Putting Ex-offenders Back to Work A New Role for Courts?

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice

Putting Ex-offenders Back to Workby Peter Finn

A New Role for Courts?by David Rottman and Pamela Casey

Foundation Funding:Some Issues to Considerby Kate Chieco

and

At-A-Glance:

■ Law Enforcement Stress

■ Comparing U.S. and U.K.Arrestee Drug Use

JOURNALNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICEJULY 1999 JOURNAL

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Raymond C. FisherAssociate Attorney General

Laurie RobinsonAssistant Attorney General

Noël BrennanDeputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy TravisDirector, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a centralized national clearinghouse of criminal justice information, is sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs agencies and the Office of National Drug

Control Policy. Registered users of NCJRS receive the NIJ Journal and NCJRS Catalog free. To become a registered user, write NCJRS User Services, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000, call 800–851–3420, or

e-mail [email protected]. Visit the NCRJS World Wide Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

JR000240

Director’s Message

The past several years have seen growing recognition of the value ofpartnerships that work to solve community problems. Today, hard workingteams composed of representatives from community groups, the private sector, policy groups, the criminal justice system, and the research communi-ty are a significant feature of the criminal justice landscape. NIJ’s grant port-folio reflects our strong support of research based on partnerships; since1994, we have reached out and significantly strengthened and expanded rela-tionships between NIJ and other Federal agencies, private foundations, andresearchers and practitioners at the State and local levels.

The articles in this issue of the NIJ Journal highlight three important part-nerships: (1) corrections agencies, employers, and social services agencies inthe community; (2) courts and the public they serve; and (3) criminal justicepractitioners and private foundations.

Peter Finn’s article on employment for ex-offenders describes job placementprograms in four States—Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington—andtheir efforts to provide clients not only job placements, but also basic educa-tion classes, life skills training, and support services. Their efforts were builtupon partnerships among nonprofit organizations, departments of correc-tions and other public agencies, employers, and, in one case, members of theclergy. The relationships have flourished as the partners worked toward thecommon goals of reducing recidivism and the costs of housing growingprison populations.

In their article on problem-solving courts, David Rottman and Pamela Caseydiscuss a new role for courts: that of becoming more responsive to the needsof the community members they serve. This concept—known as therapeuticjurisprudence—engages the court in a collaborative process with local andState agencies to seek opportunities to promote therapeutic outcomes forindividuals.

Kate Chieco describes a third partnership: that of criminal justice practition-ers with private foundations. Chieco points out that while Government funding supports much criminal justice reform, private foundations areimportant partners in jump-starting innovative community-based efforts.The article describes recent trends in foundation funding for criminal justiceinitiatives and offers suggestions on how to identify potential partners in thephilanthropic sector and secure their support.

Successful partnerships can achieve safer, more livable environments and amore effective criminal justice system for all members of the community. NIJis committed to fostering partnerships and will continue to feature examplesof innovative and successful relationships in future issues of the NIJ Journal.

Jeremy TravisDirector

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy TravisDirector

The NIJ Journal is published by the NationalInstitute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, to announce theInstitute’s policy-relevant research results and initiatives. The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodicalis necessary in the transaction of the publicbusiness required by law of the Department of Justice.

Opinions or points of view expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of theU.S. Department of Justice.

For more information about NIJ activities,products, and publications, visit NIJ on theWorld Wide Web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

NIJ Journal Editorial Board

David BoydDeputy Director for the Office ofScience and Technology

Sally T. HillsmanDeputy Director for the Office of Research and Evaluation

John L. SchwarzDeputy Director for the Office of Development and Communications

Christy A. VisherScience Advisor to the Director

Saralyn BorrowmanCheryl A. CrawfordA. Trent DePersiaJames O. FinckenauerMary G. GrahamSharla P. RauschGerald P. SoucyLaura Winterfield

Managing EditorsBrenner Brown, Palladian Partners, Inc.Jolene Hernon, National Institute

of Justice

BUILDING

KNOWLEDGE TO

MEET THE CHALLENGE OF

CRIME AND JUSTICE

features2 Job Placement for Offenders: A

Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Correctional Costs ■ Peter Finn

12 Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts ■ David Rottman and Pamela Casey

20 Private Funding for Criminal Justice Initiatives: What You Should Know About the Grantseeking Process ■ Kate Chieco

at-a-glance27 The Public Health and Law

Enforcement Stress

International Drug Use: Comparing British and American Arrestees

departments

28 New & Noteworthy

30 Events

32 Solicitations & Awards

33 NIJ in the Journals

Job Placement for Offenders:

No intervention, training, or diversion program has consistentlyreduced recividism across the board. But the programs in thisarticle show great promise. Author Peter Finn describes fourefforts that have found success and discusses their differencesand similarities. See “Job Placement for Offenders,” page 2.Cover photo: Powell Photography, Inc.

