NCJ 174441). World Wide Web Addresses American Correctional Association: http://www.corrections.com/aca/ National Institute of Corrections' Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement: http://www.nicic.org/inst Office of Correctional Education, U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE/index.html ------------------------------- (Quotes) "After I'd served 2 years in prison, I hooked up with Mike [an employment specialist] because my parole officer referred me specifically to him. 'Go talk to Mike, he'll help you find a job,' he said. In 2 weeks, Mike got me a job as a machine presser, and I was trained on the job. I couldn't land one on my own--I filled out applications, but no one would hire me. Mike also got me into an 8-month welding course, which will begin in 6 months, that I can do while I'm still working." -Safer Foundation client "I said I would never hire a convict. Then a CEO representative called me because one of my customers had hired a CEO participant and told the program about me. The CEO person told me that they screen these people, offer money for me to train them, and CEO and the parole board both monitor them. If there's a problem, they'll find it out and either solve it or get the person out. I don't have a human resources department to screen people, and with a newspaper ad you never know what kind of person you're getting. So I interviewed a few [participants], hired one, and it worked out fine." -Shop owner with 35 employees who has employed CEO clients ------------------------------- Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts By David Rottman and Pamela Casey Individual judges, trial courts, and entire State court systems are adopting a new, problem-solving orientation to their work, one well removed from the traditional model of the "dispassionate, disinterested magistrate."[1] In doing so, courts, in many but not all respects, are taking a path previously cut by other components of the criminal justice system, where a problem-solving orientation first emerged as a reaction to the "management-dominated" concept of police reform of the 1970's and 1980's. In the new model, "problem" is defined expansively to include "a wide range of behavioral and social problems that arise in a community."[2] A series of executive sessions convened by the Kennedy School of Government refined this orientation into a community strategy of policing based on the "establishment of effective problem-solving partnerships with the communities they police."[3] Community policing, in turn, helped to shape the strategies of community prosecution, probation, and corrections. Courts also are establishing problem-solving partnerships, but, thus far, lack a coherent strategy comparable to community policing. Various approaches are being tested across the country following a variety of principles, including those of therapeutic jurisprudence, which explore the role of the law in fostering therapeutic or antitherapeutic outcomes. Therapeutic jurisprudence attempts to combine a "rights" perspective-- focusing on justice, rights, and equality issues--with an "ethic of care" perspective--focusing on care, interdependence, and response to need.[4] Restorative justice and community justice are related approaches to problem solving that offer the field of therapeutic jurisprudence potential strategies for achieving therapeutic outcomes. In addition, court and community collaboration is a vehicle for implementing therapeutic jurisprudence. (See "Achieving Court and Community Collaboration.") These emerging partnerships are a response to forces pushing and pulling courts toward a more problem-solving and community-focused orientation. The Road to Therapeutic Jurisprudence The main push for this change came from the societal changes that placed courts in the frontline of responses to substance abuse, family breakdown, and mental illness. Courts cannot restrict the flow of such problems into the courtroom, and often such problems stand in the way of effective adjudication of cases.[5] Consequently, courts are struggling to create appropriate dispositional outcomes, including securing treatment and social services. The push provided by rising caseloads coincided with demands from the public and individual communities for a more responsive and involved judiciary. In recent decades, the courts of most urban and many rural areas have become distant from the public, both physically and psychologically. The public lacks a sense of connection to the court system and views courts as irrelevant to solving the problems of greatest concern to most citizens--the breakdown of social and family support networks. Public opinion surveys indicate considerable dissatisfaction with the accessibility and relevance of the courts and low levels of trust and confidence in the judiciary. Judges and courts also were pulled rather than pushed toward a problem-solving, proactive orientation. One pull came from a new model for judging that reshapes the nature of the judicial process across the board. (See "A Comparison of Traditional and Transformed Court Processes.") The Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards developed and published in 1990 a set of standards, several of which are relevant to this discussion. First, one standard recognizes an obligation on the part of courts to anticipate and adjust their operations to meet new conditions. Second, three standards hold courts responsible for their standing with the public. These standards acknowledge that objectively measured high performance is not enough if the public fails to perceive that high performance.[6] Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Its Application Therapeutic jurisprudence is one source of guidance as the judiciary thinks through the philosophical and practical issues associated with these changes in their role and public expectations. Formally, therapeutic jurisprudence is a relatively new and rapidly growing area of academic inquiry. In essence, it "proposes the exploration of ways in which, consistent with principles of justice, the knowledge, theories, and insights of the mental health and related disciplines can help shape the law."[7] The fundamental principle underlying therapeutic jurisprudence is the selection of a therapeutic option--an option that promotes health and does not conflict with other normative values of the legal system. Therapeutic jurisprudence claims that attending to the individuals as well as the issues involved in a case leads to more effective dispositions.[8] Legal rules, legal procedures, and the roles of legal actors (such as lawyers and judges) constitute social forces that, like it or not, often produce therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences. Therapeutic jurisprudence proposes that we be sensitive to those consequences, and that we ask whether the law's antitherapeutic consequences can be reduced, and its therapeutic consequences enhanced, without subordinating due process and other justice values.[9] Thus, the orientation underlying therapeutic jurisprudence directs the judge's attention beyond the specific dispute before the court and toward the needs and circumstances of the individuals involved in the dispute. Within these broad parameters, therapeutic jurisprudence can be implemented on a continuum. First, therapeutic jurisprudence can be practiced by judges when interacting with the individuals involved in a particular case. Second, therapeutic jurisprudence may be practiced at the organizational level of the court by devising new procedures, information systems, and sentencing options and by establishing links to social service providers to promote therapeutic outcomes. Third, for some areas of law and court policy, the practice of therapeutic jurisprudence principles requires changes to State statutes or to court rules, policies, or procedures that apply across courts. The following real-life examples help to clarify the role of therapeutic jurisprudence at all three levels. At the Individual Case Level. At the individual case level, therapeutic jurisprudence proposes that judges look for "psychojudicial soft spots"-- areas in which judicial system actions could lead to antitherapeutic consequences--when interacting with individuals in the courtroom. In some cases, these "therapeutic moments," or opportunities to promote a more therapeutic outcome, are discovered simply by being attentive to the emotional dynamics of the courtroom. Consider a therapeutic moment described by Justice John Kelley of Australia at the London Conference on Criminal Law Reform. It happened in a rape case in which Justice Kelley reports that he: . . . made a special effort to ensure that the victim felt vindicated. He had just sentenced the defendant to prison, but before calling the next case he asked the victim to approach the bench. Justice Kelley had watched the complainant throughout the proceedings, and it was clear that she was very distraught, even after the offender's conviction and sentencing. The justice spoke with her briefly and concluded with these words: "You understand that what I have done here demonstrates conclusively that what happened was not your fault." The young woman began to weep as she left the courtroom. When Justice Kelley called the family several days later, he learned that his words had marked the beginning of psychological healing for the victim. Her tears had been tears of healing.[10] Most of the examples of therapeutic jurisprudence that have been discussed in the literature, however, reflect a systematic approach to identifying psychojudicial soft spots, which can be applied to more than one individual or case at a time, rather than ad hoc comments. Typically, the examples relate to decisions that the judge must make in a particular category of cases but has discretion in how she or he decides (e.g., accept a no contest plea). For example, research indicates that individuals who commit acts of domestic violence or sexual molestation frequently deny responsibility for or distort the seriousness of their acts.[11] Because such cognitive distortions are likely to lead to recidivistic behavior, attempts to restructure these individuals' cognitive distortions may prove beneficial for the effective disposition of their cases. One approach for incorporating cognitive restructuring into the court process is to require defendants who enter guilty pleas to provide details about their offenses. After receiving a defendant's guilty plea, for example, one metropolitan court "requires the defendant to take the stand, under oath, and state that he did commit the crime and exactly how he committed it."[12] The defendant's acknowledgment and description of the offense may be helpful in convincing the defendant to participate willingly in treatment. In addition, the detailed description of the offense subsequently may be helpful during treatment if the offender relapses into denying participation in the offense. A related approach is to respond to offenders' denial and minimization of acts of domestic violence by explicitly sentencing them in the same way as offenders who attack strangers.[13] Concepts associated with behavioral contracting can be adapted by courts to increase compliance with orders in a treatment setting. Behavioral contracting is used in some treatment settings to increase adherence to a treatment plan. In a court setting, it would be used to seek an offender's agreement to comply with the conditions of an order. Agreement is fostered by court efforts to involve the offender in the development of the conditions of the order.[14] At the Court Level. In some jurisdictions, the therapeutic jurisprudence approach has been adopted at the organizational level in the form of special court programs or specialized courts. Drug treatment courts are the best known example of a court for which therapeutic jurisprudence arguably provides the underlying legal theory.