Title: Request for Applications for Reentry Courts Process Evaluation
Author: National Institute of Justice
21 pages
71,000 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 
NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users).

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

Request for Applications for Reentry Courts Process Evaluation

Scope of Work

--The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), one of several Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) components involved in the Reentry Courts Initiative, is
interested in sponsoring research in two areas: (1) the development of logic
models, (that is, documenting the program rationale for the model developed by
sites); and (2) process evaluations for each of the nine sites (to include what is
initially designed, what is actually implemented for those sites that reach
implementation, and difficulties that occurred during implementation). For the
logic models, the researcher(s) should outline the goals, objectives, and specific
outputs that each site is attempting to achieve, the activities that it has
undertaken to achieve these objectives, and the inputs or resources that are
made available to conduct the activities. The process evaluations should detail
the original model as presented, the actual model as implemented, and offer
notions for any differences between the two that might occur. Further, an
assessment of various difficulties or barriers encountered as the sites developed
the initiative, as well as solutions that were employed, is expected. The
proposal should address both the logic models and the process evaluations.

--The grantee will be required to submit a substantive six-month interim report,
as well as a final report at the conclusion of the 12-month grant period.
Additionally, the grantee should be prepared to discuss the research project at
two cluster conferences during the grant period, to which the Federal partners
and the entire group of reentry court sites would be invited. Minimally, initial
visits are expected to all sites to document the logic model or models being
proposed by the site.

--It should be noted that the sites vary in terms of the maturation of their
planning and program development; some sites have begun implementation,
others are still refining their models, and some may start prior to this award
being made. Applicants should discuss how they will incorporate the variability
in site maturation and uncertainty about actual implementation dates into their
work and site visit plans. 

--A literature review is not required, but all other elements of a full proposal are
expected. The application should present a research design for conducting the
proposed work, including the information to be collected; the sources that
would be used; an analysis plan; and suggested products. Tasks and time line, a
clear staffing and management plan, and site visit schedule should be presented.
Please see our web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij) for required application forms
and guidelines or call the DOJ Response Center at 1-800-421-6770.

--To assist us in preparation for review of applications, interested applicants
should submit by mail or fax (202/305-8626) a non-binding letter of intent by
February 9, 2001. Full applications must be received at NIJ February 28, 2001 no 
later than 5:00 p.m. eastern daylight time. (Please note: fax or email
applications are not permitted.) The applications will undergo standard peer
review, and the award will be made through a cooperative agreement. The
anticipated start date will be May 15, 2001.

Send letters and full applications to:

Reentry Courts Process Evaluation 
National Institute of Justice 
810 7th St. NW
Room 7324
Washington, DC, 20531 (overnight mail service zip is 20001)

Reentry Courts Initiative

In February 2000, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) launched a Reentry
Court Initiative (RCI) that is exploring a new approach to improving offender
reintegration into the community. 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 throughout the reentry process. Central to this effort is the
development of strategies to: (1) improve the tracking and supervising of
offenders upon release using a case management approach; (2) prepare
communities to address public safety concerns; and (3) provide 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.

Important core elements of a reentry court include assessment of offender
needs and planning for release; active judicial oversight of offenders during
period of supervised release, including use of graduated and parsimonious
sanctions for violation of release conditions; broad array of supportive services
with community involvement; and positive judicial reinforcement of successful
completion of reentry court goals. (For a complete description of the Reentry
Courts Initiative core elements, please see Attachment A. For the Call for
Concept Papers to which the pilot projects applied, see Attachment B.)

The reentry court pilot projects represent a variety of approaches to developing
a reentry court, as well as a wide range of partnerships. It should be noted that
not all sites are courts in the traditional sense; some are expanded drug courts,
while others are parole boards working with the judiciary to develop quasi
courts through the use of an administrative law judge. The nine reentry court
sites are located in the following states: California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and West Virginia. 

Each site was assigned a Federal site liaison: a designated staff person from an
OJP agency or bureau. These liaisons are in the process of conducting initial
site meetings to the participating jurisdictions to discuss the implementation
plans. Depending upon the need, the liaisons may conduct additional site visits
as necessary. Although OJP is not offering direct financial support to local sites,
it is providing support through hosting semi-annual joint cluster conferences for
all applicant sites, and delivering local technical assistance. 