National Institute of Justice Journal ■ July 19991

Therapeutic Jurisprudence:Therapeutic jurisprudence claims that attending toboth individuals and the issues in a case leads tomore effective dispositions. It asks courts to consider ways to enhance positive outcomes withoutsubordinating due process and other justice values.See “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergenceof Problem-Solving Courts,” page 12. Photo: Scott Bhla, West County Times

Contents

Job Placement for Offenders:

A Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Correctional Costs

by Peter Finn

A counselor at the Corrections Clearinghouse in WashingtonState assists a client with a job search.

Photo: Rick Singer


Many newly releasedoffenders have diffi-culty reintegrating

into society. They may have asubstance abuse problem orneed a place to live and appropriateclothing; some may need to dealwith the bureaucracy of a foster caresystem to regain custody of theirchildren. Finding permanentemployment is perhaps the mostcommon obstacle for many ex-offenders, and one that researcherssay may be associated with thechances that they will return tocriminal behavior.1 But offendersfrequently face several barriers tofinding permanent, unsubsidizedemployment after release: they oftenlack occupational skills, have little orno experience seeking employment,and confront employers who areuneasy about hiring individualswith criminal records.

A number of programs across thecountry are preparing inmates andparolees for employment andsearching for a job by providingintensive educational and life skillsservices, social support, and postem-ployment followup, in addition totraditional job preparation andplacement assistance.

These programs may have a muchbetter chance of reducing recidivismthan previous efforts of the 1960’sand 1970’s, which emphasized jobplacement more than job readinessand did not address underlyingproblems common to many offend-ers, such as substance abuse, mentalillness, or lack of affordable hous-ing.2 (See “A Snapshot of Offenders,Employment, and Recidivism.”)

Some of these programs are relative-ly new, while others have been inexistence for more than 25 years.This article describes four such pro-grams: the Safer Foundation inChicago, the Center for Employ-ment Opportunities (CEO) in NewYork City, Project RIO

(Reintegration of Offenders) inTexas, and the Corrections Clear-inghouse (CCH) in Washington.Although each program is unique,they all share programmatic featuresthat can be replicated—basic ser-vices involving life skills training,job preparation skills, job place-ment, social support, and follow-upassistance. However, the diversity inthe programs’ context and adminis-trative features offers a variety ofalternatives for other jurisdictions toconsider.

Chicago's SaferFoundationSafer Foundation is a nonprofitorganization (not a foundation, asthe name implies) headquartered in

Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 1972by two former priests, the originalprogram received a U.S. Departmentof Justice grant to provide vocation-al training to prison inmates and tohelp them get into unions and pri-vate industry after being released. By1997, Safer had expanded to nearly200 staff members in five additionallocations in two States, including aState work release center and theCook County Jail.

The Program. Most of Safer’sclients are referred from probationand parole officers, and they receivebasic educational and life skillsclasses and job placement assistance.According to Ron Tonn, Safer’sAssistant Vice President for Pro-gramming, the program’s mission“isn’t to get ex-offenders a job but to

about the authorPeter Finn is an associate at Abt Associates Inc., a public policy and business research and consulting company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His recent research has focusedon life skills programs for inmates and job placement programs for ex-offenders. This articleupdates his previous article in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(1/2), 1998, pp. 89–106.

■ Number of inmates in jails and prisons, 1996:1

Jails: 510,000Prisons: 1,127,500

■ Number of releasees from Federal and State facilities, 1996:2

1.1 million

■ Average recidivism rate after 4years following release from prison, 1996:3

32.5 percent

■ Among adult probationers, the percentage who had a disciplinary hearing, by employment status, 1995:4

Employed: 16 percentUnemployed: 23 percent

■ Percentage of jail inmates who were employed or unemployed before their mostrecent offense, 1996:5

Employed: 64 percentUnemployed: 36 percent

1.Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1996: Executive Summary, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1999 (NCJ 171684).

2.Camp, C.G. and G.M. Camp, The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1997, pp. 46–47.

3.Camp, C.G. and G.M. Camp, The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1997, pp. 46–47.

4.Bonczar, Thomas P., Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995, BJS Special Report, December 1997 (NCJ 164267).

5.Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996, BJS Special Report, April 1998 (NCJ 164620).

A Snapshot of Offenders, Employment, andRecidivismIn informal polls, inmates often rank employment as one of their most serious problems. Below is a summary of some facts and figures about offenders, employment, and recidivism.

Job Placement for Offenders4

provide avenues for them to let goof the criminal life and buy into themainstream; getting and keeping ajob is a means to that end.”