[15] Such courts have five essential elements: (1) immediate intervention; (2) nonadversarial adjudication; (3) hands-on judicial involvement; (4) treatment programs with clear rules and structured goals; and (5) a team approach that brings together the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment provider, and correctional staff.[16] The therapeutic potential of the courtroom can be exploited in a drug treatment court through simple changes to procedures such as the court calendar. Scheduling new defendants to appear last allows them to observe the court in action, and thus learn what is expected and understand that participating in the program will take considerable effort but can succeed in turning their lives around.[17] Although other specialized courts are not specifically founded on therapeutic jurisprudence principles, they reflect the same school of thought. For example, consider the following statement from the mission of the Jefferson County Family Court in Louisville, Kentucky: Cognizant of the fact that traditional legal approaches may create new barriers to relationships and exacerbate problems within families, the court encourages alternative dispute resolution, and, as appropriate, recommends or orders counseling, self-help, and other available, suitable governmental and community services.[18] The court's advisory committee has established a subcommittee on the family court as social services delivery system to improve practice on all family court dockets and coordinate social services for all family cases. A handgun intervention program was established in 1993 by a judge in the 36th district court in Detroit, Michigan, working with a group of volunteers, including court employees (probation officers, clerks, and translators); law enforcement officers; members of the clergy; and other community leaders. The program represents the potential of a special court to work collaboratively with a community to foster therapeutic outcomes for individuals, families, and the entire community. The program requires that adults charged with felony firearm offenses attend a special 4-hour presentation on the dangers and consequences of gun violence before they are considered eligible for bail release. Juvenile defendants attend on referral. Other participants attend voluntarily, typically on referral from teachers, clergy members, social workers, parents, and past participants. The program, which is held weekly in a courtroom on Saturday mornings, features police officers, probation officers, and a judge who present a focused, fine-tuned message aimed at raising awareness. All of the presentations reinforce the basic message of the program: the need to make positive life choices and to take responsibility for one's own life and the life of one's community. The message is balanced by the availability of practical advice, as well as educational and employment resources. It should be noted that although specialized courts may be optimal for practicing therapeutic jurisprudence for some categories of cases and defendants, the potential limitations associated with the establishment of specialized courts in general may prove them less optimal. For example, defining the subject matter of the specialized court can be a problem. If the specialization is too broad, it is diluted; if it is too narrow, the volume of cases may be too low to warrant a specialized court. And if the court shares jurisdiction of a particular subject matter, the court system becomes more complex for the user. Another potential limitation is that specialized courts usually require some amount of judicial specialization. Although such specialization can result in improved precision and accuracy and more creative responses to complex problems, it can result in judicial stress and burnout. Specialized courts also are likely to afford fewer opportunities for judicial career advancement, and because specialized courts generally are viewed as less prestigious among members of the judiciary, it may be more difficult to attract high-quality judges to serve in these courts. At the Policy Level. Although some therapeutic outcomes can be achieved at either the individual case level or at the court organizational level, some must be addressed at the policy level. For example, a judge may be able to reduce a sexual offender's minimization of an offense by using some of the cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting ideas mentioned above. However, if the system routinely allows defendants to plead to a lesser offense or enter a nolo contendere or Alford plea, cognitive restructuring to overcome offense denial will be more difficult to achieve.[19] Therapeutic jurisprudence, then, would call into question the benefits of the plea bargaining policy, at least for certain offenses. Examining the consequences of labeling individuals incompetent provides another example of using the therapeutic lens at the policy level. Labeling individuals "as incompetent and thereby depriving them of the opportunity for self-determining behavior induces feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, depression, and low self-esteem."[20] These antitherapeutic consequences suggest revisiting the definition of competency for the purpose of clarifying the concept and narrowing its application. Another therapeutic issue for courts to consider at the policy level is the coordination of cases involving members of the same family. A family in crisis may come to the court(s) through a civil case (protection order), adult criminal case (assault), juvenile criminal case (delinquency), dependency case (child abuse or neglect), and/or domestic relations case (custody). Notwithstanding these complexities, coordination can be crucial for the physical and psychological well-being of a family. Without information about the family's legal history, such as former and pending cases involving intrafamilial matters, a judge could unknowingly add to the tragedy of a family crisis situation by, for example, awarding unsupervised visitation to a parent who has a juvenile court history of abusing the child. Also, the judge is unlikely to know what services, if any, have already been provided to family members and the impact of those services on the family. Thus, the development and evaluation of mechanisms to track these cases is a policy issue with considerable therapeutic consequences for courts to address. Alternative Approaches for Implementing Therapeutic Jurisprudence As noted, the practice of therapeutic jurisprudence principles can occur at any point on a continuum that ranges from one judge in one case to an entire State court system. Although individual judges and court staff may view the application of therapeutic jurisprudence principles as beneficial, they also may see it as resource- and time-intensive. Even modest efforts by an individual judge can be time-consuming as the judge begins the process of identifying problem areas and possible therapeutic strategies. Some support for experimenting with therapeutic jurisprudence principles may provide the incentive for individual judges to make the extra effort. For example: o Recognize the importance of therapeutic jurisprudence at the State level. This will let judges know that their efforts in this area are welcomed and considered consistent with State judicial goals. This may be particularly important for judges who work in relative isolation or whose colleagues do not view therapeutic jurisprudence as a worthwhile endeavor. o Provide funding for therapeutic jurisprudence pilot projects. Modest funding might be needed, for example, to support the administration of and incidental costs associated with a small working group of judges and court staff seeking to identify therapeutic strategies to address a specific problem, accessing relevant resources in the jurisdiction, or implementing a specific therapeutic jurisprudence project. o Offer training and information on therapeutic jurisprudence. Educational programs may offer judges an effective and efficient forum for exploring the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. A clearinghouse at the State level also could facilitate the transfer of therapeutic jurisprudence knowledge and experience from one jurisdiction to another and provide relevant materials and references to assist judges who are just learning about the concept. o Recognize innovative therapeutic jurisprudence programs. The identification of therapeutic jurisprudence practices that work will showcase particular jurisdictions and facilitate the transfer of effective programs. o Provide opportunities for judges to share their experiences and ideas. Judicial interaction can be accomplished at annual conferences and incorporated into judicial education programs, but it also can take place in more informal settings on a local level, such as the therapeutic jurisprudence discussion group in Kalamazoo, Michigan.[21] By continually describing and discussing the application of therapeutic jurisprudence, practitioners will increase their awareness of and sensitivity to therapeutic problems and potential strategies.[22] o Revise the code of judicial ethics. The wording of State codes of judicial ethics may appear to discourage or place little value on problem-solving and court and community collaboration. The California Judicial Council, working with the American Judicature Society, recently revised its code of judicial ethics to make involvement in problem-solving with the community an expectation. In California, "The question for judicial officers is not 'How to avoid community involvement to ensure compliance with the canons of ethics?' Rather, the question is 'How can judges most effectively balance their community leadership responsibilities within the appropriate limitations?'"[23] Notes 1. Zimmerman, Michael D., "A New Approach to Court Reform," Judicature 82(3) (November-December 1998). Justice Zimmerman offers a concise and coherent view of changes now occurring in the State courts in response to changes in societal conditions and public expectations of the courts. 2. Goldstein, Herman, "Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach," Crime and Delinquency 25(2) (April 1979):242. Goldstein's definition of a law enforcement problem is notable: "By problems I mean the incredibly broad range of troublesome situations that prompt citizens to turn to the police, such as street robberies, speeding cars, runaway children, accidents, acts of terrorism, even fear." 3. Kelling, George L., and Mark H. Moore, "The Evolving Strategy of Policing," Perspectives on Policing 4 (November 1988):1. 4. Janoff, S., "The Influence of Legal Education on Moral Reasoning," Minnesota Law Review 76 (1991):194-95. 5. Domestic relations cases in the United States grew by 77 percent and juvenile cases grew by 68 percent between 1984 and 1997. By contrast, the State courts' criminal caseloads grew by 45 percent, their civil caseloads by 34 percent, and the national population by 13 percent during the same time period. See Brian Ostrom and Neal Kauder, eds., Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997: A National Perspective From the Court Statistics Project, Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1998. 6. Standard 4.5 Response to Change: The trial court anticipates new conditions and emerging trends and adjusts its operations as necessary. Commentary: "Effective trial courts are responsive to emergent public issues such as drug abuse, child and spousal abuse, AIDS, drunken driving, child support enforcement . . . ." Public trust and confidence is the fifth court performance area with standards such as "The public has trust and confidence that basic trial court functions are conducted expeditiously and fairly, and that court decisions have integrity." See Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards, Trial Court Performance Standards With Commentary, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997:20. The standards were approved by the Commission and first published in 1990. 7. Wexler, D.B., and B.J. Winick, eds., Law in a Therapeutic Key, Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1996:xvii. 8. Janoff, "The Influence of Legal Education on Moral Reasoning," 194- 95. 