There have been two cluster conferences to date (April and September 2000). 
OJP will continue to provide periodic cluster conferences in which participating 
sites can share information and experiences. Participating sites may request 
technical assistance (TA) as needed for the purpose of designing and implementing 
various program elements. TA will be coordinated by OJP's Corrections Program 
Office and may be provided by the National Institute of Justice, the Executive 
Office for Weed & Seed, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, other Office of Justice
Programs bureaus, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the
National Institute of Corrections, and the US Department of Labor, as
appropriate. For additional site information, please see 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/whats_new.htm

RCI Program Descriptions 

Colorado Reentry Court Pilot Program

Pike's Peak Mental Health Organization

El Paso County, Colorado

The Reentry Court Pilot Program in El Paso County brings together criminal
justice and mental health service providers to enhance the community's ability to
safely and effectively reintegrate mandatory release offenders into a productive
lifestyle within the first 12 months after their release. Reentry Court Pilot
Program partners include the Pike's Peak Mental Health Organization (PPMH),
administrative law judges, and parole officers. The initiative draws from the
expertise of the 4th Judicial District's Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB),
which is a multi-disciplinary board comprised of state and local law
enforcement, probation, parole and corrections officials; mental health service
providers; and community representatives.

The Reentry Court Pilot Program will provide an avenue through which
parolees will meet with an administrative law judge prior to their release. At that
time, the judge, parole officer, and a treatment provider will establish
"benchmarks for success" for the parolee. The parolee will meet with the judge,
parole officer, treatment case manager, and forensic clinician to monitor his/her
progress toward these benchmarks. In addition to these partners, the PPMH
has established links with other community service providers that provide an
array of treatment and community reintegration services.

Individuals served by the Reentry Court Pilot Program represent a population in
which alcohol and drugs have been identified as a factor in the commission of
crime. The El Paso County initiative will focus on reintegrating parolees with
substance abuse problems and mental illness, which will include both high- and
low-level offenders and those whose assessments suggest that they would
benefit from treatment. 

Delaware Reentry Court Pilot Project

Superior Court of the State of Delaware

Wilmington, Delaware

The Delaware Superior Court reentry initiative pilots reentry courts in two
Delaware communities: New Castle County will target repeat offenders who
have been incarcerated at least one year and have a community service
obligation as a condition of their release; and Sussex County will implement an
initiative that focuses on domestic violence offenders who are at risk for re-
offending and also have community service obligations as a condition of their
release. 

In both communities, the Court will partner with the State Department of
Corrections, which operates all of the state's jails and prisons, as well as
probation. In addition, the Treatment Access Services Center of the State
Department of Health and Social Services will supply case managers to the
Court to support the program. Reentry court officials will work closely with
social service advisory and planning bodies, including the state agency that
receives federal criminal justice grant programs on behalf of the state, to ensure
that the reentry initiatives have access to an array of community-based services.

In the New Castle County reentry court program, case managers will work
with offenders while they are in custody to create reentry court plans. Upon
release from secure confinement, offenders will be under intensive probation
supervision, with probation officers working closely with community police
officers to enhance offender monitoring. The reentry court will incorporate three
tiers of supervision: in Phase I, participants will meet weekly with the judge and
probation officer; Phase II will include bi-weekly meetings for three months,
with more status conferences with the probation officer, if necessary; and Phase
III will involve monthly status conferences at thirty-day intervals.  Case
managers will act as a "service broker" and will report directly to the reentry
court judge about appropriate services and treatment for participating
offenders.

The Sussex County domestic violence reentry court will be implemented
similarly. In the domestic violence reentry court initiative, however, the Sussex
County Deputy Attorney General specializing in domestic violence cases will
recommend offenders to participate in this reentry court and will develop
program requirements in collaboration with the domestic violence probation
officer assigned to the case. These specialized domestic violence probation
officers also will act as case managers.

Florida Reentry Court Project 

Broward County, Florida Drug Court

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

The Broward County, Florida reentry court initiative will expand the
community's drug court program to serve all non-violent third degree felons
with substance abuse problems, many of whom are subject to mandatory
sentences. The initiative is a component of a county-wide effort to combine jail
or prison-based treatment with community supervision, monitored closely by
the Broward County Drug Court. 

This reentry court initiative brings together several agencies. The Broward
County Drug Court comes under the supervision of the Broward Sheriff's
Office in order to provide additional resources and support and to coordinate
and enhance jail-based and outpatient treatment programs. The Florida
Department of Corrections (DOC) works closely with the drug court to place
drug offenders in prison-based treatment. The DOC also supports a contract
with the Daytona Beach Community College, which maintains a network of
community-based service providers around the state to provide treatment,
housing, education, vocational, and health care services to offenders under
community supervision.

In this reentry court structure, prison- or jail-based treatment will be followed
by a probationary period monitored by the drug court as the offender returns to
the community.  The Broward County reentry initiative may also explore using
administrative law judges and other court officials to provide judicial oversight
for offenders under community supervision, along with Broward County
probation officials.

