NIJ Solicitation: Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing. and Corrections MENU TITLE: Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections Series: NIJ Solicitation Published: June 1996 22 pages 46,687 bytes NIJ Solicits Proposals for Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections Introduction The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is soliciting proposals to provide conceptual and administrative direction to a research forum on the interdependent relationship between sentencing policy and correctional practice. Entitled "The Executive Seminar on Sentencing and Corrections," the forum will periodically bring together a core group of corrections executives, sentencing experts, policymakers, and researchers for the purpose of examining the issues that constrain or enhance the capability of correctional administrators to carry out sentencing policies. A concomitant purpose of the forum will be to explore ways that corrections research and experience can contribute to the formation of more effective sanctioning policies. ------------------------------ Background In the early 1960s, in comparison to subsequent decades, fewer high-risk youths were in the population, illegal drugs were less pervasive,1 violent crimes were proportionately lower,2 and the probability was higher that offenders would be apprehended and, if incarcerated after apprehension, would serve longer terms.3 In most States, there was an acceptable balance between supply and demand for prison space.4 Judges and correctional administrators were permitted wide discretion in carrying out sentencing policies,5 and the concerns of victims, if considered at all, were regarded as being appropriately within the purview of social service agencies rather than the criminal justice system. Rising crime rates became a major, often paramount, public concern beginning in the mid-1960s.6 Responding to the concern, public policymakers during the following three decades increased funding for law enforcement and passed legislation that greatly changed how the Nation deals with offenders. Perhaps the foremost changes were to greatly reduce judicial discretion in sentencing,7 to increase the use of imprisonment,8 and, to a lesser degree, to limit correctional discretion by adopting parole guidelines or simply abolishing parole. Parole release, an integral part of indeterminate sentencing, was abolished in at least 11 States, although virtually all States retained postrelease supervision for some types of offenders.9 Although research findings appear to have had only modest influence on the establishment of sentencing policies, the often cited finding from Martinson et al., published in 1974, that "nothing works" in correctional treatment programs became conventional wisdom.10 While Martinson et al. subsequently disavowed this conclusion, the erroneous interpretation of their findings undoubtedly contributed to the movement to eliminate indeterminate sentencing.11 As prison commitments increased and crowding of prisons became commonplace, many States, sometimes under court order, embarked on costly prison construction programs.12 By the latter part of the 1980s, State legislatures continued to limit judicial discretion through passage of mandatory sentences for specific crimes, particularly drug dealing, or for offenders with extensive criminal histories, reinforcing the policy of reducing crime through incapacitation. As a consequence, commitments to prison continued to outpace available space.13 Some States adopted early release programs in which selected property offenders were released ahead of schedule so that bed space would be made available for more serious offenders or persons mandated to be incarcerated.14 Probation caseloads also increased greatly in many jurisdictions. Because prison space was not available, many States placed relatively high-risk offenders on probation.15 Inevitably, sizable numbers violated the terms of their probation, contributing significantly to the problem of prison crowding.16 In response to growing numbers of convicted offenders, many States developed programs designed to be possible alternatives to custody. Called "intermediate sanctions" because they are punishments intended to be more severe than traditional probation but less so than prison, these punishments are increasingly being used, primarily for nonviolent offenders. The three best known of these are probably boot camps, electronic monitoring, and intensive supervision probation (ISP). Early research findings into the effectiveness of these programs have either been inconclusive or moderately disappointing. When compared to traditional prison or jail programs, intermediate sanction alternatives do not exhibit lower recidivism or reduced costs. Since participant dropout rates are often high in these programs and failure rates are typically high due to increased supervision, it also is not clear that these programs can achieve significant reductions in commitments to prison. However, current research findings may be instrumental in improving a "second generation" of intermediate sanction programs.17 Sentencing policies determine the demographics and characteristics of correctional populations. In the past decade, the average age of offenders entering prison has increased, and, if time served increases, prison populations will become increasingly older.18, 19 The majority of these prisoners are serving