9. Wexler and Winick, Law in a Therapeutic Key, xvii. 10.Van Ness, D.W., "New Wine and Old Wineskins: Four Challenges of Restorative Justice," Criminal Law Forum 4(252) (1993). 11. Simon, L.M.J., "A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to the Legal Processing of Domestic Violence Cases," and Wexler, D.B., "Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence," in D.B. Wexler and B.J. Winick, eds., Law in a Therapeutic Key, Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1996:243-85 and 811-29. 12. The court's practice was included in a study by Donald Newman that is cited in Wexler, "Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence," 161. 13. Simon, "A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to the Legal Processing of Domestic Violence Cases," 261-62. 14. Wexler, "Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence," 168. 15. Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, and John T.A. Rosenthal, "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America," Notre Dame Law Review 74(2) (January 1999): 453. 16. Ibid., 453. 17. Ibid., 474. 18. Kentucky Rules of Court, State, St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1997: 429. 19. Wexler, "Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence," 159- 60. 20. Winick, B.J., "The Side Effects of Incompetency Labeling and the Implications for Mental Health Law," in D.B. Wexler and B.J. Winick, eds., Law in a Therapeutic Key, 37. 21. Patry, M.W., D.B. Wexler, D.P. Stolle, and A.J. Tomkins, "Better Legal Counseling Through Empirical Research: Identifying Psycholegal Soft Spots and Strategies," California Western Law Review 34 (1998). 22. Wexler, D.B., "Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Psycholegal Soft Spots and Strategies," Revista Juridica 67, (1998):336-42. 23. Judicial Council of California, Courts Reaching Out to Their Communities: A Handbook for Creating and Enhancing Court and Community Collaboration, San Francisco: California Judicial Council, 6.1 (1999). ------------------------------- about the authors David Rottman and Pamela Casey are Associate Directors in the Research Division of the National Center for State Courts. This article is based, in part, on a white paper prepared at the request of the California Judicial Council (contract 992479) and benefited from the comments of David B. Wexler and staff from the California Administrative Office of the Courts. ------------------------------- Achieving Court and Community Collaboration The following describes how courts can achieve a collaborative relationship with the community: o Collaboration can be achieved by working with community organizations and the public to identify critical community problems and implement problem-solving strategies. The community can contribute in a variety of ways--for example, by providing paid and volunteer staff, assessment and sentencing options, and advice and support to the court. o Court and community collaborations can problem-solve at both the community and the individual-case level. Such collaborations can address community wide problems in the aggregate, for example by engaging the court and community in programs designed to reduce the frequency of domestic violence, drug use, or juvenile delinquency. o Collaboration means that the court is engaged with a cross-section of the community in an ongoing dialog that is expansive in scope. Source: Rottman, D., H.S. Efkeman, and P. Casey, A Guide to Court and Community Collaboration, National Center for State Courts, 1998. ------------------------------- Private Funding for Criminal Justice Initiatives What You Should Know About the Grantseeking Process by Kate Chieco Over the years, foundations have been important partners with NIJ in supporting criminal justice research and initiatives. Although they support research and evaluation, foundations are more likely to provide the type of funding that grantmaking research institutes such as NIJ are less likely to provide--support for program development and service delivery. NIJ is pleased to present this article for readers who are beginning the search for foundation funds to get an innovative idea off the ground or to keep an innovative program running. At the height of New York City's AIDS crisis in the late 1980's, the Correctional Association, a long-time criminal justice advocacy group, recognized the potential for a significant intervention to control the spread of AIDS. Prisons and jails, with their confined populations and large number of HIV-infected inmates, were a troublesome, enabling environment for the disease. And as yet, few had addressed either the issue of transmission in prisons or the care needs of those already infected. The Association's fundraising strategy for its AIDS in Prison Project included approaching the Aaron Diamond Foundation, a newly established foundation with significant amounts of money earmarked for organizations in New York City. One major problem: Diamond's program areas included public education, arts and culture, and AIDS biomedical research--nowhere was there a stated interest in criminal justice. "I hoped that if I could make a strong case for our program as a public health effort I could get Diamond's attention," said Robert Gangi, the Correctional Association's director. He wrote a strong proposal, approached a personal contact at the foundation, and was invited for a meeting. He laid out the problem, emphasizing both the critical importance of the intervention and the fact that society's lack of attention to prisoners and their plight would have far-reaching public health implications. He received the grant, and Diamond was able to be involved in the development of a project that would have a profound impact on the AIDS crisis. "It was a long shot that really paid off," said Gangi, who noted that the first small grant of $10,000 led to several larger grants from Diamond, culminating in a recent award of $300,000. "The personal contact helped, but the most important thing was our strategic framing of the issue. If we had been perceived as just a criminal justice advocacy group, it probably would not have happened." The Correctional Association's story illustrates a few important points in the search for foundation dollars, especially for community-based advocacy or service organizations: do your homework, target your grant, take advantage of personal contacts you may have at a foundation, and frame your issue as broadly as possible. According to the Foundation Center, a nonprofit organization that conducts research on giving, in l997, the year of the most recent statistics, private foundation grants for crime, law enforcement, and abuse prevention totaled $238,864,836, with 3,561 grants of $10,000 or more dispensed by 588 foundations nationwide.[1] Compare that number with the nearly $4 billion annually it costs the State of California to run its prison system,[2] or the more than $680 million per year that New York State spends to keep its nonviolent drug offenders in prison,[3] and it puts things in perspective. It also is important to note that the Foundation Center's definition of foundation giving to "crime, law enforcement, and abuse prevention" includes grants for programs in crime prevention, correctional facilities, rehabilitation services for offenders and ex-offenders, courts and the administration of justice, law enforcement agencies, and victims' services, among others. (See "Foundation Funding for Crime, Law Enforcement, and Abuse Prevention, 1996-1997.) Given that spread, what is the likelihood of a small, locally based criminal justice project receiving a grant? Is it worth the effort? The purpose of this article is to help local practitioners think about how to approach the grantseeking process. The article does not specifically address grantseeking for individual researchers or research projects, although parts of the article may be applicable to those types of grants, too. A Bit of History "Community-based organizations doing prison and criminal justice reform have always had a difficult time getting attention anywhere," said Tom Coury, executive director of the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation in Massachusetts. "We were always fighting a public climate that had little sympathy for this population, and working it narrowly didn't work." The Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation has a projected budget of $850,000 to $900,000 in fiscal year 2000, all of which is earmarked for criminal justice programs. Approximately 70 percent of this budget is dedicated to juvenile justice and criminal justice grants alone. In fiscal year 1999, which ended April 30, 1999, the Foundation awarded approximately 40 grants, totaling $800,000. These grants are almost exclusively for ongoing projects in Massachusetts. For many years, Coury took the lead in Grantmakers in Justice, an affinity group of the National Council on Foundations. Consisting of approximately 20 foundations interested in the field, including the Florence V. Burden Foundation, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, and the Philadelphia Foundation, Grantmakers facilitated regular communication among members seeking to define common causes and develop funding strategies. Burden regularly published analyses of giving in the criminal justice field and polled criminal justice practitioners to get their opinions on what aspects of service, advocacy, and research were most in need of foundation support. The last Burden Study of Foundation Grant-making Trends was published in 1991.[4] In that report, respondent practitioners listed support to families, alternatives to incarceration, rehabilitation, substance abuse, crime prevention, and juvenile justice--in that order--as areas they felt were underfunded. The affinity group foundered in the early 1990's as some of the larger players--like Burden, Clark, and the Ford Foundation--announced their intention to cut back, eliminate, or disperse their involvement in the field. According to several foundation sources, there has been nothing approaching a coherent strategy among foundations since that time, but now signs are appearing that that may be changing. Current Trends "The several big changes in the foundation landscape in the last few years," said Gangi, "have been Edna McConnell Clark's phase-out and Ford's decision not to have a criminal justice program per se, but rather to disperse monies through other program areas. The other big news is the addition of Soros's Open Society Institute." Open Society Institute's (OSI) Center on Crime, Community, and Culture is part of the network of foundations founded by philanthropist George Soros. Based in New York City, the Center is a source of information on and analysis of various aspects of prisons and jails. According to Nancy Mahon, the Center's founding director, the Center gives away approximately $13 million per year, making it the largest private funder of criminal justice initiatives. The goal of the Center is "to create a better understanding of and support for effective and humane responses to criminal behavior and victimization." It "seeks to turn the current national debate on crime into an opportunity to reinvigorate basic principles of individual rights and responsibilities, bolster community integrity, and promote social innovation." In the past 2 years, the Institute's criminal justice funding has focused on six major areas: restorative justice, effective post-release programs, intimate violence, youth gun violence, economics of criminal justice policy, and community policing. OSI is a leading campaigner against overreliance on incarceration as a solution to the crime problem and a leading force behind trying to reconstitute some sort of foundation affinity group. "Our Council on Foundations Affinity Group is gaining momentum," said Mahon. "We are working toward funding collaborative efforts. Our goal at OSI is to be an important resource to private grantmakers--we talk to them about what others are funding, about funding ideas, and about how something might fit into the overall picture." "Mahon is defining the issue as one of public safety," said Coury. "That widens the net and allows foundations who wouldn't say they care explicitly about criminal justice a way to think about how their concerns do intersect. Perhaps we are beginning to see a recognition that crime is the result of a failure of many social systems. The opportunity for intervention becomes much greater." Further evidence of this growing trend is the impending entry into the field by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Based in New Jersey, Johnson is a major player in the public health and health fields. It currently is developing what will be a $36-million juvenile justice program.