CSOSA’s Reentry and Sanctions Center: 

An Opportunity for Leadership 

In its FY 2006 budget submission, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 

(CSOSA) requests a $14.9 million adjustment to base to fund the positions necessary for 

its Reentry and Sanctions Center (RSC). CSOSA received a $13 million appropriation to 

renovate the existing facility at Karrick Hall in FY 2002. Those renovations are expected 

to be substantially complete by the fall of 2005. 

In debating the potential value of the RSC, it is useful to place the facility in the context 

of both the national debate surrounding offender reentry and the discussion of best 

practices in substance abuse treatment. The two are inextricably connected. The Bureau 

of Justice Statistics estimates that approximately 600,000 individuals are released from

state and federal prisons each year. The majority (50 to 70 percent) report a history of 

substance abuse1

, but only one in ten state prisoners and one in nine federal prisoners 

reports receiving treatment during incarceration.2

 

The connection between substance abuse and crime has been well established. Longterm success in reducing recidivism among drug-abusing offenders, who constitute the 

majority of individuals under CSOSA’s supervision, depends upon two key factors: 

1. Identifying and treating drug use and other social problems among the defendant and 

offender population; and 

2. Establishing swift and certain consequences for violations of release conditions. 

National research supports the conclusion that treatment significantly reduces drug use. A 

study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services’ Administration (SAMHSA) found a 21 percent overall reduction 

in the use of drugs following treatment; a 14 percent decrease in alcohol use; 28 percent 

in marijuana use; 45 percent in cocaine use; 17 percent in crack use; and a 14 percent 

reduction in heroin use.3

 CSOSA’s preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of its 

treatment programming echoes these findings. A study of CSOSA offenders referred to 

treatment in FY 2001 revealed a 20 percent reduction in substance use. In the year prior 

to treatment, offenders were testing positive at a rate of 37 percent. The rate of positive 

tests among this population dropped to 17 percent in the year following treatment. 

 

1 Cited in Taxman, Faye, “Effective Practices for Protecting Public Safety through Substance Abuse Treatment.” 

Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2004. 

2 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1999. 

3 Office of Applied Studies. Services Research Outcome Study (SROS). DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 98-3177. 

Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 1998. 

1
While reduction in drug use is encouraging, the benefits of drug treatment are proven to 

extend well beyond this basic measure. There is substantial research that demonstrates 

the impact of substance abuse treatment on criminal behavior. One national study 

showed a 45 percent reduction in predatory crime in the two years following treatment.4 

Another study compared criminal activity during the 12 months prior to treatment with 

the activity 12 months following treatment and found a 78 percent decrease in drug sales, 

82 percent decrease in shoplifting, and 78 percent decrease in physical altercations. The 

same study showed a 51 percent decrease in arrests for drug possession and a 64 percent 

decrease in arrests overall.5

The goal of treatment is to return the individual to productive functioning in the family, 

workplace, and community. Not only can treatment reduce drug use and criminal 

behavior, it can also improve the prospects for employment, with gains of up to 40 

percent after a single treatment episode. Treatment therefore increases the offender’s 

chances for successful reentry in all areas of his or her life. 

In order for the potential positive effects of treatment to be realized, the individual must 

be receptive and committed to it. The American Society of Addiction Medicine’s Patient 

Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders classify “Readiness 

to Change” as a critical dimension of assessment. The ASAM standards state (page 6): 

...[A]n individual’s emotional and cognitive awareness of the need to 

change and his or her level of commitment to and readiness for change 

indicate his or her degree of cooperation with treatment, as well as his or 

her awareness of the realtionship of alcohol or other drug use to negative 

consequences....[I]t is the degree of readiness to change that helps to 

determine the setting for and intensity of motivating strategies needed, 

rather than the patient’s eligibility for treatment itself.

