6396 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances; Notice of Application

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

this is notice that on December 6, 1999,

Mallinckrodt, Inc., Mallinckrodt &

Second Streets, St. Louis, Missouri

63147, made application by letter to the

Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of dihydromorphine

(9145), a basic class of controlled

substance listed in Schedule I.

Mallinckrodt, Inc. plans to isolate

dihydromorphine as a step in a

multistep synthesis of hydromorphone.

Any other such applicant and any

person who is presently registered with

DEA to manufacture such substance

may file comments or objections to the

issuance of the proposed registration.

Any such comments or objections

may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration, United

States Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA

Federal Register Representative (CCR),

and must be filed no later than (April

10, 2000).

Dated: January 28, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2872 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Corrections

Solicitation for a Cooperative

Agreement—Community Restorative

Justice Outcomes/Measurements and

Evaluation

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Corrections.

ACTION: Solicitation for a Cooperative

Agreement—Community Restorative

Justice Outcomes/Measurements and

Evaluation.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice

(DOJ), National Institute of Corrections

(NIC) announces the availability of

funds in FY 2000 for a cooperative

agreement to establish and develop

‘‘community restorative justice’’

performance outcome, measurement

and evaluation protocols. This

solicitation if for phase I and II of a

‘‘three-phase’’ project.

Background/Purpose: Restorative

Justice has emerged as a critical issue

for the future of Criminal Justice

Systems. Because it is new it requires a

unique set of skills, competencies and

perspectives from corrections agencies

and other justice professionals. Victims

and citizens have become increasingly

frustrated with the justice system with

a belief that the justice system does not

represent their interest and does not

provide them any value in terms of

enhanced public safety, quality of life in

communities, and a legitimate voice and

role in the justice process. Restorative

and community oriented practices show

promise for being more responsive to

victims and communities, and holding

offenders accountable for understanding

the harmful impact of their behavior,

and for repairing the harm that they

have caused. Many activities and efforts

have taken place over the past four years

to assist agencies in developing and

implementing systems, protocols and

practices related to Restorative Justice.

Likewise, the effectiveness and

evaluation of these new systems and

programs has come into question and

has become a central issue among

professionals and criminal justice

agencies. In some instances, restorative

justice programs have been evaluated

against traditional measures that focus

exclusively on offender recidivism.

Proponents argue that restorative justice

is a radically different paradigm and so

too needs to be our measures and

methods of evaluating restorative

justice. It is also argued that restorative

justice is more than just a certain

program (mediation, conferencing,

boards, restitution, etc.), rather it is an

operating framework driven and

grounded by different values and

principles. It requires us to look beyond

offender focused measures and adopt

measures that account not only for

impact on offenders, but also on victim

health and satisfaction, community

safety and vitality, community problemsolving capacity and other variables

grounded in these new set of principles

and values. By identifying a host of

new, or non-traditional evaluation

measures to evaluate restorative justice

initiatives, agencies will be able to

evaluate the relative effectiveness of

restorative justices initiatives, and

defend and make informed decisions on

the purpose and use of such initiatives

and programs. Additionally, the project

will assist criminal justice agencies in

evaluating the effective design and

implementation of restorative justice

programs.

Project Goal and Objectives: The goal

of this project is to provide criminal

justice agencies the capability to

evaluate the design, implementation,

and impact of programs and initiatives

being conducted under auspices of

community and restorative justice.

The objective of this project are to:

1. Identify outcome and impact

measures to evaluate the effectiveness of

restorative justice programs and

initiatives.

2. Identify process measures to guide

and evaluate the implementation of

restorative justice programs.

3. Develop an evaluation methodology

for the collection and analysis of

restorative justice data.

4. Design and create a tool(s) and

protocols incorporating restorative

measures that agencies can use to

evaluate the both the process

(implementation) and the outcome/

impact of restorative justice programs.

5. Produce a document for wide

dissemination in the criminal justice

field on restorative justice measures and

evaluation using the results from the

first four objectives.

6. Develop and deliver a pilot training

curriculum for correctional practitioners

on the use restorative justice evaluation

measures, tools and protocols.

Scope of Work Deliverables

Phase I: The desired outcome and

product for Phase I is ‘‘the identification

of specific process, outcome and impact

measures for evaluating restorative

justice programs and initiatives.’’

Intended work activities include

assembly of a focus/work group to

participate in the identification of

restorative measures.

Phase II: The desired outcome and

deliverables for Phase II is the ‘‘actual

design and development of an

evaluation tool/instrument and

protocol, the pilot application and

revision of the tool at two jurisdictional

sites, and the development of a

document for broad public

dissemination containing the results

from phase I and II activities.’’ The

process tool should take the form of an

inventory (or checklist) consisting of

measurable items that can provide

direction and feedback on the extent to

which programs and initiatives are more

or less restorative in their design and

implementation. The site used in a pilot

application of the evaluation design

must be inclusive of a publicly funded

correctional agency as a primary

administrator of the program or

initiative being evaluated, and shall be

subject to consideration and approved

by the NIC project coordinator. The

document should provide correctional