[5] Details about the program are expected to be announced later this year. This redefining of criminal justice concerns as a matter of community couldn't come at a better time. The U.S. incarceration rate more than tripled between 1980 and 1996, and as of June 1998, 1 in every 150 U.S. residents was incarcerated, with more than 1.8 million inmates in Federal and State prisons and local jails.[6] But the explosion of the prison population coincided with a widespread drop in crime and reflects the prevailing climate of the last two decades. Getting criminals--especially drug offenders--off the streets was the primary intent behind many States' get tough on drug offender laws, which impose harsh sentences and allow little discretion. But a complicated debate is now taking place, with many people saying that the approach has resulted in little or no real impact on drug use, but rather a swelling prison population that consists of first-time, nonviolent of-fenders and a disruption of human lives that is exacting a disastrous price. In a recently completed analysis of Federal and State data, researchers examining the growth in incarceration noted that the United States spends more than $20 billion annually on incarceration, but that the costs to families and communities disrupted by imprisonment are immeasurable.[7] Foundations are paying increased attention to both the incarceration rate and the implications for families and communities. The racial and ethnic composition of prison populations--disproportionately African American and Hispanic--is an unignorable fact that is starting to surface in the media and in discussions among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, as is the growing pool of youthful offenders. Programs that deal with youth-- especially low-income minority youth--have an obvious connection to criminal justice. Advocates of reform, who have long been arguing that the long-term as well as the short-term costs of an indiscriminate "lock-'em-up" strategy are unacceptable, may be getting a boost from the rise in attention. This can only mean good news for community-based organizations that are trying to address the roots of crime. The Grantseeking Process While government funding is the backbone of much criminal justice reform, private foundations are an important source of funds for innovative community-based criminal justice efforts. The philanthropic sector likes to define itself as the place where innovative programs-- programs that will come to define, not follow, public policy--can get a start. The national foundation scene is relevant as a backdrop against which funding of local, community-based organizations can be viewed. The fact is, most smaller organizations will not try to tap Ford or OSI for funding. Most will get their money from smaller local, regional, or community foundations--in other words, if you run a modest, solid program for ex-offenders in Idaho, your best bet is to approach a foundation in your area. A local funder is more likely to know and be connected to the community you work in and be more flexible in its approach. Sometimes an organization gets lucky and identifies a national foundation with local program interests, like the Washington, D.C.-based Public Welfare Foundation, which has a projected budget of $17.6 million divided into 11 funding priorities, including criminal justice, disadvantaged elderly, disadvantaged youth, community economic development and participation, and the Fund for Washington's Children and Youth. Approximately $1.5 million of its budget is earmarked for criminal justice alone. Public Welfare has a strong, explicitly stated interest in community-based groups and it has funded programs like the Center for Community Alternatives in Syracuse, New York, and the Prison and Jail Project of the Oakhurst Presbyterian Church in Americus, Georgia. Neil Stanley at Public Welfare cautions that few national foundations have such strong local interests and, therefore, competition is fierce, but he emphasizes that strategy is critical in making it through the competition. "Don't just define yourself as a criminal justice organization," said Stanley. "Your proposal should place your program in a context that would enable many different foundations with broad interest in the life of communities to see the fit." OSI offers similar advice to practitioners looking for grants. "Go local and don't be afraid to ask," said Mahon. "Public safety is a difficult issue to tackle and many people are interested in it. But don't expect people to come to you and offer funds. Community foundations need to be asked." Say you are the executive director of a locally based program that tries to find jobs for ex-offenders. You started the program in response to community need--employers did not perceive ex-offenders as desirable employees and the offenders couldn't get jobs. With a small government grant, a Rolodex of community contacts, and an office in a local church, you built a base of employers and began arranging placements. The program has been successful, but now you need more: more counselors to work with clients on the prison-to-work transition, and additional staff to solicit more job placements and network with other organizations in the community to provide some of the social service needs of ex-offenders. You need a foundation grant, but you don't know where to start. Just remember that private philanthropy is simply another system--once you understand the parameters, the language, and protocols, you can find your way. The good news is that for those seeking grants, the number being awarded, the types, and the access to resources for the search have never been better. "If You Don't Qualify, Don't Apply." That blandishment is included in one of the many guides to grantseeking now available to those hoping to land their first foundation grant. It's a phrase well worth remembering, but it is not meant to discourage you. All it really means is--do your homework. If grantmaking is more art than science (which most program officers will admit), then the same is true for grantseeking. You can tip the scales in your favor with some basic research, strategy, and creativity in how you go after the grant. The Foundation Center contains a wealth of information on giving in the United States. It can provide you with information on your program area, foundations that fund in that area, and how to find the specifics on each potential funder. The Foundation Center has a Web site, as do many foundations. Define Your Program Broadly, Then Target Your Choices. When looking into possible foundations, remember to both target your choices and cast your net wide. Because of the emerging emphasis on communitywide solutions to crime and the growing appreciation for the public health, quality-of-life issues inherent in crime and justice, you need to think about your program in those contexts. Do you work with others in the community? Foundations look more favorably on collaboration these days, mirroring their own increasing tendency to pool resources for maximum effect. For example, several years ago the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore launched an intensive, eight-city community development project that sought to bring as many resources as possible to bear on specific communities. The project involved job development, arts and culture, health care, social services, and economic development--all of which are connected to criminal justice in the deepest sense, especially in low-income communities riven by crime. Thinking about your ex-offender job placement efforts in this way may suggest new partners, new program development, and, thus, new funding strategies. Once you have defined your program, go through the foundation lists you've obtained and identify 5 to 10 foundations that seem most likely to fund your program. Once again, while your initial search can be among foundations with an explicit criminal justice focus, also look for foundations that fall under the broadest conception of your program. Send for annual reports or download them from foundation Web sites and study them for lists and descriptions of previous grants that might resemble yours. Talk to anyone you know who might have a contact there. Talk to your board members or to other organizations that have successfully approached a particular foundation. Study the foundation's priorities and be honest about the fit: don't waste their time and yours on a long shot, but be creative in attracting their interest. Make Your Case: The Proposal. A great deal rests on the program proposal. Fortunately, writing a good one is not difficult. "Lead with substance," said Mahon. Tell them the facts about the problem at the community level and state the ways that your program will address the problem. It is key to make a strong case and make it in a short amount of space. If you are applying to a local foundation, emphasize the events or concepts that evoke a connection to the community. If you are applying to a foundation outside your community, write in a way that conveys both the passion and the efficacy of your organization to someone who has never seen your community or met you. You also need to prove things, not just state them. Use hard statistics where possible to give an overview of the problem. Some foundations specify the exact form a proposal should take while others provide actual application forms. However, most proposals take the form of an executive summary (an overall statement of the case for your program), a need statement (a tightly constructed statement about why this project is necessary, what need it meets in the community, and so forth), a project description (the nuts and bolts of how the project will be carried out and by whom), a budget (including financial information and explanatory notes), organizational information (a brief history of the organization and a description of the organization's governing structure, primary activities, whom it serves and what it delivers), and a conclusion (a rousing summary of the proposal's main points and the critical need for the grant). Use news clippings or other articles to help bring your community or program to life. Surveys of foundation officers are mixed as to whether videos are useful-- most say they don't have time to watch them. For those who need it, help in structuring and writing proposals is available from a vast landscape of intermediary organizations that have grown up around philanthropy. Everything from books to consultants to nonprofits that help emerging organizations fundraise and structure their work can be found through the Foundation Center. A helpful and detailed book is The Foundation Center's Guide to Proposal Writing.