sentences for violent offenses or have had a previous conviction for violence.20 Some States have adopted policies of waiving violent juveniles to adult courts. Even though the number of juveniles serving terms in adult prisons remains minuscule, they are a special management population.21 Ethnic minorities, always disproportionally represented in prison populations, have significantly increased in number.22 More ominously, in many prisons, prisoners have organized into ethnic gangs who compete for dominance.23 Inmate idleness, a chronic problem in the best of times, may be exacerbated in many States where legislation provides few programs to employ prisoners or requires administrators to remove or restrict access to such perceived luxuries as television and exercise equipment.24 Excessive caseloads in the community and crowding in prison, due largely to the number of inmates serving long terms, remain the most pressing problems facing corrections administrators. It is also particularly frustrating to correctional administrators when well-intentioned sentencing policies appear to produce results opposed to those intended, as when offenders who present greater risk to the public serve shorter terms than low-level and low-risk drug users or dealers.25 Furthermore, as the number of long-term inmates increases, many correctional systems must consider how to manage future "geriatric prisons" with their attendant high medical costs.26 Corrections is the most costly component of the criminal justice system for State governments. State prison construction has lagged behind the demand for bed space, as has funding for intermediate sanctions. Many States may have reached the limits of their ability to fund corrections (operating expenses as well s capital expenditures), as such costs begin to divert moneys needed for other vital public purposes.27 While some funds for prison construction will be available to the States under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act), it is not clear whether States building additional facilities will be able to fund operating costs over the lifetime of the buildings. In the past 10 years a number of States, particularly Texas, have "privatized" some of their prison facilities in an effort to reduce costs.28 The Federal Government has also initiated a policy of entering into contracts with private corporations to operate Federal correctional facilities.29 Sanctioning policies spring from a desire to uphold specific values or achieve a specific purpose. Sentencing research, which has often focused on the judicial process, will become a greater asset to policymakers when it integrates the findings of corrections research, with its focus on the consequences of sentencing policies. ------------------------------ The Executive Seminar The venue chosen by NIJ for examining the reciprocal relationship between sentencing and correctional practice is the Executive Seminar (ES). The ES is a core group of 20 to 30 individuals with expertise in sentencing, corrections, public policy analysis, or research in the fields of sentencing or corrections. The membership of the ES, including the number of persons from each discipline, will be jointly decided by NIJ and the grantee. Consistent with the purpose of the project, the majority of the ES will be executives from State and local corrections, both institutional and community. The work of the ES will be carried out through discussion, original writings, commissioned papers, and directed research. The products of the project will be a series of NIJ publications and, perhaps, publications in other media formats, on the issues surrounding the symbiotic relationship between sentencing and corrections. The specific issues to be discussed will be selected jointly by NIJ, the grantee, and the ES. The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), at a meeting in July 1995 convened by the Department of Justice, identified a number of issues that are central to the question of whether sentencing policies, as implemented through correctional programs and practice, are achieving their intended purposes. The foremost issues include the following: 1. Measurement of policy outcomes. Some sentencing policies may produce results opposite to those intended. Outcome studies are needed that assess the impact of both sentencing policies and the correctional programs associated with them. A fundamental issue is how to clearly specify and then measure policy goals and program outcomes, particularly how to define and quantify the concept of recidivism. 2. Costs and expected benefits of alternative sentencing policies. This is an area of study that will become increasingly important as the costs of public safety increase. A current salient issue for corrections is the question of whether the public good can be met at less cost through contracting of corrections with private, profitmaking corporations. 3. Impact of sentencing policies on correctional populations and practice. How sentencing policies determine the size, composition, time under custody, and type of supervision of correctional populations needs assessment, as does how correctional policies and practices are, in turn, determined by the size and nature of correctional populations. 