Title: Reentry Courts: Managing the Transition From Prison to
Community, A Call for Concept Papers
Series: Solicitation
Author: Office of Justice Programs
Published: September 1999 (Web dissemination only)
Subject: Sentencing, alternatives to incarceration, recidivism, case
processing, and funding resources
15 pages
40,000 bytes

-------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from the
Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 (in the
Washington, DC area at 202-307-1480) or from the BJA Clearinghouse at
1-800-688-4252.

-------------------------------

REENTRY COURTS: MANAGING THE TRANSITION FROM
PRISON TO COMMUNITY

A CALL FOR CONCEPT PAPERS

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

SEPTEMBER 1999

Summary: The Office of Justice Programs is issuing a call for concept
papers from jurisdictions that are interested in establishing "reentry
courts." A reentry court is a court that manages the return to the
community of individuals being released from prison, using the authority
of the court to apply graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement and to
marshal resources to support the prisoner's reintegration, much as drug
courts do, to promote positive behavior by the returning prisoner. The
expectation is that the focus on reentry issues in the courts will help reduce
the recidivism rate of returning prisoners and will encourage a broad-based
coalition to support the successful reintegration of those offenders. 

I. Background: The Dilemma of Managing Prisoner Reentry.

Our rate of imprisonment continues to grow. There are now 1.8 million
individuals in our country's prisons and jails, about one in 150 Americans.
One consequence of this level of imprisonment is that a growing number
of Americans are returning to their neighborhoods after serving a prison
term. Each year, nearly 500,000 individuals leave state prison and return to
communities across the country. For some offenders, the process of
reintegration will follow a smooth path--their families accept them back,
jobs await them, supportive networks stand ready to keep them on the
right side of the law and to encourage restoration of their status as
residents of their communities. For others, perhaps for most, the process of
reintegration will follow a rocky path--their families may not be willing to
accept them back, finding jobs will be difficult, and individuals in their old
peer groups will be ready to support the resumption of criminal habits, as
well as drug or alcohol abuse. Such circumstances often contribute to an
offender's return to criminal behavior and subsequent recidivism.

The increase in movement from the prison door to the community
doorstep comes at a time when our traditional mechanisms for managing
reentry have been challenged. Our conceptual goals for successful reentry
are as follows: Offenders nearing release eligibility would be screened to
determine their readiness and, if ready, would begin a process of
preparation. Parole officers working inside prisons would work with
prisoners to match them with employers on the outside, contact family
members on their behalf, line up mental health and other services, and
begin to reconnect the inmates with the world that they would soon join.
The decision to release the inmate, a decision made by the parole board,
would reflect a combination of the inmate's readiness and the board's
belief that the reentry plan was well suited to reduce reoffending. Once the
inmate is released, the parole officer would oversee the parolee's linkages
to work, family, and support services. Adopting a case management
model, parole officers would work with parolees to assist them in their
successful reintegration. Those released prisoners who do not live up to
the terms of their release would be sent back to prison.

Although some parole authorities have been successful in accomplishing
these goals, this ideal model of prisoner reintegration has been largely
unrealized. Several states have abolished the parole board as the entity
making release decisions; many inmates serve fixed terms and must be
released on predetermined dates. As parole officers struggle to manage
heavy caseloads, few are able to spend time working inside prisons, so
linkages between the world inside and the world outside have been
reduced. And parole itself is being reassessed. Many states have
"abolished" parole altogether, which sometimes means that parole has
simply resurfaced under a different name (e.g., supervised release). In
many states, the growth of the parole caseload has increased significantly,
and per-case resources allocated to parole supervision have decreased
significantly, resulting in a parole system in which supervision is 
substantially reduced.

The current state of affairs has resulted in two consequences that should be
of concern. First, the public safety risks posed by parolees are substantial.
According to a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 1998 report,
between 1990 and 1997, there was a 39% increase in the number of
offenders returned to prison for parole violations, as compared to a 4%
increase in new court commitments. In addition, a recent BJS probation
and parole survey indicates that in 1998, 13% of the some 424,000
parolees who were discharged from supervision were returned to custody
for committing a new offense.