[8] (See "The Foundation Center: A Resource for Grantseekers.") Once you have all this in hand, take your shot. If you've done your homework well enough, you should at least receive a hearing, a review, or a site visit. Mahon recommends encouraging a site visit. "Once you have contacted [the prospective funder], invite them to come out, and don't just show them a building--have them talk to your clients," she said. Spark their interest. You may get the grant, but even if you don't, the foundation may be able to provide other help: suggestions on where else to apply, referrals for technical assistance to improve your program idea or management, even suggestions about local partners who can provide inkind assistance to improve services. Or like OSI, the local foundation may fund some of what you need and then help you to broker deals with other foundations or funding sources to help raise all of the money you need. Look on this foray into philanthropy as a way to access a number of kinds of assistance--not just financial. In sum, despite the competition for limited funds, there is reason to hope. And the good news is that even a modest grant from a local foundation can usually be parlayed into more foundation funding. Once your program has received the imprimatur of a private funding source, others are likely to follow. The Long View. One of the ways to think about looking for foundation funding is to consider the long view. The strand that connects the current Zeitgeist with the iterations in public policy and programs has always been mysterious but powerful. Attempts to change the world are connected with efforts to change individual lives--to intervene where necessary and critical, to make a difference. Those working in criminal justice at all levels--from public policy to advocacy to drug treatment, job development, and counseling--are all attempting to change things for the better. And philanthropy, the so-called third sector, exists in order to further this betterment. Think about looking for a grant as looking for a partnership. Think about foundations as allies, and get them to think about your program in the same way. Think hard about your program's philosophy, and then go out and find a foundation with a similar one. And even if you at first don't succeed, the information you provide to that program officer will be a bit of wisdom, an approach to the issue that may lodge and grow and add to the sum of knowledge--and ultimately, to the reform that striving for human justice is all about. Notes 1. Foundation Center, Grants for Crime, Law Enforcement, and Abuse Prevention, New York, N.Y.: Foundation Center, 1998: iii. 2. According to the California Department of Corrections, which operates all of the State's prisons, oversees community correctional facilities, and supervises all parolees during their reentry into the community, its 1998- 99 budget was $3.9 billion. 3. Gangi, Robert, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, New York State of Mind? Higher Education vs. Prison Funding in the Empire State, 1988-1998, Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 1998: 3. 4. Jacobs, Nancy F., and Ira Brant Sommers, Crime and Justice: The Burden Study of Foundation Grantmaking Trends, New York, N.Y.: Foundation Center, 1991. This report provides critical information on the types of support given and detailed descriptions of the foundations consistently interested in criminal justice. It also profiles the giving patterns of some of the major foundations interested in the field. Much of the information is still current. 5. The Johnson Foundation recently convened a conference of experts in the criminal justice/juvenile justice field and will continue to seek input over the next few months. Although the scope and parameters of the program are not complete, a spokesperson emphasized that the Foundation is seeking to incorporate the best current thinking about the issue in its planning. 6. Gilliard, Darrell K., Prison and --Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau --of Justice Statistics, 1999, NCJ 173414. 7. Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J. Beck, "The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Where Are All the Prisoners Coming From?", presented at an NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, Washington, D.C., 1998. A 60-minute VHS videotape for each seminar is available for $19 ($24 in Canada and other countries) by contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420. A full discussion of this research will appear in the forthcoming Volume 26 of Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, a thematic volume on prisons edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia. 8. Greever, Jane C., and Patricia McNeill, The Foundation Center's Guide to Proposal Writing, rev. ed., New York, N.Y.: Foundation Center, February 1997. ------------------------------- about the author Kate Chieco is a freelance journalist in Washington, D.C. She has been a program officer at several foundations and director of a diversion program in Brooklyn, New York, for the Legal Aid Society of New York. ------------------------------- Foundation Funding for Crime, Law Enforcement, and Abuse Prevention, 1996-97 Among the 3,561 foundation grants for crime, law enforcement, and abuse prevention awarded in 1996-97, the Foundation Center identified 21 different population groups that were served, 31 types of support provided, 38 types of grant recipients, and 24 funded subject areas. Population Groups Served* Children and youth--$100 million Crime and abuse victims--$65 Economically disadvantaged--$45 Women and girls--$40 Offenders or ex-offenders--$29 Alcohol or drug abusers--$10 Men and boys--$5 Single parents--$2.3 Aging persons--$2 People with AIDS--$1.4 Types of Support More than 56 percent of the funds--approximately $135 million-- supported program development. Almost 10 percent (approximately $24 million) of the funds supported research, and 3 percent (approximately $8 million) supported program evaluation. Foundations spent $15 million on building or renovation, $24 million on general support, and $51 million on continuing support. Recipients* Human service agencies--$167 million Civil rights groups followed--$32 Professional societies and associations --$24 Colleges and universities--$20 Government agencies--$11 Youth development organizations--$6 Research institutes--$6 Schools --$2 Other recipients included animal and wildlife agencies, libraries, and recreation organizations, although five or fewer grants were given for -- these purposes. Subject Areas Grants that addressed crime, justice, and public protection made up 40 percent of all the grants given in this field. Human services-related grants made up almost 17 percent of the grants, and grants addressing civil rights and social action made up another 10 percent. *Note, these lists are a sampling of the entire lists of population groups served and grant recipients. Source: Grants for Crime, Law Enforcement, and Abuse Prevention, New York, N.Y.: Foundation Center, December 1998. ------------------------------- NIJ-Foundation Partnerships NIJ has partnered with several foundations over the years, including The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Ford Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. NIJ currently is collaborating with The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation on the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, a longitudinal study involving a variety of research disciplines to develop a better understanding of the development of both prosocial and antisocial behavior from birth to age 26. NIJ partnered with the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in fiscal year 1997 to launch NIJ's "Perspectives on Crime and Justice" lecture series, which brings nationally recognized academics to Capitol Hill to discuss research perspectives on the challenges of contemporary crime issues that policymakers face. The Kauffman Foundation partnered with NIJ to support an evaluation of the sales tax levied by Kansas City, Missouri, to fund broad-based antidrug efforts. For more information about NIJ projects and funding partners, see the National Institute of Justice 1997 Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998, NCJ 171678), which is available on the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 1-800-851-3420. ------------------------------- The Foundation Center: A Resource for Grantseekers The Foundation Center is a nonprofit service organization established by a group of foundations in 1956 to foster public understanding of the field by collecting, organizing, analyzing, and disseminating information on foundations, corporate giving, and related subjects. Many grantseekers begin their search at one of the Center's five locations (Atlanta, Cleveland, New York, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C.), at one of the 200 Cooperating Collections around the country, or online on the organization's Web site. A good place to begin a search is the organization's database of foundation and corporate grantmakers and their associated grants. A grantseeker can search the database using 21 different criteria, such as subject area and geography. The database includes profiles of approximately 50,000 U.S. foundations and corporate givers; the names and foundation affiliations of more than 200,000 trustees, officers, and donors who make funding decisions at these institutions; and descriptions of more than 200,000 newly reported grants. By conducting a search using subject terms and geographic location, grantseekers can generate a list of grantmakers with those specific interests or a list of similar grants and their respective funders. Although the Center's Web site does not allow access to the database, it does provide other useful information, such as links to individual foundation Web sites, descriptions of how to approach funding research, and tips on proposal writing. Foundation Web sites are an important resource for up-to-date information once you identify prospective funders. Foundation Web sites often provide specific information on what the foundation does or does not fund, annual reports, lists of grants, and application forms and instructions. For more information about the Foundation Center, visit its Web site at http://www.fdncenter.org, or contact the New York office at 212-620- 4320. ------------------------------- For More Information The Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation: 781-455-8303 Open Society Institute's Center on Crime, Communities and Culture: http://www.soros.org/crime or 212-548-0152 The Public Welfare Foundation: http://www.publicwelfare.org or 202- 965-1800 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: http://www.rwjf.org/main.html or 609-452-8701 The Foundation Center: http://www.fdncenter.org or 212-620-4320 ------------------------------- At-A-Glance: Recent Research Findings The summaries in this section are based on recent NIJ reports and/or ongoing research. The ongoing research was presented as part of the NIJ Research in Progress seminar series, which features well-known scholars discussing their work with an audience of researchers and criminal justice professionals and practitioners. The reports and a 60-minute VHS videotape of the Research in Progress seminar on law enforcement stress are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420. Videotaped seminars are $19 ($24 in Canada and other countries). The reports also can be downloaded from the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. The Public Health and Law Enforcement Stress A recent study of the prevalence of law enforcement officer stress and its implications for the Baltimore Police Department found that approximately 10 percent of officers experience high levels of stress and that these officers also are much more likely than others to report poor physical and psychological health, family problems, alcohol abuse, and depression. Previous research has shown that police officers have high levels of many stress indicators, including post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide, and alcohol abuse. Studies have found that among officers with more than 10 years' experience, there are increased risks for cancer (particularly digestive and bladder cancers), heart disease, hypertension, and chronic back pain, and that the rate of alcohol abuse among police officers is twice that of the general population. Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety Specialist Robyn Gershon and her colleagues Antonio Escamilla, Dana LaFon, Christine Karkashian, and David Vlahov at Johns Hopkins University have conducted a survey of Baltimore police officers to examine the prevalence of police stress; its psychological, physical, and behavioral effects; and its economic and organizational implications. In developing the survey and designing the research project--which is called Project SHIELDS (Study to Help Identify, Evaluate, and Limit Department Stress)--they collaborated with the Baltimore (Maryland) Police Department, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Project SHIELDS advisory board. Approximately 70 percent (1,106) of Baltimore officers responded to the survey. Eighty-five percent of respondents were male, 64 percent were white, 68 percent were married or had a domestic partner, and 85 percent had at least some college education. The average age was 36 years and the average length of police experience was 11.5 years. The survey categorized major stressors into (1) critical incidents and (2) organizational or job-related stressors. The critical incidents officers cited most frequently as major stressors were attending a police funeral and being investigated by internal affairs. In the second category, officers said their split-second decisionmaking on the street and its potentially serious consequences are a major stressor. Gershon and her colleagues on Project SHIELDS found the following outcomes of police stress: low energy, headaches, pounding in the chest, and suicidal thoughts. Researchers also identified such physical outcomes as chronic low back pain, foot problems, migraines, high blood pressure, insomnia, and reproductive problems. Behavioral outcomes included increased alcohol abuse and injuries. The researchers also found significant associations between police stress and family violence or assault. Approximately 9 percent of officers reported physically assaulting a spouse or domestic partner, 9 percent assaulting their children, and 7 percent assaulting another officer. Spousal/partner abuse rates were highest for female officers who have female domestic partners. (It should be noted, however, that the sample size for this category was quite small.) Officers reporting high stress (approximately 10 percent of all officers) were 3 times more likely to report poor health, 3 times more likely to abuse spouses or partners, 5 times more likely to report alcoholism, and 10 times more likely to experience depression than other officers. The public health implications--and factors to consider when developing and implementing interventions--include the costs associated with officer stress, such as hiring, training, and retraining recruits; employee turnover; stress-related illness and injuries; lost productivity; and aberrant behaviors. Together, these variables potentially represent a large amount of police department resources. International Drug Use: Comparing British and American Arrestees Countering the conventional belief that the United States has the highest rates of drug abuse, researchers at NIJ and the University of Cam-bridge found that, for several types of drugs, rates among detained arrestees in England are about the same or higher than those in the U.S. The study compares the results of urinalysis and interviews conducted among detained arrestees at five locations in England and five matched locations in the United States. Rates of drug use by this at-risk population were found to be high in both countries. Use of opiates/heroin, methadone, and amphetamines was higher in the English sample, and for benzodiazepines and marijuana, there was no real difference between the two countries. Only for cocaine and crack cocaine were rates higher in the United States. Various aspects of behavior related to drug use also were studied. English arrestees tended to spend more money on drugs and to report higher levels of illegal income than their counterparts in the United States. Only small differences between the two countries were found in arrestees' use of or need for drug treatment. There also were few differences in the age at which drug use began, although there were some differences for specific types of drugs. The report is a product of NIJ's I-ADAM (International Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program, begun in 1998 under NIJ sponsorship as a means to integrate, at the international level, the process of monitoring drug abuse by arrestees and to coordinate related research. Currently, seven countries participate in I-ADAM, and more plan to join next year. Analysis of I-ADAM data from other countries is now under way and will be published as it becomes available. Copies of the Research Report, Comparing Drug Use Rates Among Detained Arrestees in the United States and England (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1999) by Bruce Taylor and Trevor Bennett (NCJ 175052), may be obtained from NCJRS at 1-800-851-3420. Copies also can be downloaded from the NIJ Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. ------------------------------- New & Noteworthy Innovations in American Government Competition--1999 semifinalists announced The Innovations in American Government awards program named 12 criminal justice innovations among the semifinalists in its 1999 competition. Sponsored by the Ford Foundation and administered by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government, the Innovations program confers one of the country's most prestigious public-service awards. It recognizes government initiatives at the local, State, and Federal levels that are original and have proved effective. The 12 innovations encompass a wide range of criminal justice arenas-- policing, corrections, community corrections, and juvenile justice, among others--and cover such varied issues as domestic violence, videoconferencing, reduction of inmate litigation, and 311 nonemergency systems. Selected from a pool of more than 1,600 applicants, the semifinalists are eligible for 1 of 10 $100,000 awards. From the group of semifinalists, finalists are chosen and announced in September; winners in October. NIJ works with selected winners and finalists in criminal justice and related fields to assist them in replication and dissemination of information about their programs. For information about last year's winners, see the January 1999 issue of the NIJ Journal (JR 000238). To learn more about the Innovations in American Government competition, visit its Web site at http://www.innovtions.harvard.edu or call 617-495-0558. Lawyers in Their Communities NIJ-sponsored research has identified attorneys who are stepping out of their traditional roles of processing cases and taking a direct working interest in the problems of particular places and communities. For example: o An assistant prosecutor in Oregon suppressed street prostitution by negotiating an enforceable agreement with small motel operators rather than bringing more misdemeanor prosecutions of prostitutes and johns. o An assistant city attorney in Nevada worked out the legal issues enabling county jail inmates to clean up a property that had been neglected for 20 years, thereby shortening their sentences, while the city supplied the dump trucks. o Legal aid lawyers in Maryland represented neighborhood groups in civil lawsuits that closed drug houses and transferred titles of abandoned properties to nonprofit developers. Scholars and practitioners participating in an NIJ-sponsored focus group earlier this year agreed that "community oriented lawyering" may be emerging as a new practice specialty, not only among prosecutors and city attorneys, but also legal aid groups, pro bono attorneys, and criminal defense attorneys. Readers who know of such attorneys--or who want to know more about them--are encouraged to contact NIJ Visiting Fellow Roger Conner by e-mail at connerr@ojp.usdoj.gov or by mail at the following address: U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice Attn: Roger Conner 810 7th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20531. ------------------------------- Events NIJ Participates in UN Crime Meetings Several NIJ representatives attended the eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice held in Vienna, Austria, from April 27 to May 6, 1999. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) in Rome has responsibility for implementing a major part of the UN's crime prevention and criminal justice research program. NIJ participated in the meeting as a member of the network of research institutes affiliated with the United Nations' crime prevention and criminal justice program. The Commission meetings dealt with criminal justice reform, the strengthening of legal institutions, crime prevention, and international cooperation in combating transnational crime. NIJ representatives also attended the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime that were held simultaneously with the Commission meetings in Vienna. The Future of DNA Evidence Attorney General Janet Reno directed NIJ to establish and administer the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence to make recommendations on the use of DNA in the operation of the criminal justice system. At the Commission's fifth meeting on May 7-8 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, members heard presentations on the activities of the Commission's five working groups on legal issues, postconviction issues, research and development, laboratory funding, and crime scene investigation. In addition to hearing the working groups' reports, Commission members and attendees heard presentations from George Trubow, Director, Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law at The John Marshall Law School; David Coffman, Supervisor, Florida DNA Investigative Support Database; and Pam Collins and Kathryn Scarborough of Eastern Kentucky University, who spoke on Internet and CD-ROM training for law enforcement officers. The Commission's sixth meeting will be held in Boston, Massachusetts, July 25-26. Complete transcripts from the fifth meeting--and from all four previous Commission meetings--are available online from the DNA Commission's page on the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna. Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force Holds Third Meeting San Diego, California, was the setting for the third meeting of the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force May 4-5. The Task Force members reviewed a draft of its "Report of the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force," to be delivered to the Attorney General, and attended a town hall meeting sponsored by the County of San Diego Meth Strike Force, at which participants discussed meth problems and solutions for the San Diego area. Cochaired by NIJ Director Jeremy Travis and Office of National Drug Control Policy Deputy Director Donald Vereen, the Task Force was established by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1996 to make recommendations for combating the manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine in the United States. San Diego is one of the cities with a high incidence of methamphetamine use featured in Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1999) (NCJ 176331), an NIJ Research Report released at the Task Force meeting. Copies of the report are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service by calling 1-800-851- 3420, and from the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/nij. The Task Force will meet again this fall in Washington, D.C., at which time it will solicit comments on its interim report and recommendations from interest groups, State and local officials, and other stakeholders for how best to implement an effective response to methamphetamine. The interim report, which will be available later this summer, will outline the guiding principles, research needs, and recommendations of the Task Force. Following the fall meeting, the Task Force will submit its final report to the Attorney General. Armor and Trauma the Topic of NATO Meeting