Iowa Reentry Court Project 

Iowa Department of Corrections

Des Moines, Iowa

The Iowa reentry court initiative brings together the Iowa Department of
Corrections (DOC), the Iowa Parole Board, and eight local community
corrections agencies statewide. As a participant in the OJP's Reentry Court
Initiative, the DOC is planning to coordinate two pilot reentry initiatives and the
work of community corrections agencies. 

Both pilot programs will target violent offenders, including those convicted of
sex offenses. The first program will be implemented in western Iowa and will
focus on the 22 percent of offenders who refuse treatment and parole, as well
as offenders who are "paroled to release" or are not assigned to a parole officer
at the time when they are released from prison. The second initiative will be
implemented in eastern Iowa, and will focus on offenders who have mental
health disorders or who have been dually diagnosed with mental health and
substance abuse problems. 

The Iowa reentry courts will utilize an administrative law judge, whose activities
will be coordinated by the Parole Board, DOC, and local community
corrections agencies. In addition, Community Accountability Boards will be
established to facilitate the link between parolees and community services and
programming. DOC officials will identify special needs inmates or at-risk
inmates through assessment and diagnosis in the prison setting and begin pre-
release treatment and planning to connect with community resources. Upon
release from secure confinement, parolees will meet with the Community
Accountability Board at least twice monthly, and the administrative law judge at
least once a month. The local community corrections agencies will broker
services from the community and provide case management for the parolee.

Kentucky Reentry Court Project

State of Kentucky

Administrative Office of the Courts

The Kentucky reentry courts initiative will focus on and expand the capacity of
drug courts in two communities - Louisville/Jefferson County and
Lexington/Fayette County - which are the state's longest-running drug courts
and are located in the most populated areas of the state. The Kentucky reentry
initiative teams the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Department of
Corrections, and community service providers in the two pilot communities.
The Center on Drug and Alcohol Research at the University of Kentucky will
evaluate the initiative and provide feedback on program success and areas for
improvement.

The Kentucky reentry drug court will serve felony offenders, especially those
with alcohol or other drug abuse problems.  The reentry drug court will adopt a
"split sentencing" scheme - offenders will serve a portion of their time in
institutions, after which the judge will allow the offender to complete the
sentence under strict supervision of the reentry drug court. The judge,
correctional staff, and reentry drug court staff will maintain communication with
the offender throughout the program to ensure participant accountability. 

The Kentucky reentry drug court team expects that there will be three phases
through which offenders in reentry drug court will pass, each of which will
include intensive contact with the drug court judge, alcohol and/or drug
treatment, and frequent drug testing.  As participants complete these phases,
they will move toward less intensive supervision providing that they maintain
sobriety, obtain and maintain employment, attend required meetings, and
comply with all other elements of the program.  

New York Reentry Court Project

New York Division of Parole

Albany, New York

The New York Division of Parole will implement a reentry court program in the
Harlem neighborhood of New York City that will focus on nonviolent parolees
sentenced for drug possession and/or sale who are residents of the community. 
The Harlem Reentry Court was developed to respond to the increasing number
of offenders being released from prison who are disproportionately returning to
poor, urban neighborhoods such as Harlem.

The Harlem Reentry Court will partner an administrative law judge, specially
trained parole officers, and parole reentry court staff to link parolees to
mandated treatment and other services. The initiative is being developed in
close partnership with the Center for Court Innovation, which is the research
and development arm of New York State's Unified Court System and the
Center for Employment Opportunities, a nonprofit organization providing job
training, work experience and placement services to released offenders. The
Reentry Court will be held in the newly renovated Harlem Courthouse, home of
the Harlem Community Justice Center, a multi-jurisdictional community court
that uses community service and on-site social services to solve neighborhood
problems.

Participation in the Harlem Reentry Court would begin prior to an offender's
release when parole officers at correctional facilities identify and assess offender
eligibility. Reentry court parole officers will assist institutional parole officers in
making these determinations. Once an eligible parolee has returned to the
community, he/she will be subject to two distinct phases of supervision,
characterized by different requirements for urine testing, court appearances, and
the frequency of meetings with parole officers.  Throughout this process, parole
officers will link parolees to needed services and work with the family members
to help the parolee successfully implement his/her treatment plan.

Ohio Reentry Court Project

Richland County Adult Probation Department

Richland County, Ohio

The Richland County Adult Probation Department will partner with the
Richland County Common Pleas Court, its Court Services Department, and the
State of Ohio's Adult Parole Authority to implement its reentry court pilot
program. The reentry court project will build on the successful implementation
of the Richland County Drug Court and other community supervision programs
the Court Services Department has created in recent years, in response to
changes in state sentencing policy.