Safer incorporates several unusualfeatures. Under contract to the State,Safer runs the 200-bed CrossroadsCommunity Correctional Center,the largest of four Illinois Depart-ment of Corrections (DOC) workrelease centers in the city. Althoughsecurity is a paramount concern, theCenter’s major focus is on programs

and service delivery, an approachthat is difficult to pursue in a tradi-tional DOC-run facility.

During orientation week, residentsattend nine 90-minute minicourseson such topics as money manage-ment, job interviewing techniques,and stress management. Betweenthese courses, Crossroads offers abasic reading and math skills coursethat uses a small-group peer learn-ing approach in which groups ofthree to five students help each

other with the aid of a professionalinstructor.

Safer also runs PACE Institute, orProgram Activities for CorrectionalEducation, a private school inChicago’s 10,000-bed Cook CountyJail. Each semester, PACE provides75–90 pretrial detainees and sen-tenced inmates with daytime basiceducation and life skills courses.

The basic skills course at the mainSafer facility, open to 16- to 21-year-

old ex-offenders, is designed pri-marily to prepare clients to continuetheir education after Safer. In addi-tion to basic skills development, jobdevelopers teach students to com-plete job applications and preparefor job interviews. During and afterthe course, a job developer helpsstudents find employment.

Safer makes extensive use of trained,closely supervised volunteers,enabling the program to provideservices and secure expertise itcould not otherwise afford. Under

the supervision of a full-time paidcoordinator, 200 volunteers provideone-on-one literacy tutoring duringthe evening as part of the PACEInstitute, while 65 volunteers facili-tate group discussions at CrossroadsCommunity Correctional Center ontopics ranging from parenting skillsto goal setting.

Evidence of Safer’s Effective-ness. Safer Foundation’s data sug-gest the program has been effectivein improving clients’ basic skills. In-house data show that, for the pro-gram year 1995–96, all 72 studentswho completed Safer’s youth basicskills program improved their scoreson the General Educational Devel-opment (GED) test by an average of12.5 percent.3 Safer clients’ averageGED score upon intake was 189,which is approximately equivalentto grade level 5 or 6. By the end ofthe program, 34 percent of partici-pants scored above 225 and 64 per-cent scored above 200. Participants’overall average score increased to213. Of 94 inmates who attendedthe basic reading and math skillscourse offered in the work releasecenter that Safer runs, 91 percentimproved their basic skills testscores. The improvement for allparticipants was an average of 16percent, while 12 percent improvedtheir scores by at least 25 percent.

Safer’s figures for job placement areparticularly significant because theprogram changed its definition of“placement” in 1996 to include—and to claim government reim-bursement for—only participantswho remain on the job for at least30 days. The program helped 1,102of the 2,759 participants enrolled inthe program find work during thefiscal year ending June 30, 1996.Using the program’s 30-day place-ment criterion, 650, or 59 percent of those clients who found jobs,officially qualify as placements.

Safer has begun to track clients’work histories for 10 months afterthey have found a job. Among a

“After I’d served 2 years in prison, I hooked up with Mike [an employment specialist]

because my parole officer referred me

specifically to him. ‘Go talk to Mike, he’ll

help you find a job,’ he said. In 2 weeks, Mike

got me a job as a machine presser, and I was

trained on the job. I couldn’t land one on my

own—I filled out applications, but no one

would hire me. Mike also got me into an

8-month welding course, which will begin in

6 months, that I can do while I’m still working.”

–Safer Foundation client


sample of clients who remainedemployed for 30 days, 81 percentwere still employed (with the sameor another employer) after 2 months,75 percent after 3 months, and 57percent after 9 months. Of 72 par-ticipants completing Safer’s basicskills program for youth, 67 percententered school, vocational training,or employment, with 58 percent ofthese participants maintaining theirplacements after 180 days. Ninety-nine percent of participants whocompleted the program had notbeen convicted of a new crime after180 days.

Cost Implications. SaferFoundation’s 1996 budget was$8,506,142. More than 6 percent ofthe funds—just over $510,000—came from private contributionsand grants, with the rest providedby State and local governments.After excluding the costs of runningCrossroads Community CorrectionsCenter and PACE Institute, andother expenses unrelated to the program’s job placement services,Safer’s cost per participant placedwas $1,369 in 1996; its cost per participant placed who remainedemployed for at least 30 days was$1,956.

New York City’sCenter forEmploymentOpportunitiesIn the late 1970’s, the Vera Instituteof Justice, a nonprofit organizationin New York City, established whatbecame CEO because many newlyreleased offenders were being rear-rested, usually for petty propertyoffenses. At the same time, itappeared that offenders who wereable to stay straight were findingday-labor jobs in their own neigh-borhoods. In 1978, Vera decided totry to develop work crews that couldoffer day-labor employment inneighborhoods where offenders

were living and that lacked thesetypes of jobs. Within a year, Veraadded vocational development ser-vices because work crew memberswanted better jobs and becausesocial problems, such as the lack ofhealth insurance and housing, weremaking it difficult for many of themto continue crew work.

