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.