4. Performance measures. While linked to outcome measures, corrections also needs consensual measures of basic operational concepts such as rated capacity, average daily population, individual and institutional security levels, and similar measures that can be used to distinguish sound from inadequate correctional practice. Such measures would not only contribute to the improvement of correctional operations but would also be essential in examining the costs of achieving sentencing goals, thus enabling legislators and policymakers to better weigh alternative policies. 5. Role of the victim -- concept of restorative justice in corrections. Inclusion of victim concerns in corrections is new ground for most corrections administrators, and perhaps for most legislators and judges as well. At this point restorative justice is more a concept than a policy or a set of practices, but it has the potential to change corrections significantly, particularly in the areas of intermediate sanctions and community corrections. 6. The impact of sentencing issues on correctional practice. A number of issues will be discussed, including movement of offenders up and down the correctional supervision ladder, employment of ex-offenders in selected correctional occupations such as drug counselors, and use of technologically sophisticated equipment for security and supervision, particularly community supervision of offenders. 7. Other issues. A number of other issues may be considered by seminar participants. Potential topics include: o The influence of public opinion on sentencing policies and correctional practice. o The impact of crowded and/or harsh prison environments on inmate behavior and officer safety. o The impact, if any, of contracting with private correctional corporations on sentencing policies and demand for prison bed space. o The impact of sentencing policies on correctional standards, both in prison and in the community. ------------------------------ Statement of Work It is anticipated that the ES will meet six times in 3 years. It will be the responsibility of the grantee to: o Provide support to the ES through provision of both professional and support staff. o Manage and facilitate ES meetings, including administration of the logistical requirements associated with member travel. o Contribute conceptual and editorial support in the commissioning and publication of papers. o Provide routine administrative and financial oversight of the project. ------------------------------ Application Requirements This section presents general application information, recommendations to proposal writers, and requirements for grant recipients. The application form, SF 424, is included at the end of this document. Proposals not conforming to these application procedures will not be considered. Eligibility. A major focus of this project will be on examining the interdependence of sentencing and corrections. It is expected that a wide range of issues will be explored from a number of differing conceptual perspectives. Academic institutions have established traditional approaches for the weighing of competing concepts and assessment of their related bases of knowledge. It is this approach that NIJ seeks for this project. This solicitation is open to institutions of higher education that have law colleges and/or Ph.D. programs in the areas of criminal justice or public policy analysis. Individuals proposed by applicants to be director of this program should be recognized authorities in sentencing research. Award period. In general, NIJ limits its grants and cooperative agreements to a maximum period of 24 months. However, longer budget periods may be considered. Award amount. Up to $400,000 will be available to support efforts under this NIJ solicitation. In order to contain costs, applicants are encouraged to waive or reduce overhead or indirect fees or to reduce direct costs through the provision of in-kind services. Due date. Ten (10) copies of fully executed proposals should be sent to: Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections National Institute of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Completed proposals must be received at the National Institute of Justice by the close of business on July 29, 1996. Extensions of this deadline will not be permitted. Contact. Applicants are encouraged to contact John Spevacek, 202-307-0466, for this solicitation to discuss topic viability, data availability, or proposal content before submitting proposals. For information about the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, contact the Department of Justice Response Center at 800-421-6770 or 202-307- 1480. ------------------------------ Recommendations to Grant Writers Over the past 4 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately 1,500 grant applications. On the basis of those reviews and inquiries from applicants, the Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals. Many of these recommendations were adopted from materials provided to NIJ by the State Justice Institute, especially for applicants new to NIJ. Others reflect standard NIJ requirements. The author(s) of the proposal should be clearly identified. Proposals that are incorrectly collated, incomplete, or handwritten will be judged as submitted or, at NIJ's discretion, will be returned without a deadline extension. No additions to the original submission are allowed. The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they address the questions, issues, and requirements set forth below when preparing an application. 