Over time, the program’s para-mount goal changed to providingex-offenders with permanent,unsubsidized, higher payingemployment, with the work crewsseen as an indispensable means ofachieving that objective. Veralaunched CEO as an independentorganization in 1996.

The Program. CEO assigns ex-offenders—two-thirds of whom aremandated to join the program as acondition of release from the State’sshock incarceration (“boot camp”)program—to day-labor work crews.Assigning participants to crews soonafter they have been released fromprison provides an opportunity tocapitalize on the discipline they haveacquired in prison before it wearsoff. The crews provide participantswith structure and activity, goodwork habits, daily income, and a testof their readiness for placement in apermanent job. In mid-1996, 40crews with more than 200 partici-pants were operating each day inmore than 25 locations in all 5 cityboroughs.

Crews operate from 9:00 a.m. to5:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. tomidnight. Assignments, paid for bycity and State agencies, include pro-viding custodial services to courtbuildings, painting dormitories andclassrooms in schools, providingroadside cleanup along piers andState highways, maintaining naturetrails, and performing generalgrounds-keeping. The program payscrew members at the end of eachday in order to provide them withimmediate spending money, rein-force dependability, and promoteself-esteem. Field supervisors coor-dinate the required work with thecustomer’s facility manager andtrain participants in the workrequirements.

Participants spend their first 4 daysat CEO—Monday through Thurs-day—attending all-day job readinessclasses designed especially for diffi-cult-to-employ populations. OnFriday, participants receive a 90-minute orientation to the workcrews and meet with their assignedemployment counselor to developan employment plan. Each partici-pant’s counselor then picks a day ofthe week when, instead of workingon a crew, the participant comes tothe office to pursue job leads thecounselor has developed betweenmeetings.

A Safer Foundation counselor presents options to a client attending a substance abuse prevention program. Photo: Powell Photography, Inc.


Although CEO has placed some par-ticipants with large corporations,according to Tani Mills, who runsCEO’s vocational developmentactivities, “We have found a nichewith small and medium-sized com-panies: large companies have theirown human resource departments,so they don’t need CEO so much . . . .Besides, many participants can’thandle the anonymity of a big com-pany.”

Evidence ofCEO’s Effective-ness. CEO annuallyplaced an average of766 participants inpermanent jobsbetween 1992 and1996, for an averageplacement rate of 70percent. Approx-imately 75 percent ofplaced participantswere still on thesame job after 1month, with 60 per-cent still on the jobafter 3 months. Half

of those who remained on the jobfor 1 month were still on the samejob after 6 months. In 1996, theaverage hourly wage of placed par-ticipants was nearly 50 percenthigher than the minimum wage atthe time ($4.25). Nearly two-thirds of the jobs provided full benefits.

Cost Implications. Program rev-enue in fiscal year 1996–97 at CEOtotaled just over $7.4 million. Theprogram’s income in fiscal year 1996

included $1.9 million fromgovernment agencies forvocational development (lifeskills classes and job place-ment services) and $5.6 mil-lion from customers whohired work crews. In 1996,CEO covered all but$416,000 of its work crewexpenses with revenue fromwork crew customers. As aresult, in calculating CEO’scost to taxpayers, it is neces-sary to add only the unreim-bursed cost of the workcrews to the cost of voca-tional development activi-ties, for a total of $2,316,800.With an average of 766placements per year, theaverage cost per placementto the taxpayer is $3,025.

Texas's Project RIOTexas’s Project RIO, which started asa two-city pilot program in 1985,has become the most ambitiousState government program in theNation devoted to job placement forex-offenders. Operating out of theTexas Workforce Commission, RIO’s106 staff members in 62 offices pro-vide job placement services to nearly16,000 parolees (representing 85percent of all releasees) each year in92 Texas towns and cities.

As with Safer Foundation and CEO,RIO traces its origins to the need toreduce recidivism. In 1984, the headof the parole division and the chiefof job service operations at theTexas Workforce Commission per-suaded the Governor to use some ofhis discretionary money to providespecialized employment services toex-offenders as a means of keepingthem out of prison. As a result, theGovernor used Federal funding topilot test two collaborative experi-ments in Dallas and Houston. Whenan independent evaluation suggest-

“I said I would never hire a convict.