Our challenge is to improve the way we manage the reentry of prisoners
back into their communities without posing significant public safety risks-
-and to build the public's confidence in our overall system of justice. The
public calls for less parole and more prison at a time when the former can
scarcely be cut back any more, and the latter has already quadrupled over
the past 25 years, placing significant burdens on state budgets.
Unfortunately, the public has not been eager to reverse the investments--
investing more in parole and less in prison. Consequently, the most serious
offenders--who often require the most supervision once they return to
communities--are the offenders who are frequently released with little or
no supervision. The BJS reports that about 22% of offenders in 1997 were
released unconditionally. 

The second consequence is that we are sending more people back to prison
because they have violated their terms of parole. With parole violators
representing about 35% of all admissions to state prisons in 1997 (as
compared to 18% in 1980), it is clear that the persistent challenges in
managing prisoner reentry are contributing to the growth in our prison
population.[1] Many jurisdictions have not yet implemented mechanisms
to effectively sanction parolees for violating the terms of their reentry
agreement without reinstating the remaining portion of their original
sentence, arguably not a cost-effective way to ensure public safety or to
promote justice.

The overall conclusion we must face is that we need to rethink the
processes of reentry-- to develop new concepts that will frame differently
the mix of governmental, private, community, and individual
responsibilities for the reintegration of prisoners into society. One such
concept has attracted significant attention--the concept of the reentry court. 

II. The Idea of the Reentry Court.

In our current allocation of responsibilities for prisoner reentry, courts
traditionally play a marginal role. Usually a court's responsibility ends
when a defendant is found or pleads guilty and is sentenced by the judge.
Appellate courts may hear issues on appeal, but the trial judge's
responsibility ends when the trial ends. Judges typically have no role in the
broad array of activities that carry out the terms of the sentence, prepare
the offender for release, and transition the offender back to his status as
member of the community.

Courts need not be so constrained.  Interestingly, in our jurisprudential
history, courts have played a more active role in overseeing the terms of
the sentences they impose. Under the Model Penal Code, judges were
considered responsible for the entire sentence and could "re-sentence" an
offender to a shorter term of imprisonment if he performed well in prison.
More recently, we have seen the strong growth of a new form of
jurisprudence in which the judge is actively involved in overseeing the
transition of the offender from a dysfunctional member of society to a
productive member of society.

The most mature example of this new form of court is the drug court--a
court where the judge manages a caseload of drug-involved offenders,
requiring them to make regular appearances in court, requiring them to
participate in some form of drug treatment, subjecting them to regular
urine testing to determine drug use, and administering a predetermined set
of graduated, parsimonious sanctions for violations of the contract with the
drug court. The first dirty urine may yield a reprimand, the second a day in
the jury box, the third a weekend in jail. Drug courts report very low
recidivism rates;[2] drug court proponents assert that their success can be
attributed to the mix of coercion and treatment--and to the personal
interest in the offender's success of the judge in particular as well as others
involved. Those drug offenders who do not survive the regimen of testing,
treatment, and sanctions are sent back to a normal calendar for further
action; those who are successful participate in upbeat graduation
ceremonies presided over by the judge, and which include the defense,
prosecution, arresting officer, and family of the graduate. Based on the
drug court model, this promising approach to adjudication--some call them
"problem-solving courts"--has been extended to domestic violence courts,
community courts, family treatment courts for dependency proceedings,
gun courts, and DWI courts.

A key component in drug courts is that they represent the exercise of a
precious resource, judicial authority, toward a beneficial end, and that
offenders respond positively to the fact that a judge is taking an interest in
their success. The frequent appearances before the court with the offer of
assistance, coupled with the knowledge of predictable and parsimonious
consequences for failure, assist the offender in taking the steps necessary 
to get his life back on track.    

The reentry court proposed here involves an application of these principles
to a very different group of offenders at a very different stage in the
process--to prisoners leaving state prison on their way back to
communities. This focus recognizes that these are exactly the offenders
who need to be held strictly accountable and most in need of assistance as
they return to communities. Importantly, the concept of the reentry court
does not envision any change in the timing of decisions regarding a
prisoner's release. The concept does, however, acknowledge that most
prisoners eventually return to the community, focus on the work of prisons
in preparing offenders for release, and presume that a reentry court will
actively involve the state corrections agency and others, as outlined below.
Clearly, there are several approaches other than a court model that can
provide a vehicle to serve the reentry management role. For example, the
Office of Justice Programs is also currently testing the use of law
enforcement, corrections, and community partnerships to manage reentry.
Such partnerships are central to the reentry court, as well. There are other
strategies being considered and tested in the field from which we will learn
(see appendix). The focus of this effort, however, is on testing the reentry
court concept.