1. Which forms should be used? A copy of Standard Form (SF) 424, Application or Federal Assistance, plus instructions, appears in the back of this document. Please follow the instructions carefully and include all parts and pages. In addition to SF 424, recent requirements involve certification regarding (1) lobbying; (2) debarment, suspension, and other responsibility matters; and (3) drug-free workplace requirements. The certification form that is attached to SF 424 should be signed by the appropriate official and included in the grant application. 2. What is the page order? The following order is mandatory. Omission can result in rejection of the application: 1. SF 424. 2. Names and affiliations of all key persons from applicant and subcontractor(s), advisers, consultants, and Advisory Board members. Include the name of the Principal Investigator, title, organizational affiliation (if any), department (if institution of higher education), address, phone, and fax. 3. Abstract. 4. Table of contents. 5. Budget narrative. 6. Assurances and Certifications, etc. 7. Negotiated rate agreement. 8. Program narrative. 9. References. 10. Resum‚s of key personnel. 3. What technical materials are required to be included in the application? o A program narrative, which is the technical portion of the proposal. It should include a clear, concise statement of the problem, goals, and objectives of the project and related questions to be explored. A discussion of the relationship of the proposed work to the existing literature is expected. The proposed data sources, data collection strategies, and variables and issues to be examined should be delineated. o The organization and management plan to conduct the project. A list of major milestones of events, activities, and products and a timetable for completion that indicates the time commitments to individual project tasks should be included. All grant activities, including writing of the final report, should be completed within the duration of the award period. o The applicant's curriculum vitae should summarize education, research experience, and bibliographic information related to the proposed work. 4. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative? The budget narrative should list all planned expenditures and detail the salaries, materials, and cost assumptions used to estimate project costs. The narrative and cost estimates should be presented under the following standard budget categories: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contracts, other, and indirect costs. For multiyear projects, applicants must include the full amount of NIJ funding for the entire life of the project. This amount should be reflected in item 15g on Form 424 and line 6k on 424A. When appropriate, grant applications should include justification of consultants and a full explanation of daily rates for any consultants proposed. To avoid common shortcomings of application budget narratives, include the following information: o Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total associated costs, including current salaries for the designated personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50 percent of 1 yearūs annual salary of $50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work year should be shown. o Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete description of the supplies to be used, nature and extent of printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included (e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x $0.05/page = $375). Supply and expense estimates offered simply as "based on experience" are not sufficient. o The components of "other" or "miscellaneous" items should be specified in the application budget narrative and should not include set-asides for undefined contingencies. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease equipment essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project. The budget narrative must list such equipment and explain why the equipment is necessary. Funds may not be used for operating programs, writing texts or handbooks, training, etc. Indirect costs. It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be budgeted directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect cost rate that has been approved by a Federal agency within the past 2 years, an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, the applicant should contact the Office of the Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs, 202-307- 0623, to obtain information about preparing an indirect cost rate proposal. Travel. Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicantūs travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Federal Government. The budget narrative should state which regulations are in force for the project and should include the estimated fare, the number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground transportation, and other subsistence should be listed separately. When combined, the subtotals for these categories should equal the estimate listed on the budget form. Other funding sources. Applicants are expected to identify all other Federal, local, or private sources of support, including other NIJ programs, to which this or a closely related proposal has been or will be submitted. This information permits NIJ to consider the joint funding potential and limits the possibility of inadvertent duplicate funding. Applicants may submit more than one proposal to NIJ, but the same proposal cannot be submitted in more than one program area. 5. Is there a page limit? The Institute has established a limit of 30 double-spaced pages for all normal grant applications. This page limit does not include references, budget narrative, curriculum vitae, or necessary appendixes. Applications for small grants ($1,000 - $50,000) are limited to 15 double-spaced pages. NIJ does not wish to create elaborate regulations regarding type fonts, margins, and spacing. Applicants are cautioned, however, that obvious attempts to stretch interpretations of the Instituteūs limits have, in the past, caused proposal reviewers to regard such efforts unfavorably. 