Then a CEO representative called me because one of my

customers had hired a CEO participant and told the program

about me. The CEO person told me that they screen these

people, offer money for me to train them, and CEO and the

parole board both monitor them. If there’s a problem, they’ll

find it out and either solve it or get the person out. I don’t

have a human resources department to screen people, and

with a newspaper ad you never know what kind of person

you’re getting. So I interviewed a few [participants], hired

one, and it worked out fine.”–Shop owner with 35 employees who has employed CEO clients

A CEO crew member providing custodial services. Photo: Harvey Wang.

ed that Project RIO was reducingrecidivism, the Texas legislatureagreed in 1987 to fund the programfrom general revenues and toexpand the program to Texas’s fiveother largest cities. In 1991, the leg-islature increased RIO funding stillfurther to include parolees andinmates in the rest of the State.

The Program. Project RIO pro-vides services to the entire Statethrough full-service offices in eachof Texas’s seven largest cities. Insmaller municipalities, one half-time to three full-time staff workout of local Texas WorkforceCommission offices, while in ruralcommunities “itinerant” servicesproviders travel periodically fromthe local commission offices tospend a day or two a week in various locations.

Like Safer Foundation, Project RIOalso serves offenders while they arein prison. By providing funds to theexisting prison school district, RIOoffers inmates life skills classes, indi-vidual job readiness counseling, andhelp assembling birth certificates,Social Security cards, school tran-scripts, and other needed docu-ments so that they can begin look-ing for employment the momentthey are released. Project RIO’sprison activities also serve animportant outreach function bypublicizing RIO’s availability to helpevery paroled inmate. On releaseday, RIO staff give every group ofdeparting inmates a 30-minute ori-entation to the program, including acard with the RIO hotline, whichgenerates approximately 150 callsper month. Project RIO staff alsohave arranged for a number ofemployers who have hired RIO participants to spend a day in prisontalking to inmates about job oppor-tunities for ex-offenders.

Project RIO’s services to releasedoffenders include the standard com-bination of assessment, placement,and followup. Full-service officesalso provide clients with a resource

room that includes computerizedjob listings, telephone books, and atelephone.

Evidence of Project RIO’sEffectiveness. During fiscal year1995, Project RIO served 15,366parolees, representing about 40 per-cent of all ex-offenders and 47 per-cent of all parolees released fromprison that year. Almost 74 percentof clients in 1995—11,371parolees—found employment at anaverage wage that was 21 percentabove the minimum wage.

Project RIO clients appear to bemuch more likely to get jobs thanare ex-offenders who do not partici-pate in the program. An evaluationof RIO found that, after a 1-year fol-lowup, 69 percent of program par-ticipants found employment, com-pared with 36 percent of non-RIOparolees, even though both groupsof ex-offenders had similar demo-graphic characteristics and risk ofreoffending. The evaluators alsofound that minority ex-offendersdid especially well in RIO: 66 per-cent found employment, comparedwith only 30 percent of AfricanAmericans and 36 percent of

Hispanics who were not enrolled inthe program.4

When it comes to recidivism,employed ex-offenders who foundjobs through RIO had reducedrecidivism rates, compared withunemployed ex-offenders who didnot enroll in RIO. During the yearafter release—when most recidivismoccurs5—48 percent of RIO high-risk clients were rearrested, com-pared with 57 percent of non-RIOparolees; 23 percent were reincarcer-ated, compared with 38 percent ofnon-RIO parolees. Project RIO hasbeen of greatest benefit to ex-offenders who were considered themost likely to reoffend.6 (See“Rearrests and Reincarcerations byRisk of Recidivism and RIOParticipation.”)

It is possible that parolees who weremost likely to succeed on their ownwere the ones who took advantageof RIO’s services. However, the eval-uators found that there were fewdifferences between RIO partici-pants and nonparticipants and thatthe differences were unlikely to haveinfluenced the findings.7

Rearrests and Reincarcerations by Risk of Recidivism and RIO Participation (n=1,200)

Percentage rearrested Percentage reincarcerated

Non-RIORIO

*Based on 23 factors, such as substance abuse history, living arrangements, correctional officers’ impression of risk,academic level, vocational skills, and employment history.


Risk Level*


Cost Implications. In 1995, theTexas legislature provided ProjectRIO with $15 million for 2 years. Ofthis, $4.69 million was funneledthrough the Texas Workforce Com-mission to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice for its prison-andparole-related RIO contributions,and $2.9 million was paid to theState prison’s school district. Thisleft the Workforce Commission withapproximately $4.1 million per yearfor running Project RIO. The pro-gram spent $361 in 1995 for each ofthe 11,371 clients who were placedin jobs.

Washington State’sCorrectionsClearinghouseThe decline of the Seattle area air-plane manufacturing industry in theearly 1970’s resulted in fewer jobopportunities and a less optimisticoutlook for newly released inmatesseeking employment. The Washing-ton State legislature responded byproviding funding for the Employ-ment Security Department to estab-lish an Ex-Offender Work Orienta-tion Program to help ex-offendersfind jobs. Based on that effort’s suc-cess, the Employment SecurityDepartment and the Department ofCorrections formalized their rela-tionship in 1976 by establishing theCorrections Clearinghouse (CCH).Over time, CCH’s original mis-sion—to coordinate job search ac-tivities for adult offenders beingreleased from prison—expanded toinclude providing services withincorrectional facilities and servingjuvenile offenders. In 1997, CCHemployed 23 professional staffmembers.