We recognize several inherent challenges present by a court reentry model
that each jurisdiction will need to consider. In most jurisdictions, the
authority for reentry issues is not within the judicial branch, but rather in
the executive branch. Those jurisdictions interested in testing the reentry
court concept would need to explore their options for testing this model,
including developing new approaches for addressing reentry issues within
existing authorities (e.g., utilizing split sentence mechanisms for longer
term sentences) or new laws that provide this judicial authority, as
appropriate. We also recognize the resource challenges that courts already
face, including limited staffing and resources. Communities interested in
piloting a reentry court will need to consider creative ways to draw upon
existing resources and perhaps find additional funding sources. In
addition, a critical challenge will be identifying a range of essential reentry
support services for offenders and mechanisms for ensuring easy access to
them. These are areas that we recognize pose great challenges. We invite
your best ideas for addressing these challenges, and will work with those
jurisdictions whose concept papers are selected to think creatively about
such issues. 

The core elements of a reentry court are the following:

* Assessment and Planning. It is envisioned that correctional
administrators, ideally with a reentry judge, would meet with inmates prior
to release to explain the reentry process. The state corrections agency, and,
where available, the parole agency, working in consultation with the
reentry court, would identify those inmates to be released under the
auspices of the reentry court to assess the inmates' needs upon release and
begin building linkages to a constellation of social services, family
counseling, health and mental health services, housing, job training, and
work opportunities that would support successful reintegration. 

* Active Oversight. The reentry court would see prisoners released into the
community with a high degree of frequency--probably once a month--
beginning right after release and continuing until the end of parole (or
other form of supervision). It is critical that the judge see offenders who
are making progress as well as those who have failed to perform. The
judge would also actively engage the parole officer or other supervising
authority and the community policing officer responsible for the parolee's
neighborhood in assessing progress. In the drug court experience,
acknowledgment of the successful achievement of milestones by
participants provides encouragement to others who observe them.

* Management of Supportive Services. The reentry court must have at its
disposal a broad array of supportive resources, including substance abuse
treatment services, job training programs, private employers, faith
institutions, family members, housing services, and community
organizations. These support systems would be marshaled by the court,
drawing upon existing community resources where possible. At the core,
the court would again actively engage the parole officer or other
supervising authority, as well as the community policing officer
responsible for the parolee's neighborhood. In the drug court experience,
judges and others have become very effective service brokers and
advocates on behalf of participants. An important lesson from the drug
court experience is that this brokerage function requires the development
of a case management function accountable to the court. To be successful,
a reentry court would have to develop a similar case management capacity. 

* Accountability to Community. A jurisdiction might consider creating a
citizen advisory board to work with the reentry court to develop both
community service and support opportunities, as well as accountability
mechanisms for successful reentry of released inmates. Accountability
mechanisms might include ongoing restitution orders and participation in
victim impact panels. It may also be appropriate to involve the crime
victims and victims' organizations as part of the reentry process. The
advisory board should broadly represent the community. Other
mechanisms for drawing upon diverse community perspectives should
also be considered.

* Graduated and Parsimonious Sanctions. The reentry court would
establish and articulate a predetermined range of sanctions for violations
of the conditions of release. These would not automatically require return
to prison; in fact, this would be reserved for new crimes or egregious
violations. As with drug courts, it would be important for the reentry court
to arrange for an array of relatively low-level sanctions that could be
swiftly, predictably, and universally applied. Jurisdictions interested in
piloting a reentry court must clearly outline how graduated sanctions
would be imposed, and the array of sanctions that would be used.