The Richland County reentry court will expand on the Common Pleas Court's
existing system for tracking and screening offenders for eligibility for Drug Court
and other diversion programs. Common Pleas Court judges will serve on the
reentry court. For offenders deemed eligible at the time of sentencing, the
reentry court judge will present an option to the offender of early release to
community supervision or a sentence in a community corrections program, if the
offender agrees to follow a recommended treatment plan. At a minimum, their
release to the community will include intensive monitoring.

Non-eligible offenders -- or those that are subject to a higher level of
supervision called post-release control (PRC) -- will serve their sentence but
also will be eligible for reentry court services if they adhere to a
supervision/treatment plan, which will be developed 90 days prior to their
release. Upon release, PRC offenders will meet at least monthly with a reentry
court team, consisting of a judge, parole board member, supervising parole
officer, and a community or citizen representative. These monthly meetings will
both acknowledge the offender's progress and reinforce or respond to any
violations through a continuum of progressively severe sanctions.

All reentry court participants will be expected to adhere to a two-part
supervision plan, which will deal with specific offender criminal and treatment
issues while also centering on victim restoration, restitution, family, and
community reintegration. Additionally, reentry court coordinators will establish
treatment, employment, and vocational opportunities, and will provide linkages
to community and faith-based organizations. 

All Richland County offenders will be screened for participation in the reentry
court. Richland County officials expect that 70-90 PRC offenders will
participate in the reentry court program in its initial 15 months.

California Reentry Court Project 

San Francisco Sheriff's Department

San Francisco, California

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department (SFSD) reentry court pilot program is
an effort to respond to the many felony offenders who are sentenced to prison,
but have their state sentence suspended in lieu of county jail time and a lengthy
period of post-release supervision. It will build on the SFSD's Resolve to Stop
the Violence Project (RSVP), which holds violent offenders accountable both
to their victims and the community, while also providing them counseling,
education, and treatment while in jail custody. Specifically, the reentry court
project will allow for more comprehensive sanctions and services to RSVP
offenders by expanding court involvement in their supervision upon their release
to the community. 

The San Francisco reentry court pilot program will partner the SFSD staff, the
Adult Probation Department and the courts. The reentry court initiative will tap
the community linkages which include the District Attorney's Office,
Department of Health, members of the faith community, and a wide range of
other public and private service agencies.

The reentry court will target a violent, felony jail population, which will include
sex offenders. Typical participants will have served a year or less in jail, but will
have served prior prison and jail sentences. The goal of the San Francisco
reentry court is to provide reentry court supervision for up to 12 violent
offenders per month.

Thirty days prior to release from jail, appropriate categories of offenders will be
assessed by RSVP case managers and appropriate offenders will be referred to
the reentry court. RSVP case managers, probation officials, and the offender
will work together to create a "reentry plan," which will be incorporated into the
terms of the offender's probation. Upon release, the participant will report to
the SFSD post-release education program for appropriate services and
supervision, and to begin the process of victim restitution and community
restoration. Participants will appear in court shortly after their release and
periodically thereafter, and will be monitored consistently by probation and
RSVP staff. Once the offenders reentry plan is completed, a "graduation" will
be held to acknowledge the participant's success.

West Virginia Juvenile Reentry Court Project 

State of West Virginia

Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety

Division of Juvenile Services

The Division of Juvenile Services within the West Virginia Department of
Military Affairs and Public Safety will implement a Reentry Court Pilot Program
(RCPP) that expands on their existing aftercare program for violent juvenile
offenders. The RCPP team includes the Division of Juvenile Services, judges
and court personnel from the 21st Judicial Circuit Court District, probation
officers, aftercare case managers, parents, and schools.  This team also will
work with local law enforcement, community based service providers, local
businesses, and citizens to provide links between community services and
RCPP participants. 

Youth detained at the West Virginia Industrial Home for Youth or the Davis
Center - both secure institutions for violent youth - who are returning to
Mineral, Grant, or Tucker counties (located within the 21st Judicial Circuit
Court District) are eligible to participate in the RCPP.  One month prior to
release, the aftercare case manager, with the probation officer, school
counselor, and the youth's family will formulate a reentry plan for the juvenile.
Both the youth's probation officer and aftercare case manager will make
periodic home or school visits. Once a month, the youth will appear in reentry
court before the circuit court judge, probation officer, and aftercare case
manager to discuss his/her progress in achieving the goals of the reentry plan.

During this time, the aftercare case manager will also assist the youth in
accessing community resources and will visit with caretakers, teachers, and
employers. Citizen Advisory Boards in each of the three communities will meet
monthly to share information about existing resources and activities in which
RCPP participants could take part, including working with probation to help the
youth pay restitution to his/her victim.

Core Elements of a Reentry Court

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. 

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. 

Notes

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.