The Program. The CorrectionsClearinghouse provides direct ser-vices and acts as a central point forbrokering and coordinating the ser-vices available through a network ofState and local agencies.

In terms of direct services, CCHstaff in adult prisons offer severalprerelease employment-relatedcourses, as well as vocational assess-ments in one facility and industrialsafety courses in two facilities. At theWashington Corrections Center forWomen, CCH offers two transition-to-trades initiatives tailored towomen. One initiative, funded bythree unions, guarantees unionmembership to women who suc-cessfully complete an inprisontrades-related apprenticeship coach-ing program, thereby improvingtheir chances of being hired afterrelease. Juvenile institution man-agers can choose from a menu ofservices CCH offers, ranging fromvocational testing to employmentpreparation classes. However, CCH’smost requested service is assessmentof individual juveniles’ employabili-ty and development of a portfoliooutlining the offender’s needs and aservice strategy for meeting them.

At five prisons, CCH instructorsregister their students with theEmployment Security Department,enabling them to access the depart-ment’s JobNet computerized jobdata bank so that they can discoverjob leads while still in prison. CCHcontracts with six community-basedorganizations and one employment

security job service center to operatethe “Ex-O” program, which providesjob search assistance to adult andjuvenile ex-offenders, includingongoing postplacement services.Service providers also are contractedto help clients gain promotions thatprovide higher wages.

The program brokers a number ofservices—that is, acts as the agentfor other groups to pool theirresources and collaborate to providenew services. Staff members arrangemeetings among high-level adminis-trators of two or more groups thatare responsible for addressing simi-lar problems. CCH may provideone-time travel expenses so thegroups can begin working together.For example, CCH brokered theestablishment of a college programfor ex-offenders in recovery forchemical dependency. CalledVocational Opportunity Trainingand Education (VOTE), the pro-gram consists of a 7-week return-to-work workshop, along with counsel-ing to address alcohol and otherdrug abuse recovery issues. Initially,CCH and the Employment SecurityDepartment matched contributionsfrom a local college and the StateDivision of Alcohol and SubstanceAbuse to pilot test the program.When the program proved a success,

Inmates work in Safer’s peer learning group at Crossroads Community Center.Photo: Powell Photography, Inc.


the college and division made it per-manent.

CCH has coordinated numerousactivities, but one in particularstands out. The Case ManagementResource Directory is a listing of2,500 resources in Washington State,from places to obtain free clothingto substance abuse treatment, thatemployment specialists, welfareoffices, and others can use to steerclients to sources of help. CCH staffarranged with a correctional centerand the local college’s inmate com-puter instructor to devise a prisonindustry program involving sixinmates who designed and wrote thecomputer software for the disk ver-sion of the directory, update theentries quarterly, and staff toll-freetelephone and fax lines for orderingcopies, receiving updates, andadding resources.8

Evidence of CCH’s Effective-ness. In fiscal years 1997–98, atleast 3,082 inmates completed aCCH program. The seven Ex-Ocontractors enrolled 1,312 ex-offenders, 59 percent of whomfound work. Of these, 99 percentwere still employed after 15 daysand 68 percent were employed after45 days. A 1994 study conducted byCCH staff with the assistance of theDOC’s Office of Research comparedthe recidivism rates of 500 Ex-Oclients who found employment withthe historical recidivism rate amongall department releasees. (Recid-ivism excluded ex-offenders whomight have been jailed.) The recidi-vism rate for the Ex-O clients after 1year was 3 percent, compared with10 percent for all releasees. After 5years, the recidivism rate was 15percent for the Ex-O clients, com-pared with 30 percent for allreleasees. However, the study didnot control for the possibility thatthe Ex-O clients might have beenlower risk or more motivated thanother releasees.

Cost Implications. The Correc-tions Clearinghouse’s 1997–98 bud-get was $3,209,131. The programreceives slightly more than half of itsfunding from the EmploymentSecurity Department’s Penalty andInterest Fund. (Employers who aredelinquent in paying their Stateunemployment insurance taxes paypenalties and interest into the fund.)The Department of Social andHealth Services provides CCH with$644,992, $500,000 of which is ear-marked by the State legislature for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Ad-ministration. The Division ofAlcohol and Substance Abuse pro-vides the department’s remaining$144,992 for the VOTE program. Infiscal year 1996–97, CCH spent$361,500 on Ex-O contractors. Inhelping 766 ex-offenders to securejobs through Ex-O contractors,CCH’s cost per placement was $465; with an enrollment of 1,312ex-offenders, its cost per enrolleewas $276.