6

The value of pre-treatment assessment and treatment readiness programming for 

individuals under criminal justice supervision has also been noted. As Dr. Faye Taxman 

writes: 

A critical, but typically neglected, component [of successful treatment] is 

the initial stage of the treatment process—treatment readiness. Often the 

assumption is that the offender is interested in changing his/her behavior 

and that the offender knows what aspect of his/her behavior is 

 

4 Hubbard, R.L.; Marsden, M.E.; Rachal, J.V.; Harwood, H.J.; Cavanuagh, E.R.; and Ginzburg, H.M. Drug Abuse 

Treatment – A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. 5 Gerstein, D.R.; Datta, A.R.; Ingels, J.S.; Johnson, R.A.; Rasinski, K.A.; Schildhaus, S.; Talley, K.; Jordan, K.; 

Phillips, D.B.; Anderson, D.W.; Condelli, W.G. ; and Collins, J.S. The National Treatment Evaluation Study. Final 

Report. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment, 1997. 

6 American Society of Addiction Medicine, Inc. ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of SubstanceRelated Disorders (Second Edition-Revised). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine, Inc., 

2001. 

2
troublesome. Treatment readiness groups prepare the offender for 

participating in treatment by creating a desire to change. The concept of 

treatment readiness is relatively new. Simpson, et al,(1997) identifies the 

importance of treatment induction as part of the process of engaging the 

client in the treatment process. Pretreatment activities are critical to 

improving the client’s commitment to behavior change, motivation, and 

adjustment to the treatment process. Readiness usually deviates from

traditional psychosocial education groups by working on motivational 

issues instead of educational issues. In many cases, this requires the 

development of verbal skills; the identification of feelings and emotions 

are part of the process of committing to change.7

The issue of “desire to change” becomes particularly critical for individuals with longterm histories of substance abuse and inconsistent or ineffective past treatment 

experiences. These individuals may be highly skeptical of the value of treament and 

reluctant to participate actively. They will also usually present other physical or 

emotional issues that must be treated concurrently with the substance abusing behavior. 

CSOSA’s proposed Reentry and Sanctions Center (RSC) program is based on its current 

Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) program, a 30-day clinical assessment and 

treatment readiness course for offenders and defendants. 

The Reentry Policy Council (RPC), convened by the Council of State Governments, 

recently issued a report8

 that summarizes much of the current thinking regarding how 

these services should be organized and integrated to be most effective. 

The report resulted from a five-year collaborative process involving public agencies, 

consulting analysts, researchers, and service providers. Its recommendations can be 

viewed as a “state of the art” on both public policy about reentry and the programs that 

currently serve as national examples of successful implementation. Viewing the 

proposed Reentry and Sanctions Center in light of the RPC report provides a useful 

method of answering some key questions about the program: 

 

7 Taxman, Faye, Ph.D. “Unraveling ‘What Works’ for Offender in Substance Abuse Treatment,” National Drug Court 

Institute Review, Vol. II, No. 2, 1999. 

8 Report of the Reentry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. New 

York: Reentry Policy Council, 2005. Hereafter cited as “RPC Report.” Citations refer to the report as published on 

reentrypolicy.org and so do not include page numbers. 

3
 Is the RSC a “state of the art” program? 

 Will it make a difference? 

 Do any similar programs exist elsewhere? 

 Can the RSC serve as a model for national reentry programming?

Each of these questions will be considered separately. 

Is the RSC a “state of the art” program?

The RSC builds on CSOSA’s successful Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) 

program, which has been operational since 1996 and was developed as part of the 

Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) initiative. The 

AOC program meets the needs of a very specific, and very high-risk, group of offenders 

and defendants: repeat offenders with long-term histories of substance abuse. These 

individuals are particularly vulnerable to both criminal and drug relapse at the point of 

release. Often, they have been incarcerated for a long term and have little outside 

support. For these individuals, reentry is a particularly difficult and dangerous period. 

In its 2001 overview of offender reentry, From Prison to Home, the Urban Institute 

noted: 

Following release from prison, inmates are moved directly from a very 

controlled environment to a low level of supervision or complete freedom. 

They may immediately be exposed to high-risk persons, places, and few 

have developed relapse prevention skills during their incarceration to deal 

with these risks...[R]eleased offenders tend to cope with everyday 

problems in ineffective and sometimes destructive ways. In fact, 

research...has shown that some offenders are unable to recognize and deal 

with problem situations, leading to increased stress levels and rash, often 

criminal reactions.9

The AOC program provides a 30-day transition between prison and release. Although 

the program is voluntary, participants cannot leave the facility and cannot receive 

visitors. During this period, the offender receives intensive services designed to prepare 

him for the next phase of reentry—which, for most AOC participants, is either inpatient 

or daily outpatient substance abuse treatment. Programming consists of: 

 24-36 hours of psychotherapy 

 24 hours of fatherhood training 

 

9 Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry, 

June 2001 

4
 12 hours of goal setting 

 12 hours of spiritual growth counseling 

 12 hours of criminal cognitive restructuring 

 12 hours of relapse prevention 

 12 hours of stress management 

 8 hours of HIV education 

 8 hours of anger management 

 8 hours of substance abuse education 

 2 hours of nutrition education 

As the program content illustrates, the AOC approach is holistic and multi-disciplinary. 