The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held a meeting in April to discuss the issues surrounding trauma experienced while wearing armor. "Behind the Armor Blunt Trauma" brought together researchers, medical professionals, and criminal justice representatives from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. Participants shared resources and findings to better understand the effects of blunt trauma to the chest and head while wearing protective garments such as body armor and ballistic helmets. Each of the countries is conducting further research on issues such as head injuries during ballistic loading of helmets, biophysics and pathophysiology of blunt trauma behind personal armors, and an analytical method for evaluating the threat level of ammunition relative to soft body armor. NIJ Office of Science and Technology Program Manager Wendy Howe participated in the meeting with Kathleen Higgins, Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology. For more information, contact Higgins at 301-975-2757. Cocaine Use Among Adult Male Arrestees Declined, According to New ADAM Data Findings released recently at the third annual conference of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program indicate that cocaine use among adult male arrestees has declined over the past year. Cocaine remains the drug most commonly found in test results of female arrestees, but it is now second to marijuana among male arrestees. These and other findings were discussed among researchers and practitioners at the conference, which also focused on ADAM's development and expansion and its application to State and local policymaking. Presentations at the conference covered the use of geographic information systems for analyzing ADAM data, the relationship between domestic violence and substance abuse, comparisons between U.S. and U.K. arrestee drug use, and drug testing methods for distinguishing between powder or smokable (crack) cocaine. The ADAM program estimates the prevalence of drug use among persons who are arrested and booked, and analyzes the data to detect changes in trends in drug use among this population. There are currently 35 data collection sites in the United States and 6 international ADAM sites. The data are used by law enforcement and drug treatment practitioners to allocate resources, design prevention strategies, and gauge the impact of local efforts to reduce drug use. (See announcement of upcoming ADAM solicitations, p. 32.) The recent ADAM findings are presented in Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program: 1998 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees (U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1999) (NCJ 175656). This year's annual report was accompanied by four separate reports on the use of methamphetamine, crack and powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. ADAM reports are available on the new ADAM Web site at http://www.adam-nij.net/adam and from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 1-800-851- 3420. Federal Partners Plan School Safety Research A sound research agenda built on collaboration among disciplines and of demonstrated benefit for practitioners is a necessary part of the strategy to ensure that the Nation's schools are safe. Several Federal agencies, including NIJ and the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, met last April to frame such an agenda. Researchers and practitioners from the mental health, education, and criminal justice fields participated in the meeting. Papers commissioned for the meeting focused on such topics as community/ institutional partnerships for research; integrated prevention and intervention efforts for safer schools; and violence trends among high school students. Among the issues participants discussed were the tracking and analysis of organizational data; investigation of class management training offered to teachers; and the functions and definition of police resource officers. NIJ plans to release a solicitation for research on school safety in the fall of 1999. For more information on this solicitation, watch the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 1-800-851-3420. ------------------------------- Solicitations & Awards ADAM Program Seeks 15 New Sites and Site Management Teams NIJ has released a two-part solicitation under its Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program for additional ADAM sites and site management teams. The ADAM program currently operates 35 sites in the United States and works collaboratively with 6 international sites that collect drug use data on persons who are arrested and booked. The program, previously known as the Drug Use Forecasting (DUE) program, was enhanced and renamed ADAM in 1997 to incorporate new elements that strengthen the value of the data. The "Solicitation to Add Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Sites" seeks applications from municipalities and jurisdictions that want to be considered as sites for ADAM data collection. Fifteen additional ADAM sites are to be identified in fiscal year 1999, bringing the number of operational ADAM sites to 50 by fiscal year 2000, subject to congressional appropriation of funds. NIJ anticipates that by 2001 there will be 75 operational ADAM sites. Although municipalities that become ADAM sites do not receive direct funding from NIJ, they do have access to crime, drug, health, and treatment data collected by the program, gain an opportunity to develop partnerships with researchers, and improve local coordination to address drug-related issues of concern to the community. The second part of the solicitation, "Selection of Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Site Management Teams," seeks proposals from data management professionals to direct the 15 new sites. The management teams will enter into subcontracts with the ADAM program's data and management contractor, Abt Associates Inc. The deadline for proposals will be in early fall 1999. For deadline information or copies of the solicitations, visit the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 1-800-851-3420. NIJ to Release Investigator-Initiated Solicitation NIJ's 1999 "Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated Research," an open invitation to the criminal justice research field to propose innovative research endeavors, will be issued soon in two parts. NIJ's Office of Science and Technology will seek proposals from the physical sciences field, which will be due October 15, 1999, and the Office of Research and Evaluation will solicit social science research proposals, which will be due January 18, 2000. This year, there will be one funding cycle for each of the two parts of the solicitation, rather than two cycles for one solicitation, as in previous years. The broad themes that have guided NIJ's research agenda in recent years still apply: o Rethinking Justice o Understanding the Nexus o Breaking the Cycle o Creating the Tools o Expanding the Horizons Both parts of the "Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated Research" will include a discussion and examples of how proposed research can fit into these themes. A discussion of these themes also can be found in Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: The 1998 Research Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998) (NCJ 172883), and National Institute of Justice 1997 Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998) (NCJ 171679). Visit NIJ's Web site at http://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/nij for the publications mentioned above and for the latest information on the release of the "Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated Research." NIJ publications also are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service by calling 1-800-851-3420. ------------------------------- NIJ in the Journals The following list summarizes key articles of interest to the Journal's readers. Most are based on studies sponsored by NIJ. Copies are available on loan from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS); in some cases, photocopies may be obtained for a fee. For information on availability, call NCJRS at 1-800-851-3420; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Please cite the accession (ACCN) number. "Collective Regulation of Adolescent Misbehavior: Validation Results From 80 Chicago Neighborhoods," Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2) (April 1997), 227-44, by Sampson, R.J., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K005, ACCN 168642. This study tested a neighborhood-level approach to the informal social control of children. Results showed that several dimensions of neighborhood structure (concentrated poverty, ethnicity/immigration, and residential stability) ex-plained a significant amount of the variance in child social control. When a neighborhood's informal social controls are taken into account, the impact of residential stability on delinquency is reduced by half. Even after adjusting for a neighborhood's crime levels, informal social control emerged as a significant inhibitor of adolescent delinquency. "Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: The Role of Place Managers," Criminology, 36(2) (May 1998), 371-403, by Mazerolle, L.G., Kadleck, C., and Roehl, J., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0039, ACCN 174049. This study explored the role of place managers in controlling drug and disorder problems on 100 street blocks of Oakland, California. Place managers may be community activists, business owners, or neighborhood guardians who lead a community's effort to monitor activity in and around a location. Street blocks where place managers engaged in collective crime control activities had significantly fewer disorders and greater levels of civil behavior. Community cohesiveness on street blocks was associated with fewer males selling drugs. "Cost of Mental Health Care for Victims of Crime," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1) (February 1998), 93-110, by Cohen, M.A., and Miller, T.R., grant number 90-IJ-CX-0050, ACCN 174148. This article reports on a nationally representative survey of 168 mental health care professionals about the prevalence and cost of treating crime victims. Crime victims represent an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the total client population of mental health care professionals. Actual expenditures for mental health care services to crime victims are estimated to be between $5.8 and $6.8 billion. "Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence From a National Survey," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(2) (June 1998), 111-31, by Cook, P. J., and Ludwig, J., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0017, ACCN 175056. This study analyzed the results of the Private Ownership of Firearms, a nationally representative, random-digit-dial telephone survey estimating the prevalence of civilian defensive gun uses (DGU's) against criminal attackers. The authors conclude that estimates from the survey are subject to a large positive bias. This analysis suggests that available survey data are not capable of determining whether reported DGU incidents, even if true, add to or detract from public health and safety. "DNA Dilemma," Corrections Compendium, 22(5) (May 1997), 4-6, by Imwinkelried, E.J., Clarke, G.W., and Stephenson, C., ACCN 168853. These two commentaries focus on the findings of an NIJ-sponsored report on cases in which convicted persons were released from prison as a result of posttrial DNA testing of evidence. The first commentary traces the rules regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence, with particular attention to DNA evidence and testimony. The second commentary argues for proper use and interpretation of DNA typing in sexual assault cases; DNA cannot, for example, exactly answer why, when, or how the assault was committed. For this type of information, the victim should be the primary source. "Gender and Victimization Risk Among