Replication Issuesand Success FactorsThe ultimate goal of the four pro-grams is to change the mindset ofex-offenders so that they buy intothe mainstream philosophy of hold-ing an honest job and preferring the“straight life” to a life of crime.While job placements are one strate-gy for achieving this goal, programstaff believe that, to be successful inpreventing recidivism, they alsomust provide basic education class-es, life skills training, support ser-vices, and where possible, begin toreach this population before inmatesare released.

Unique circumstances helped eachof these programs to get establishedand succeed. It was the efforts oftwo socially conscious formerpriests in Chicago—one of whomremained as president until 1995—that made Safer Foundation a reality.

An unusual justice system reformorganization in New York City madeit possible to launch CEO. The pro-gram’s work crews succeeded in partbecause the city’s massive publictransportation system enables mem-bers to commute easily from hometo work. Several unusual factorshelped Project RIO to flourish,including consistently high employ-er demand for workers and the needto reduce the enormous cost ofhousing the second highest numberof State prison inmates in the Nation.In addition, because the TexasWorkforce Commission has hadoffices around the State since 1935—most with good reputations intheir local jurisdictions—ProjectRIO had a head start in gettingcooperation from employers to hireex-offenders. The decline of theSeattle area airplane manufacturingindustry in the 1970’s and someprison riots, coupled with the Em-ployment Security DepartmentDeputy Assistant Commissioner’sexperience as a former parole offi-cer, generated the momentum toestablish the Corrections Clearing-house.

Although many jurisdictions shouldbe able to replicate these types ofprograms, there appear to be twokey prerequisites to success: collabo-ration with other agencies and theprovision of support services andfollowup to clients.

Collaboration With OtherAgencies. All four programs relyheavily on good working relation-ships with other agencies—especial-ly their respective State departmentsof corrections—for allowing accessto inmates in prison or securingreferrals after their release. As oneprogram director said, “We are aguest in the House of Corrections.”The relationship between each ofthe four programs and its respectivecorrections department has evolvedinto a partnership because each


organization shares the same twogoals: reducing recidivism and cor-rections costs.

All four programs constantly facethe challenge of balancing the needsof multiple clients—inmates and ex-offenders, State agencies, employers,and, in Safer’s case, private funders.For example, although employersconsider Safer’s post-placement sup-port services essential to keeping ex-offenders on the job, the programhas had to shape its grant propos-als—and therefore its services—toaccommodate the public sector’sprimary interest in placing ex-offenders in jobs, not providing follow-up services.

Providing Support Servicesand Followup. Many ex-offendershave problems related to substanceabuse, affordable housing, childcare, emotional difficulties, andother barriers to securing and main-taining employment. As a result, allfour programs devote resources tohelping ex-offenders address theseproblems. Of course, individual jobdevelopers vary considerably in theamount of time and creativity theydevote to helping clients with theseproblems. The best, however, arelike the employment specialist inAustin, Texas, who arranged for aclient whose jaw was broken andwired due to a volleyball collisionjust before he left prison to get freecans of a liquid diet supplement,clothing, medical care, and eyeglasses.

All four programs also follow upwith clients after placement. Saferhas specially designated case man-agers, called “lifeguards,” who donothing but remain in touch withplaced clients for a year after theyhave found jobs, offering help withany problems that arise, from

finding child care to meeting aparole mandate to entering sub-stance abuse counseling. Job devel-opers at CEO continue to monitorplaced participants’ performance for6 months, including, as needed, tele-phoning the employer, visiting thework site, and counseling theemployee. The program’s computer-ized case tracking system producesmonthly reports that indicate whenfollow-up contacts are due. The pro-gram continues to offer job develop-ment and support services indefi-nitely to former participants whorun into problems through no faultof their own.

A Promising Approachto Reducing Recid-ivismAs of June 1998, State prison sys-tems in the United States housedmore than 1 million inmates, amore than two-fold increase over1985’s inmate population.9 As theprison population grows, there issubstantial pressure on public offi-cials to reduce the number of pris-oners or, as is increasingly the case,to build more prisons. One methodof controlling prison populations isto reduce the high rate of recidivismamong ex-offenders. The evidencesuggests that programs like SaferFoundation, CEO, Project RIO, andthe Corrections Clearinghouse cansucceed in placing a large number ofex-offenders in jobs. The data areinsufficient to state conclusively thatthese types of programs are suc-ceeding in helping large numbers ofex-offenders to remain employedand to avoid reincarceration.Nevertheless, the programs holdsufficient promise of achieving thesegoals to warrant replication—as onepiece of society’s multiprongedeffort to reduce recidivism.