* Rewards for Success. The reentry court also would need to incorporate
positive judicial reinforcement--rewarding success, perhaps by negotiating
early release from parole after established goals are achieved, or by
conducting graduation ceremonies akin to those seen in drug courts. The
successful completion of parole should be seen as an important life event
for an offender, and the court can help acknowledge that accomplishment.
Courts provide powerful public forums for encouraging positive behavior
and for acknowledging the individual effort in achieving reentry goals.
Jurisdictions are required to outline milestones in the reentry process that
would trigger recognition and an appropriate reward. 

With these building blocks in mind, a reentry court can take many forms.
In one possible formulation, a reentry court could be case-defined: A
sentencing judge could retain jurisdiction over that portion of the sentence
served while on parole, handling in essence a reentry docket on his or her
calendar. If a jurisdiction allows for split sentences (the first portion served
in jail or prison, the remainder on probation or parole), this approach is
quite natural--the same judge would see the offender again at the back end
of the sentence. (Some drug courts currently utilize split sentences with
jail terms followed by probation terms.) Alternatively, a reentry court
could be established as a stand-alone court. The court would maintain an
exclusive docket of reentry cases and develop a specialty in the dynamics
of successful reentry. Under this formulation, the reentry "judge" might be
a retired judge, a magistrate, an administrative judge, or another judicial
officer. In either model, it is expected that the judge would actively engage
correctional administrators overseeing the period of imprisonment
preceding release. The formulations that are possible will depend on the
statutory framework in each jurisdiction; caseload considerations;
administrative flexibility; levels of collaboration among the judiciary,
corrections departments, parole and community policing agencies, and the
business community; as well as other factors.

III. The Call for Concept Papers.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is interested in working with a small
number of jurisdictions that are willing to test the concept of a reentry
court. Jurisdictions selected to participate will be invited to participate in
three technical assistance cluster meetings (travel and expenses will be
provided) over a 15-month period to discuss issues, approaches, progress,
and challenges. We anticipate holding the first meeting in February 2000.
While there is no programmatic funding available for this initiative, in
addition to the cluster meetings, we will offer technical assistance to the
selected sites, as appropriate. OJP expects to document this initiative and
to publish a report with findings and recommendations at the end of the
15-month period. 

Eligible applicants are state and local courts, as well as states,
municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and tribes
(including ANCSA Corporations)[3] that have an agreement with the
courts to take the lead in conducting such a project. Interested jurisdictions
must submit a concept paper (up to 20 pages) that addresses the following:

1. A description of the reentry process in the jurisdiction, with a focus on
the relationships among correctional, community policing, and parole
agencies; the judiciary; the business community; and any other involved
public or private entities. A caseflow analysis should be provided,
documenting the numbers and types of offenders released to the
jurisdiction, and to which communities, if possible. 

2. A statement of the goals of the pilot program and expected indicators of
success. Also, if possible, please outline the program stages or success
milestones that offenders participating in the program would be expected
to achieve and over what period of time. In addition, please address each
of the six core program elements cited above. 

3. A description of the proposed reentry court, including statement of the
statutory scheme or other mechanism under which the court would
operate, where in the court structure the reentry court will be located, the
caseload the court would handle, the staffing envisioned, the community
supervision available to monitor offenders, judge(s) to be assigned (if
known), and the support services available to incapacitated and released
offenders. 

4. A description of program elements or other areas in which technical
assistance would be needed. As noted above, selected sites will participate
in three technical assistance cluster meetings. Outline areas where it is
anticipated that additional technical assistance would be needed. 

5. A description of the history of similar collaborations in this jurisdiction,
such as drug courts or other innovations, that demonstrate a capacity to 
manage this cross-agency initiative.

6. Statement of support from (a) the judiciary, (b) the corrections and
parole agencies, (c) the prosecution and institutional defender, (d) the
police, (e) the business community, and (f) other community service
providers or leaders, as appropriate.

7. A proposed timeline for planning and implementing a pilot reentry
court.

Sites will be selected based upon the following criteria: A clear
articulation of the above issues; key partnerships in place and supporting
letters; and plan to serve state prison releasees. 

Concept papers must be submitted to Office of the Assistant Attorney
General, Attn: Reentry Working Group, Office of Justice Programs, 810
7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531. All submissions must be
postmarked no later than December 10, 1999. Questions should be
directed to the Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800/421-6770
or in the Washington, DC area at 202/307-1480. 