Young Women in Gangs," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4) (November 1998), 429-53, by Miller, J., ACCN 175002. Using surveys of and interviews with 20 female gang members in Columbus, Ohio, this study examined how gang involvement shaped young women's risks of victimization. The study found that gang participation exposed youth to victimization risk, and it did so in ways that varied by gender. Young women can use gender to decrease their risk of being harmed by rival gangs or other street participants by not participating in "masculine" activities such as fighting and committing crime; however, the consequence is that they are viewed as lesser members of their gangs and may be exposed to greater risk of victimization within their gangs. "Legal and Social Control of Alcohol-Impaired Driving in California: 1983-1994" Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58(5) (September 1997), 518- 23, by Berger, D.E., and Marelich, W.D., grant number 82-IJ-CX-0059, ACCN 174162. This article discusses the legal and social forces that influence change in alcohol-impaired driving behavior. The study compared drinking and driving attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of California drivers who were surveyed in 1983, 1986, and 1994. All age groups--including men and women, both heavy drinkers and light drinkers--reported a large reduction in drinking before driving. Subjects also displayed: greater knowledge of drinking and driving laws and an increased expectation that violations would be followed by unpleasant consequences; heightened perceptions that friends and relatives were likely to disapprove of driving after drinking; more awareness of control of drinking by drivers at occasions where alcohol was being served; and an increase in the view that it is morally wrong to drive after heavy drinking. "Long-Term Rearrest Rates in a Sample of Adjudicated Delinquents: Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Programs," Prison Journal, 78(4) (December 1998), 360-89, by Fendrich, M., and Archer, M., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0108, ACCN 175059. This study assessed the impact on recidivism of training school compared to alternative program placements for 266 youths remanded to the Texas Youth Commission in 1983. Being male, younger at the time of commitment, and in an institutional program prior to parole were found to significantly increase the risk of recidivism. The amount of time elapsed before committing a new crime was significantly longer for youths placed in alternative programs compared to youths who had been in institutions. An important benefit of alternative programs may be to lengthen a window of opportunity for additional rehabilitative efforts and interventions during parole. "Policing in Public Housing: Using Calls for Service to Examine Incident-Based Workload in the Philadelphia Housing Authority," Policing, 21(4) (1998), 618-31, by Kane, R.J., grant number 95-IJ-CX- 0041, ACCN 174632. This article compares and contrasts findings from studies on police workload in housing developments with prior findings of studies conducted in municipal police settings. While similar patterns of service requests appeared in the two settings, particularly in public order and reactive law enforcement, public housing police were required to respond to calls related to the physical structures of the public housing. Youth Gangs and Gender Two articles appeared recently based on a national study of 5,935 eighth-grade students and 11 cities: "Multisite Examination of Youth Gang Membership: Does Gender Matter?" Criminology, 36(4) (November 1998), 799-828, by Esbensen, F., and Deschenes, E.P., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0058, ACCN 174652. This study examined differences between boys' and girls' attitudes toward membership. The study described findings in terms of demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral measures. For example, the social control model suggests that girls and boys join gangs for different reasons. The factors that affect their reasons for joining include their level of self-esteem, feelings of social isolation, extent of educational success, and family processes. The results refute the media notion that females do not join gangs for the thrill of it: risk-seeking was a predictor of female gang membership, but not of male. "Race and Gender Differences Between Gang and Nongang Youths: Results From a Multisite Survey," Justice Quarterly, 15(3) (September 1998), 505-26, by Esbensen, F., and Winfree, L.T., grant number 94-IJ- CX-0058, ACCN 174167. This article examines the demographic composition of gangs and the level of delinquent activity of gang members compared with nongang members. The study found that gang members are disproportionately members of ethnic and racial minorities, but that white involvement (25 percent of gang members) is greater than has generally been reported. All gang members, regardless of ethnicity, reported considerably higher levels of delinquency than their nongang ethnic counterparts. ------------------------------- NIJ Is Developing and Testing Technologies for Criminal Justice Application NIJ has pioneered the development of some of the technologies, products, and standards that are now commonplace in criminal justice settings--for example, soft body armor and advances in the use of DNA science in forensics. The following describes several of the latest tools NIJ is developing and testing. Investigative Technologies Applying Space Technology to Forensic Science. NIJ is supporting the identification and field-testing of various National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) technologies for crime-scene investigations. NASA technologies, such as remote sensing, neutron/gamma-ray spectroscopy, and x-ray spectroscopy, potentially could be used by law enforcement for investigation of physical evidence at crime scenes. The use of magnetometers also may assist investigators in the location of buried bodies by detecting minute variations in magnetic fields at suspected homicide grave sites. The goal of the project is to evaluate NASA technologies that may be applicable to law enforcement settings. For more information, contact Lisa Forman of NIJ at 202-307-6608. Evaluation of Voice Stress Analysis Technology. In response to queries from a number of law enforcement agencies, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in Rome, New York, and the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)-Northeast are evaluating the scientific value and utility of existing commercial voice stress analysis technology for law enforcement and military applications. Vendors of this technology claim it can detect stress, indicating possible deception, in voice communications. The systems are advertised as being cheaper, easier to use, less invasive, and less constraining than polygraph technology. AFRL and NLECTC have researched the development of voice stress analysis, previous evaluation efforts, and the existence of various commercial voice stress analysis systems that are being marketed to law enforcement agencies. The evaluators have purchased one such system, and a police officer and a laboratory researcher have been trained in its use. The evaluators also are collecting speech data for the laboratory evaluation and contacting voice stress analysis users, potential users, and other researchers involved in ongoing evaluations. AFRL and NLECTC will produce a technical report and videotaped presentation of evaluation results. For more information, contact Sharon Walter of NLECTC-Northeast at 888-338-0584. Concealed Weapons Detection Technology Development and Testing NIJ and the Department of Defense jointly sponsor the Joint Program Steering Group to support the development and testing of technology that can be applied in both criminal justice and military settings. The technologies described below are some of the recent products of this partnership. For more information, contact Pete Nacci at the Joint Program Steering Group at 703-351-8821. Backscatter Imaging System for Concealed Weapons Detection. A modified version of an off-the-shelf concealed weapons detection technology that uses what is known as the Compton effect, or x-ray backscatter, is now commercially available. The technology was developed by Nicolet Imaging Systems of San Diego, California. Standard medical radiology uses x-rays that pass completely through the body. However, the low-energy x-rays emitted by this system, which are equivalent to about 5 minutes of exposure to sunlight at sea level, are reflected back rather than penetrating the body, hence the term "backscatter." An individual stands before the device and is scanned. Computer software creates a composite image of the individual from the reflected x-rays. As various materials absorb and reflect the x-rays differently, they show up as different shades and shapes in the image. By viewing the false color feature that has been added and the shape of an object in the image, the operator can distinguish normal anatomical features and everyday items, such as keys, from suspicious articles. The major advantage this system has over magnetometers is that it can detect nonmetallic as well as metallic weapons. This technology was successfully demonstrated in a Los Angeles County corrections facility, a Federal courthouse in Los Angeles, and a State prison in North Carolina. It is commercially available through Rapiscan Corporation. Electromagnetic Portal for Concealed Weapons Detection. A weapons detection technology that uses fluxgate magnetometers is now ready for commercialization. Fluxgate magnetometers detect anomalies in the earth's magnetic field that are caused by magnetic material contained in objects carried by individuals. Most commercial weapons contain ferrous (iron-bearing) materials, which are magnetic. Because this technology does not sound an alert on such innocuous objects as keys or coins, it significantly reduces the false alarm rate as compared to currently available devices, which tend to detect all metal objects. It can detect weapons with even a small steel content, like that found in Exacto [registered trademark] knives used by hobbyists. A prototype of the technology has been installed in the Bannock County, Idaho, courthouse for operational evaluation. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory developed the technology. Handheld Acoustic System for Concealed Weapons Detection. GAWKIER is developing an inexpensive, handheld device to alert police and corrections officers of the potential presence of a weapon. The technology will allow detection at a greater distance (4-12 feet) than the handheld metal detectors in use today, thus providing a greater margin of safety. The device also will be able to detect metallic and nonmetallic weapons concealed under an individual's clothing by using acoustic technology. The detector will be affordable for even smaller law enforcement and corrections agencies. A model already has been demonstrated with positive results: It was able to detect a plastic knife concealed under a heavy sweatshirt at a distance of 7 feet. Two working models also have been developed and are being tested to determine performance parameters. The working models were recently demonstrated at the California Border Alliance Group and received a positive reception from law enforcement representatives. Three developmental units have been built and will be operationally tested by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. ------------------------------- Abstracts of Recent NIJ Final Reports Now Available on the Web Summaries of recently received final reports from NIJ grantees are available on the NIJ Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/newsletter/0499main.html. These summaries describe completed NIJ-sponsored research projects. Full final reports in manuscript form, as submitted by authors, are available from NCJRS through interlibrary loan and as photocopies. Call NCJRS at 1-800-851- 3420 for information.