The program is intended to introduce the offender to a range of tools that he can use to 

prevent relapse and improve his behavioral control. Similarly, the offender learns about 

the roles of diet, exercise, and overall health care in stress management. Finally, each 

offender receives a complete physical, psychological, and behavioral assessment that 

identifies his specific treatment issues. Because an extensive discharge summary is 

prepared for and shared with each offender, the offender leaves the AOC with a better 

understanding of his relapse triggers and the specific strategies he can use to counteract 

them. After being introduced to these concepts, the offender is more likely to enter 

treatment with a positive attitude and a commitment to change. AOC program

participants have a higher rate of successful treatment completion than non-participants. 

Furthermore, this assessment informs the offender’s supervision plan so that he is held 

accountable for engaging in programming that addresses his needs. 

In a review of successful treatment practices, Dr. Faye Taxman wrote: 

The AOC program, which will serve as the basis for RSC programming, addresses all of 

the elements of successful pre-treatment programming. The program also results in a 

comprehensive assessment of the offender’s emotional, physical, behavioral, and social 

needs. This is consistent with the RPC report’s recommendations that community 

supervision be assessment-driven and that resources should be dedicated to the period 

immediately following release10

It should also be noted that “readiness to change” is an important factor in determining 

the most appropriate substance abuse treatment placement; therefore, in-depth assessment 

is essential to making an informed clinical decision. The American Society of Addicition 

Medicine’s Placement Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related 

Disorders states, “...[I]t is the degree of readiness to change that helps determine the 

setting for and intensity of motivating strategies needed, rather than the patient’s 

eligibility for treatment itself.”11 The RSC program, which will incorporate many ASAM 

 

10 RPC Report, Policy Statements 25 and 26. 

11 ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders. Chevy Chase, Md.: American 

Society of Addiction Medicine, Inc., 2001, p. 6. Emphasis in original.

5
clinical standards, will therefore enable CSOSA to use its treatment dollars more 

effectively by placing offenders in the setting most likely to produce lasting effect. 

In addition to providing pre-treatment assessment for high-risk offenders, the RSC will 

expand the range of graduate sanctions available to Community Supervision Officers. 

The ability to impose swift, meaningful consequences for non-compliant behavior is 

essential to successful community supervision. Moreover, from the standpoint of 

managing substance abuse and ensuring treatment readiness, the RSC will offer an 

environment in which substance abuse can be stabilized and assessed prior to treatment 

placement. 

From its inception, CSOSA has worked with the DC Superior Court and the US Parole 

Commission to define a range of sanctions that the Community Supervision Officer can 

impose without the delay of seeking judicial or paroling authority approval. CSOSA’s 

authorizing legislation, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 

Improvement Act of 1997, empowers the Director of CSOSA to “develop and operate 

intermediate sanctions programs for sentenced offenders” [Public Law 105-33, Title XI, 

§11233 (b)(2)(f)]. The idea that CSOSA would operate a system of graduated sanctions, 

including residential sanctions, also informed the recommendations of the District of 

Columbia Advisory Commission on Sentencing. In its report to the DC Council, the 

Commission stated: 

CSOSA is developing a series of graduated sanctions, so that 

penalties short of imprisonment can be imposed. Offenders should 

have ample opportunity to comply with conditions of supervised 

release before the U.S. Parole Commission imposes a term of 

imprisonment, which the Commission considers the punishment of 

last resort.12

By increasing Community Supervision Officers’ ability to reinforce accountability, the 

Agency will decrease the number of cases in which the individual must be reincarcerated 

to interrupt his or her violating behaviors. The RSC will greatly increase both the range 

of sanction options available to CSOSA and the programmatic value of brief residential 

placements. 