6. What does the review process entail? After all applications are received, NIJ will convene peer review panels of criminal justice professionals and researchers. Panel assessments of the proposals, together with assessments by NIJ staff, are submitted to the Director, who has sole and final authority over approval and awards. The review normally takes 60 to 90 days, depending on the number of applications received. ------------------------------ Requirements for Award Recipients Required Products. Each project is expected to generate tangible products of maximum benefit to criminal justice professionals, researchers, and policymakers. In particular, NIJ strongly encourages documents that provide information of practical utility to law enforcement officials; prosecutors; judges; corrections officers; victims services providers; and Federal, State, county, and local elected officials. Products should include: o A summary of approximately 2,500 words highlighting the findings of the seminars and the policy issues those findings will inform. The material should be written in a style that will be accessible to policy officials and practitioners and suitable for possible publication as an NIJ Research in Brief. An NIJ editorial style guide is sent to each project director at the time of the award. o A full technical report, including a discussion of the questions addressed, literature review, detailed review of project findings, and conclusions and policy recommendations. o Clean copies of any automated data sets developed during the research and full documentation prepared in accordance with the instructions discussed below. o Brief project summaries for NIJ use in preparing annual reports to the President and the Congress. As appropriate, additional products such as case studies and interim and final reports (e.g., articles, manuals, or training materials) may be specified in the proposal or negotiated at the time of the award. Public Release of Automated Data Sets. NIJ is committed to ensuring the public availability of research data and to this end established its Data Resources Program in 1984. All NIJ award recipients who collect data are required to submit a machine-readable copy of the data and appropriate documentation to NIJ prior to the conclusion of the project. The data and materials are reviewed for completeness. NIJ staff then create machine-readable data sets, prepare users' guides, and distribute data and documentation to other researchers in the field. A variety of formats are acceptable; however, the data and materials must conform with requirements detailed in Depositing Data With the Data Resources Program of the National Institute of Justice: A Handbook. A copy of this handbook is sent to each project director at the time of the award. For further information about NIJūs Data Resources Program, contact Dr. James Trudeau, 202-307-1355. Standards of Performance by Recipients. NIJ expects individuals and institutions receiving its support to work diligently and professionally toward completing a high-quality research or study product. Besides this general expectation, the Institute imposes specific requirements to ensure that proper financial and administrative controls are applied to the project. Financial and general reporting requirements are detailed in Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, a publication of the Office of Justice Programs. This guideline manual is sent to recipient institutions with the award documents. Project directors and recipient financial administrators should pay particular attention to the regulations in this document. Program Monitoring. Award recipients and Principal Investigators assume certain responsibilities as part of their participation in government-sponsored research and evaluation. NIJūs monitoring activities are intended to help grantees meet these responsibilities. They are based on good communication and open dialog, with collegiality and mutual respect. Some of the elements of this dialog are as follows: o Communication with NIJ in the early stages of the grant, as the elements of the project's design and methods are developed and operationalized. o Timely communication with NIJ regarding any developments that might affect the project's compliance with the schedules, milestones, and products set forth in the proposal. (See statement on Timeliness below.) o Communication with other NIJ grantees conducting related research projects. o Providing NIJ on request with brief descriptions of the project in interim stages at such time as the Institute may need this information to meet its reporting requirements to Congress. NIJ will give as much advance notification of these requests as possible but will expect a timely response from grantees when requests are made. NIJ is prepared to receive such communication through