-------------------------------

Appendix

SUMMARY OF DOJ OFFENDER REENTRY EFFORTS

September 1999

Reentry Working Group: The U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) has recently established a Reentry Working
Group. It is chaired by Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson and
includes representatives from OJP bureaus and program offices involved
in reentry issues--including National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), the Corrections
Program Office (CPO), Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), and the
Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS)--as well as the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC), Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and Community
Oriented Policing Services Office (COPS).

The Working Group is developing strategies for improving the way
communities manage and support offenders after release from prison. Our
approach involves addressing public safety issues, as well as providing a
continuum of reentry programs that begin during incarceration and
continue throughout the critical months following release. The group
meets to discuss OJP's ongoing reentry efforts, which involve a broad
range of reentry management models, and ways of coordinating our efforts
across OJP bureaus and program offices, as well as with BOP and COPS. 

The Office of Justice Programs' reentry efforts include: 

Reentry Court Initiative: The reentry court concept draws on the drug
court model--using judicial authority to apply graduated sanctions and
positive reinforcement and to marshal resources to support the prisoner's
reintegration. The goal is to establish a seamless system of offender
accountability and support services through the reentry process. Central to
all our efforts is developing strategies to do a better job in tracking and
supervising offenders upon release using a case management approach,
preparing communities to address public safety concerns, and providing
the services that will help offenders reconnect with their families and the
community, including employment, counseling, education, health, mental
health, and other essential services that support successful reintegration.
The enclosed "Call for Concept Papers" describes the reentry court
concept and core elements.  

Reentry Partnerships Project: The NIJ, CPO, EOWS, and COPS are
working collaboratively on a project designed to strengthen the working
relationships among corrections, law enforcement, and the community to
prepare for and manage the reentry process. In May 1999, state
correctional administrators from several sites met with DOJ
representatives to discuss reentry challenges and approaches to drawing
law enforcement and the community into the process. Site representatives
discussed the profiles of returning offenders in their communities, existing
reentry efforts, and approaches to building the necessary collaborations to
support reentry. Preliminary concept papers have been received from a
number of jurisdictions interested in exploring this approach to reentry
management. In October 1999, teams from each site will participate in a
meeting at OJP to discuss reentry challenges and their proposals. For
additional information, contact Cheryl Crawford at NIJ, 202/514-6210, or
Phil Merkle at CPO, 202/305-2550.

Intensive Aftercare Program: The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) is
designed to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive aftercare
program. The goal of the IAP model is to reduce recidivism among high
risk juvenile offenders who have been confined in secure residential
facilities. Demonstration sites include Norfolk, Virginia; Denver,
Arapahoe, and Jefferson Counties, Colorado; and Clark County, Nevada.
For additional information, please contact Thomas Murphy, OJJDP,
202/353-8734.

Youthful Offender Demonstration Projects: The Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Department of Labor's
(DOL) Employment and Training Administration have developed a
comprehensive strategy to deliver educational, training, and employment
opportunities for at-risk youth. As a result of this collaboration, DOL has
recently funded Youthful Offender Demonstration Projects. This initiative
involves three distinct approaches designed to provide meaningful
educational and vocational programming to at-risk and adjudicated
delinquent youth: 1) Model Community Projects, located in large, urban
communities of high poverty, and where comprehensive community-wide
approaches addressing the needs of youth have already been established:
Services include a combination of gang prevention and suppression and
alternative sentencing targeting youth offenders, gang members, and youth
at risk of becoming involved in gangs; 2) Education and Training for
Youth Offenders Initiative, located in medium-sized cities with high
poverty and high crime: Services include providing school-to-work
educational and training within juvenile correctional facilities and
aftercare and job placement services as youth return to the community;
and 3) Smaller Community-wide Projects. These projects will work with
local youth service providers to develop linkages that will strengthen the
coordination of prevention and recovery services for youth offenders. 

OJJDP is funding an independent evaluator to design and conduct a
process evaluation and feasibility study of two of the Education and
Training for Youth Offenders Initiative Programs. For further information
on Department of Labor (DOL) grants, please contact Beverly Bachemin,
DOL, Education and Training for Youth Offenders Initiative Programs,
202/219-5472. For additional information on the OJJDP process
evaluation and feasibility study, please contact Dean Hoffman, OJJDP,
202/353-9256.