The RPC report recommends that “community supervision officers have a range of 

options available to them...to address, swiftly and certainly, failures to comply with 

conditions of release” and that offenders who have violated release conditions should be 

assessed to determine the most appropriate response.13 Although the use of graduated 

sanctions is currently under review in California and elsewhere, the practice has gained 

considerable credibility in recent years. The RPC report also notes that “[r]esponses that 

are treatment-oriented... have ...shown greater promise than the alternative of re-

 

12 “Report of the District of Columbia Advisory Commission on Sentencing,” April 5, 2000, p. 35. 

13 RPC Report, Policy Statement 29. 

6
incarceration.”14 The RSC program will provide the option of immediate placement, 

assessment, and stabilization of non-compliant offenders, typically for repeated substance 

abuse violations. 

Will the RSC make a difference?

Studies by the Institute for Behavior and Health15 found that offenders who participated in 

the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA drug treatment program were less likely to commit 

crimes. The indicator used was arrest rate, which is defined as the number of arrests for 

non-technical violations per participant in the year before treatment vs. the number of 

arrests for non-technical violations per subject in the year following treatment. The 2000 

Cohort study reported that the overall arrest rate for program participants within the 

Washington/Baltimore HIDTA in calendar year 2000 dropped 51.3 percent, from 0.8 to 

0.39. AOC program participants experienced a 74.5 percent decrease in arrest rates, from

0.94 to 0.24. 

The 2001 cohort study produced continued declines in arrest rates. All HIDTA program

participants experienced a 47 percent decrease in arrest rate, from 1.08 to .57. AOC 

participants experienced 35 percent decrease, from .97 to .72. 

These results are promising, and CSOSA expects that similar or better rates of success 

will be achieved for the RSC population. However, it is impossible to predict the exact 

impact of the RSC on recidivism and drug use among supervised offenders. The RSC 

program will be evaluated for both process effectiveness and outcomes during the early 

years of its implementation. 

The RPC report spotlights a number of programs that have achieved some measure of 

success with similar strategies. The State of Georgia, for example, has fully implemented 

a continuum of graduated sanctions and reports a 12 percent increase in successful 

completion of parole from FY 1998 to FY 2002.16 

One thing is clear: Incarceration, or reincarceration, alone has little impact on recidivism. 

While reincarceration incapacitates the offender for a short period of time, it does nothing 

to address the conditions that led him or her to violate the conditions of release in the first 

place. In 1997, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that three out of five state prison 

admissions were for technical violations, rather than commission of a new crime.17 The 

public therefore bears an enormous cost if reincarceration is used as the only meaningful 

response to violations. 

 

14 Ibid. 

15 “The Effect of W/B HIDTA-Funded Substance Abuse Treatment on Arrest Rates of Criminals Entering Treatment in 

Calendar Year 2001.” College Park, Md.: Institute for Behavior and Health, June 2004. 

16 RPC Report, Policy Statement 29. 

17 Ibid. 

7
Do any similar programs exist elsewhere? 

Although the literature is persuasive in arguing the case for programs such as the RSC, no 

jurisdiction has implemented a residential facility that combines intensive assessment and 

sanctioning capacity to address substance abuse among high-risk offenders. This is due 

in part to the scarcity of resources, of course, but other factors have contributed to the 

absence of RSC-type programs elsewhere. Among these factors are: 

 The tendency to place offenders in whatever treatment resources are 

available, rather than implementing the clinically indicated placement. In 

Policy Statement 32, the RPC report defines the “intensity gap” in substance 

abuse treatment: 

Due to the abundance of outpatient services...many people with 

substance abuse disorders are counted as having received treatment 

but may have received once-per-week counseling for three months, 

when a clinically appropriate course of treatment would have been 

three months in a residential placement, followed by three months 

in intensive outpatient services, then another six months in regular 

outpatient counseling. 

Determining the clinically indicated course of treatment is a complex process in 

itself, and implementing the resulting recommendation is undoubtedly more 

expensive than simply referring people to outpatient counseling. However, 

offenders with long-term substance abuse problems are also at a high risk for 

recidivism. It therefore makes sense from a public safety standpoint to treat these 

offenders aggressively, according to the clinical indications. Placement in 

treatment that is inappropriate either in intensity or duration can increase dropout 

rates, as well as contribute to the offender’s reluctance to participate in any kind 

of future treatment. 