electronic media. o Providing NIJ with copies of presentations made at conferences, meetings, and elsewhere based in whole or in part on the work of the project. o Providing NIJ with prepublication copies of articles based on the project appearing in professional journals or the media, either during the life of the grant or after. o Other reporting requirements (Progress Reports, Final Reports, and other grant products) are spelled out elsewhere in this section of the Research Plan. Financial reporting requirements will be described in the grant award documents received by successful applicants. Communications. NIJ Program Managers should be kept informed of research progress. The grantee shall submit programmatic reports to the Institute consisting of: o Regular progress reports due on July 31 and January 31 concerning the events of the previous 6 months of the calendar year. The first report should include the administrative activities of the project and a brief update of progress. The second report should include a similar summary of administrative activities as well as a more detailed progress report, including any substantive findings from the work to date. Timeliness. Grantees are expected to complete award products within the time frames that have been agreed upon by NIJ and the grantee. The Institute recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for project extensions. However, NIJ does not consider the assumption of additional research projects that impinge upon previous time commitments as legitimate reasons for delay. Projects with unreasonable delays can be terminated administratively. In this situation, any funds remaining are withdrawn. Future applications from either the project director or the recipient institution are subject to strict scrutiny and may be denied support based on past failure to meet minimum standards. Publications. The Institute encourages grantees to prepare their work for NIJ publication. In cases where grantees disseminate their findings through a variety of media, such as professional journals, books, and conferences, copies of such publications should be sent to the Program Manager as they become available, even if they appear well after a projectūs expiration. NIJ imposes no restriction on such publications other than the following acknowledgment and disclaimer: This research was supported by grant number ________from the National Institute of Justice. Points of view are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Data Confidentiality and Human Subjects Protection. Research that examines individual traits and experiences plays a vital part in expanding our knowledge about criminal behavior. It is essential, however, that researchers protect subjects from needless risk of harm or embarrassment and proceed with their willing and informed cooperation. NIJ requires that investigators protect information identifiable to research participants. When information is safeguarded, it is protected by statute from being used in legal proceedings: "[S]uch information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings" (42 United States Code 3789g). Applicants should file their plans to protect sensitive information as part of their proposal. Necessary safeguards are detailed in 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraph 22. A short "how-to" guideline for developing a privacy and confidentiality plan can be obtained from NIJ Program Managers. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has adopted Human Subjects policies similar to those established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If an Institutional Review Board is necessary for this project, a copy of the Board's approval must be submitted to the National Institute of Justice prior to the initiation of data collection. Researchers are encouraged to review 28 CFR 46, paragraph 46.101 to determine their individual project requirements. ------------------------------ Notes 1. Arrests of adults for drug abuse violations per 100,000 persons rose from 36.4 in 1965 to 554.7 in 1992. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993:457. 2. The rate of violent crimes per 100,000 persons has increased from 160.9 in 1960 to 757.5 in 1992. Murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States in 1964 stood at 7,990; in 1992 the number was 22,540. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook, 352, 377. 3. The "punishment index," defined as the probability of arrest plus the length of time served, declined in the late 1960s and 1970s, before beginning to rise in the 1980s. Neither measure has reached the levels of the early 1960s. Wilson, James Q., "Crime and Public Policy," in Crime, eds. James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1995:499, 502; and Langan, Patrick A., "America's Soaring Prison Population," Science, 251 (March 1991):1570. 4. Prison populations had actually declined in the years 1951, 1962-67, and 1970-72; in those years in which they did increase, they did so at a rate lower than the rates in the years 1973 to the present. See Langan, "America's Soaring Prison Population," 1568, 1573. 5. Prior to 1975 all States employed some type of indeterminate sentencing. Tonry, Michael, Intermediate Sanctions in Structured Sentencing, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming. 6. The index for all crimes known to the police increased 54 percent from 1960 to 1966. As crime rates rose, crime became a political issue that resulted in a "war on crime" and the establishment of the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance (OLEA) in 1965. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook, 352. 7. Tonry, "Intermediate Sanctions," 24-26, succinctly discusses the movement(s) to limit sentencing discretion. See also Langan, "Americaūs Soaring Prison Population," 1569; and Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Prison Sentences and Time Served for Violence, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1995:1. 8. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook, 599, presents a striking graphical depiction of the sudden upturn in prison populations that began in the mid-1970s. Langan, "America's Soaring Prison Population," 1568-1569, also reports that the U.S. prison population tripled in the 16 years following 1973. Probation caseloads also grew rapidly in the same time period, but the largest growth occurred in the time frame of 1980-1994, when the number of offenders on probation increased 165 percent. See Gilliard, Darrell, and Allen Beck, "Nation's Correctional Population Tops 5 Million" (Press Release), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995:7. 9. In 1977, 72 percent of releases from State prisons were by parole decision; by 1992, the proportion of releases by parole decision had shrunk to 40 percent. Greenfeld, Prison Sentences, 1; and Langan, "America's Soaring Prison Population," 1569. 10. Martinson, Robert, "What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform," The Public Interest, 35 (1974): 22-54. 11. Martinson, Robert, "New Findings, New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform," Hofstra Law Review, 7 (1979):243-258. 12. A rule of thumb in the 1970s was that it took 5 years to build a prison. By 1980, prisons that had been under construction in the 1970s were opening in a number of States. In June 1980, there were 503 State prisons in operation, 23 of them new. An additional 45 institutions had been expanded in capacity. Every State except one was either constructing prisons, in the midst of the planning process, or both. By 1993 there were 1,036 State prisons. See Kwartler, Richard, The Corrections Yearbook-1981, Criminal Justice Institute, 1982:15, 22-26; Camp, George, and Camille Camp, The Corrections Yearbook-1993, 1994:3-36; and Corrections Compendium, May 1994:7-14. 13. There are a number of sources reporting the vast increase in drug offenders committed to prison. Beck and Gilliard noted that an even greater source of growth of State prison populations has been the increased incarceration of offenders convicted of violent crimes. Gilliard and Beck, "Nation's Correctional Population Tops 5 Million," 10-11. 14. In 1993, 17 States had early release programs to relieve prison crowding. In 1992, 10 States released 32,999 inmates prior to schedule; however, one State, Florida, accounted for 79 percent of these early releases (26,087 inmates). Camp and Camp, The Corrections Yearbook-1993, 20. 15. Petersilia and Turner report that by 1990 the majority of offenders on probation were felons. See Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner, Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1993; and Parent, Dale, et al., Day Reporting Centers, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995:3. 16. Parent et al. report that the probation population increased 125 percent in the decade 1980-90. Inevitably, the numbers failing also increased. Due to current statistical reporting practice, parole violators and probation violators are not distinguished by States in prison admissions reports. But, in some States, more persons are committed to prison for probation or parole revocation than are committed directly from the courts. See Parent, Dale M., and Dan Wentworth, Responding to Probation and Parole Violations, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1994:1-2, 4. 17. Examples of constructive research reports include: Cowles, Ernest L., and Thomas C. Castellano, 'Boot Camp' Drug Treatment and Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1995; Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State of the Art, Research in Brief, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1993; and MacKenzie, Doris L., and Gene Hebert, eds., Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, Research Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1996. 18. For the time period 1987-1992, the average age of persons entering prison increased rather than decreased. This may change in the immediate future due to both demographic factors and probable changes in State sentencing policies. Camp, George, and Camille Camp, The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections, 1993, Criminal Justice Institute, 1994:14. Data on young offenders as a proportion of the total prison population, as opposed to admissions, is seemingly not available. 19. The impact of longer sentences has not yet been felt. Data from three sources reveal that the average stay in State prisons has increased only slightly over the past 3 to 5 years, even for violent offenders. See Camp and Camp, The Corrections Yearbook, 14, 16; Gilliard and Beck, "Nation's Correctional Population Tops 5 Million," 12; and Greenfeld, Prison Sentences, 1-2. 20. Sixty-two percent of State prisoners incarcerated in 1991 were either serving a sentence for a violent offense or had a previous conviction for a violent offense. Beck, Allen, et al., Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993:11. 