Targeted Juvenile Reintegration: The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention is collaborating with the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America to implement a pilot project called "Targeted Reintegration." This
project is designed to provide Boys and Girls Club services to youth in
residential placement using trained Boys and Girls Club staff. The goal of
the project is to encourage youth, upon reentry into the community, to
become involved in Boys and Girls Club sponsored activities. The
initiative is currently being piloted in three sites--St. Paul, Minnesota;
Jacksonville, Florida and Clark County, Nevada. Services to youth in
residential care provided by Boys and Girls Club staff include recreation,
life skills, job readiness training, tutoring, and other services. Club staff
build relationships with the youth and encourage them to attend the club
upon their release. The staff also work closely with institutional staff and
probation officers to stay informed and share information about the youth's
progress. For additional information, contact James Burch, at OJJDP,
202/307-5914.

Las Vegas Weed and Seed Reentry Project: The Executive Office of Weed
and Seed is working with state and local officials in Nevada to develop a
reentry demonstration project in Las Vegas. The goal of this Weed and
Seed project is to put in place a continuum of services beginning in the
institution and which follow the inmate to their home communities. The
reentry program will use carefully designed interventions for released
offenders that take advantage of all available resources. The goal is to
enhance public safety by reducing criminal victimization by this high risk
group, as well as to improve the quality of life of their home communities.
A working group which includes Nevada Director of Corrections, Director
of Parole Supervision, Clark County Social Services Director, a
representative from the Nevada Assembly, residents representing
community-based organizations in the Weed and Seed area, and the Las
Vegas Weed and Seed coordinator is collaborating with EOWS staff to
design the reentry demonstration. For additional information, please
contact Nancy Ware, EOWS, at 202/616-1152.

BJA FY '99 Open Solicitation Program: Through its FY '99 Open
Solicitation Program, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will give
state, local, and tribal governments the opportunity to compete for funds to
support projects that address innovations in offender reentry. Priority will
be given to proposals that address issues of defendant/offender post-
incarceration re-entry to communities. This may include the use of
technology, non-traditional resources, and other approaches to monitor and
correct the behavior of individuals under the supervision of the criminal
justice system. It is anticipated that the submission deadline for the FY '99
Open Solicitation Program will be sometime in late November or early
December 1999. To obtain a copy of the solicitation, please contact the
BJA Clearinghouse at 1-800-688-4252 or visit the BJA website at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA.

American Probation and Parole Association Project: BJA is also working
with the American Probation and Parole Association on a project to
increase the understanding of effective offender supervision practices for
probation and parole professionals, particularly in rural areas. The APPA
is concentrating on programming strategies, cognitive behavioral
programming for offenders, promising practices in community justice, as
well as issues specific to the sites receiving the training. For additional
information, please contact Richard Sutton, BJA, 202/616-3214.

Incarcerated Fathers Initiative: The Bureau of Justice Assistance is also
involved in a project with the Vera Institute of Justice called the
Incarcerated Fathers Initiative. The project addresses issues relating to
fathers in prison and programs to strengthen their relationships with their
children and families. The Vera Institute of Justice, located in New York
City, is gathering information and will report findings on programs
operating within correctional and penal institutions that have been
specifically designed for inmates who are fathers. The project will address
the implications of father-oriented programming operating in community-
based settings, with particular attention paid to those interventions serving
men recently released from prison or jail. The project is designed to
provide guidance in the development of program models and interventions
for incarcerated fathers in diverse jurisdictions and institutional settings.
The study will also look at the relationships between incarcerated fathers
and their children, spouses, partners, and communities, as well as criminal
recidivism. The project also involves conducting a comprehensive
assessment of a select number of prison and community-based programs
targeting offenders who are fathers. The 12-month study will conclude
with a discussion of the implications for planning prison and community-
based interventions for fathers who are incarcerated or in post-release
supervision status. For additional information, please contact Tahitia
Barringer, BJA, 202/616-3294.