CSOSA’s treatment resources have enabled us to implement full treatment 

regimens for the highest-risk offenders. The RSC program will promote more 

efficient use of these resources by increasing the percentage of high-risk offenders 

who can receive comprehensive assessment and treatment readiness 

programming. CSOSA is therefore in a unique position to fully implement the 

recommended model for treatment placement. 

 Reluctance to review how treatment resources are allocated. In most 

jurisdictions, public treatment resources are controlled by an agency outside the 

criminal justice system. Therefore, offenders compete directly with others for 

treatment slots; public administrators are therefore reluctant to dedicate 

significant resources to treatment for them. In the District of Columbia, the 

scarcity of public treatment resources has contributed to CSOSA’s development 

8
of capacity that is dedicated to offenders under supervision. The infrastructure to 

maximize the benefit of RSC programming already exists; the RSC will therefore 

add value to CSOSA’s treatment continuum. 

 Concentrating treatment resources on in-prison programs. While prisonbased treatment programs can be valuable, they do not prepare the offender for 

the stress of reentry. It should be noted that recovery from substance abuse often 

involves multiple episodes of treatment delivered in different settings and under 

different circumstances. Even if the offender was receptive to prison-based 

treatment, he or she may not be able to use that treatment to overcome the risk of 

relapse that reentry presents. While certain funding mechanisms, such as the 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners grant program, have 

supported the development and maintenance of in-prison treatment programs, 

jurisdictions have not necessarily diverted existing resources to expand postrelease treatment options. The RSC, combined with CSOSA’s existing treatment 

resources, provides a unique opportunity to implement and evaluate a full 

continuum of post-release treatment. 

 The complexity of implementing and evaluating this type of program. The 

RSC program model employs a “blended standards” approach, incorporating 

standards from different accrediting bodies to define each area of facility and 

program operations. These accrediting bodies include the American Society for 

Addiction Medicine (client placement); the Commission on Accreditation of 

Rehabilitation Facilities (program content); American Correctional Association 

(security); the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations 

(medical operations); the District of Columbia Addiction, Prevention, and 

Recovery Administration (life safety and physical plant); and the District of 

Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (provider licensing). 

Staff will be cross-trained in the different standards used in program development, 

and evaluation design will incorporate compliance with all the standards 

consulted. 

Can the RSC serve as a model for national reentry programming? 

CSOSA’s emphasis on community-based, assessment-driven supervision practices 

closely follows the recommendations of the RPC report. In that sense, CSOSA is already 

a national model for best practices in community supervision. The RSC will further 

enhance CSOSA’s ability to prove that properly implemented community supervision can 

realize significant public safety benefits. 

From the agency’s inception, CSOSA’s leaders have envisioned an agency-operated 

residential program as a core component of successful program implementation. The 

agency’s Critical Success Factors, which serve as guiding principles for policy 

development and performance measurement, stress both offender accountability and the 

9
provision of treatment and support services. As the RSC is implemented, CSOSA will 

expand its ability to achieve performance goals in both of these critical areas. 

In its introduction, the RPC report summarizes the opportunity that implementation of the 

RSC presents: 

The urgency of the [reentry] problem may seem stunning, its scope 

overwhelming, and the potential solutions hopelessly impractical, 

especially given the dwindling resources available to state and local 

officials. In fact, this situation has generated an unprecedented level of 

attention to an issue that has persisted for as long as jails and prisons have 

existed. And, with this level of attention, innovative programs and creative 

policies have emerged, some with an evidence base which confirms their 

efficacy. 18

Full implementation of the Reentry and Sanctions Center provides an opportunity for 

CSOSA to make a national contribution to reentry programming effectiveness. The RSC 

increases the range of tools that CSOSA’s Community Supervision Officers can use to 

achieve the agency’s public safety mission. It focuses resources on the highest-risk 

offenders to ensure that these individuals receive appropriate services in a timely manner. 

It expands a proven program strategy into an invaluable resource that can be studied and 

replicated by other jurisdictions. Most importantly, it will enable CSOSA to continue 

achieving its mission of public safety for the nation’s capital. 

 

 

18 RPC Report, Introduction. 

10