21. The issue of waiving violent juveniles to adult court is a legislative issue in a number of States as reported in an unpublished report conducted for NIJ by Abt Associates, Inc. See Parent, Dunworth, Rhodes, and McDonald, Sentencing Quickscan, 1995. Additionally, a National Institute of Corrections-sponsored study revealed that two States account for over one-third of offenders age 17 or younger who were admitted to State prisons in 1993. See Austin, J., B. Krisberg, R. DeCome, S. Rudenstine, and D. Del Rosario, Juveniles Taken Into Custody Research Program: 1994 Annual Report, San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1994. 22. In 1993, 35.8 percent of the sentenced prison population in the United States was non-Hispanic whites. Gilliard and Beck, "Nation's Correctional Population Tops 5 Million," 9. 23. Identification of gang members and control of gang activities in prison was reported to be a significant concern of corrections commissioners and wardens in a 1994 survey funded by NIJ. See National Institute of Justice, NIJ Survey of Wardens and State Commissioners of Corrections, Research Update, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1995:1. Six percent of a sample of State prisoners in 1991 reported they had belonged to a gang prior to commitment. Another 6 percent reported membership in less organized gangs. Beck et al., Survey of State Prison Inmates, 20. 24. At least three States have removed weight-lifting equipment from their prisons, and at least four others are considering taking such action. See Corrections Digest, March 24, 1995:1-2. It is not known how many jurisdictions other than Maricopa County, Arizona, have banned or are considering banning television, although the press frequently reports that such legislation has been proposed. In 1996, NIJ will collect information on "no frills" prisons. 25. Cohen and her colleagues studied two jurisdictions in which offenders committed for burglary and robbery served shorter sentences so that beds would be available for low-level drug dealers. A comparison of the criminal histories of the two groups revealed that the drug dealers had incurred fewer serious convictions than the burglars and robbers and likely posed a lower risk of committing further serious offenses when free. Cohen, Jacqueline, Daniel Nagin, and Lawrence Wasserman, Incarceration of Drug Offenders: Crime Control Benefits, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming. A study by the Cato Institute agreed. See Kopel, David B., Prison Blues: How America's Foolish Sentencing Policies Endanger Public Safety, Policy Analysis Series, no. 208, The Cato Institute: 1995. 26. Two of the best discussions of the potential costs of "geriatric prisons" can be found in McDonald, Douglas C., Managing Prison Health Care and Costs, Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1995; and Crawford, Cheryl, "Health Care Needs in Corrections: NIJ Responds," National Institute of Justice Journal, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1994. 27. By 1986, expenditures for prison construction approached $4 billion; in the period 1987-1990, expenditures exceeded $12 billion, before declining to $10 billion for the years 1991-1994. Federal expenditures are included in these figures. See Corrections Compendium, May 1994:14. State expenditures for corrections have increased at higher rates than State spending for other purposes in recent years. In 1994, economic growth in the States averaged 7.8 percent, while corrections expenditures grew 13.4 percent. However, corrections still consumes only 3-4 percent of the budgets of most States, a proportion that has not changed significantly in the past decade. See The Justice Bulletin, National Criminal Justice Association, 3, no. 4 (April 1995):13. 28. There is no unequivocal evidence to support or refute claims that private corrections can, at lower cost, provide services equal to or better than public facilities and employees. However, a number of States, particularly Texas, are pursuing the private contractor option. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook, 116-122; Thomas, Charles, Private Adult Correctional Facility Census, University of Florida, 1995; and Logan, Charles H., "Proprietary Prisons," in The American Prison, eds. Lynne Goodstein and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Plenum Press, 1989:45-62. 29. See Gerth, Jeff, and Stephen Labatan, "The Pitfalls of Private Penitentiaries," The New York Times (November 24, 1995):A1. ------------------------------ NIJ is trying to streamline its process to accommodate the volume of proposals anticipated under this and other Crime Act solicitations. Researchers can help in a significant way by sending NIJ a nonbinding letter of intent by July 17, 1996. The Institute will use these letters to forecast the numbers of peer panels it needs and to identify conflicts of interest among potential reviewers. There are two ways to send these "letters." You can reach NIJ by Internet by sending e-mail to tellnij@ncjrs.org and identifying the solicitation and section(s) you expect to apply for. You can write a letter with the same information to NIJ Proposals for Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20531. Help us help you. For applications forms, please call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 800-251-3420.