Redhook Community Justice Center: With funding support from BJA, the
Justice Center, located in Brooklyn, New York, allows defendants to move
expeditiously through the criminal justice system, while enabling them to
access a wide range of services to assist in preventing further criminal
action. In addition to adjudicating cases, defendants, victims, and
community members will be able to access a range of services offered at
the Redhook Community Justice Center. Some services that will be
offered include job training, medical care, legal services, family violence
counseling, drug treatment, mediation, and victim services. The Justice
Center also works with the AmeriCorp Project to assist in community
development. For additional information, please contact Jeanne Santos,
BJA, at 202/514-5440.

Guidelines for Victim-Offender Mediation and Dialogue: Over the last
three years, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has funded the Center
for Restorative Justice and Mediation at the University of Minnesota to
conduct a project entitled, "Guidelines for Victim-Offender Mediation and
Dialogue." Through this project, training and technical assistance and
related materials have been developed addressing victim-sensitive victim-
offender mediation and dialogue. Victim-offender mediation is being used
increasingly across the country, and it often maintains a strongly dominant
offender orientation in the same way as our traditional justice system.
Focusing primarily on the offender, however, can be unhelpful or even
harmful to the victim. This project is designed to help practitioners
balance the focus in a way that protects and nurtures the victims of crime
who wish to meet face-to-face with their offender. The project has
produced a training manual, national survey findings from 116 programs,
a national program directory, several monographs and a videotape, and has
provided training seminars for victim service providers and technical
assistance for two state department of corrections' victim-offender
mediation programs. For additional information, please contact Susan
Laurence, OVC, 202/616-3573.

Community Impact Panels: The Office for Victims of Crime is
cosponsoring with the Bureau of Justice Assistance a grant to the Fund for
the City of New York to enable the Midtown Manhattan Community
Court to conduct Community Impact Panels. The panels bring offenders
convicted of "quality of life crimes" together with community residents
who describe the impact of the crimes on their lives. This offers
residents/victims a chance to participate in the justice system in a
meaningful way and also helps offenders better understand the
consequences of their actions. For additional information, please contact
Susan Laurence, OVC, 202/616-3573.

Restitution: Promising Practices Initiative: The Office for Victims of
Crime is also sponsoring a project entitled, "Restitution: Promising
Practices Initiative." The project, which is conducted by the American
Probation and Parole Association, is examining existing obstacles to the
effective management of restitution and identifying and describing a
variety of promising approaches used in the criminal and juvenile justice
systems to establish and enforce orders of restitution and to ensure that
victims receive the payment. For additional information, please contact
Susan Laurence, OVC, 202/616-3573.

Identifying Federal Programs to Support Returning Offenders: OJP is
developing a list of federal resources that can help support state and local
reentry programs. Plans include meeting with representatives from DOL,
HUD, HHS, DOT, Agriculture, Education, and other federal agencies to
draw them into our discussions as we move forward. For additional
information, please contact Judy McBride, OJP, 202/307-5933.

The National Institute of Corrections' reentry efforts include:

Transition from Prison to the Community Program: The National Institute
of Corrections' Transition from Prison to the Community Program will
assist two states in developing a coordinated three-prong approach to
effectively transition offenders from prison to the community. The
recipient of an NIC cooperative agreement will work with prison officials,
parole decision-makers, and field supervisors to coordinate their
independent activities toward developing a smooth and effective process
to improve offenders' post-prison adjustment in the community and
enhance public safety. The participating states will develop and implement
a coordinated strategy that involves prison programming, release decision
making, and community supervision. For additional information, please
contact Kermit Humphries, NIC Community Correction Division,
800/995-6423, x 136.

-------------------------------

Footnotes

1. Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen Beck, "Population Growth in U.S. Prison,
1980-1996," in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, volume 26, ed.
Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
forthcoming 1999. 

2. While recidivism statistics vary by the characteristics of the specific
drug court and its target population, studies do point to recidivism levels
among drug court participants that are significantly lower than standard
dockets (and have been reported to be as low as 4% for program
graduates). See "Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts," an update to the
Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience by the Drug Court
Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. 

3. The term "tribes" is defined by the Indian Self Determination and
Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended; 25 U.S.C.
450b(e) (1998)), which includes Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) Corporations.