Notes1. Berk, R.A., K.J. Lenihan, and P.H.

Rossi, “Crime and Poverty: SomeExperimental Evidence From Ex-Offenders,” American SociologicalReview, 45(1980):766–86; Harer,M.D., “Recidivism Among FederalPrison Releasees in 1987: APreliminary Report,” Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,Federal Bureau of Prisons, Officeof Research and Evaluation,Unpublished Paper, 1987;McGinnis, R.D., K.L. Klocksiem,and C. Wiedeman, “Probationand Employment: A Report onthe Bergen County, New Jersey,Probation Department,” OffenderRehabilitation, 1(1977):323–33;Piehl, A.M., “Learning WhileDoing Time,” Cambridge, MA:Harvard University, John F.Kennedy School of Government,Unpublished Manuscript, 1994.

2. McDonald, D.C., “OffenderEmployment and TrainingPrograms: A Review of theResearch,” Cambridge, MA: AbtAssociates Inc., UnpublishedManuscript, 1994.

3. The GED is administered by theAmerican Council on Education.It is designed to measure highschool equivalency by comparingtest-takers’ knowledge and skillsin five subject areas with those ofrecent high school graduates. Theminimum passing standard set bythe GED Testing Service is a min-imum score of 40 on each testand an average of 45 overall—or225 total standard score points.Most U.S. jurisdictions use thispassing score requirement.According to Tonn, it is possibleto score 160–165 points simply byguessing, so Safer considers scoresin the range of 165–225 “func-tional.”


4. Menon, R.C., D. Blakely, D.Carmichael, and L. Silver, AnEvaluation of Project RIOOutcomes: An Evaluative Report,Austin, TX: Texas A&MUniversity, Public PolicyResources Laboratory, 1992.

5. Beck, R. A., and B.E. Shipley,Recidivism of Prisoners Released in1983, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics Special Report,1989; Hoffman, P., and B.Meierhoefer, “Post-ReleaseExperiences of Federal Prisoners:A Six-Year Follow-Up,” Journal ofCriminal Justice, 7(1979):193–216.

6. Menon et al., An Evaluation ofProject RIO Outcomes: AnEvaluative Report, 1992.

7. Ibid.

8. In 1997, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) providedfunding to CCH to convert theCase Management ResourceDirectory into a computer pro-gram that States, counties, or anyother geographic area could cus-tomize for their jurisdictionsusing inmate labor. Upon com-pletion of the 18-month project,

NIC’s Office of Correctional JobTraining and Placement expectsto seek funding to provide techni-cal assistance to State and localcorrectional systems that areinterested in implementing thesystem.

9. Gilliard, Darrell K., Prison andJail Inmates at Midyear 1998,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, March 1999 (NCJ173414).

For More InformationPublications

The following documents are available from the NIJ Web page athttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or by contacting the National Criminal JusticeReference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000,1–800–851–3420. Use the NCJ number when ordering.

Chicago’s Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders by Peter Finn,NIJ Program Focus, June 1998 (NCJ 167575).

Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center for EmploymentOpportunities by Peter Finn, March 1998 (NCJ 168102).

Texas Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) by Peter Finn, NIJ ProgramFocus, June 1998 (NCJ 168637).

Washington State’s Corrections Clearinghouse: A Comprehensive Approachto Offender Employment by Peter Finn, July 1999 (NCJ 174441).

World Wide Web Addresses

American Correctional Association: http://www.corrections.com/aca/

National Institute of Corrections’ Office of Correctional Job Training andPlacement: http://www.nicic.org/inst

Office of Correctional Education, U.S. Department of Education:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE/index.html

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of

Problem-Solving CourtsBy David Rottman and Pamela Casey


Individual judges, trial courts,and entire State court systemsare adopting a new, problem-

solving orientation to their work,one well removed from the tradi-tional model of the “dispassionate,disinterested magistrate.”1 In doingso, courts, in many but not allrespects, are taking a path previous-ly cut by other components of thecriminal justice system, where aproblem-solving orientation firstemerged as a reaction to the “man-agement-dominated” concept ofpolice reform of the 1970’s and1980’s. In the new model, “problem”is defined expansively to include “awide range of behavioral and socialproblems that arise in a communi-ty.”2 A series of executive sessionsconvened by the Kennedy School ofGovernment refined this orientationinto a community strategy of polic-ing based on the “establishment ofeffective problem-solving partner-ships with the communities theypolice.”3 Community policing, inturn, helped to shape the strategiesof community prosecution, proba-tion, and corrections.

Courts also are establishing prob-lem-solving partnerships, but, thusfar, lack a coherent strategy compa-rable to community policing.Various approaches are being testedacross the country following a vari-ety of principles, including those oftherapeutic jurisprudence, whichexplore the role of the law in foster-ing therapeutic or antitherapeuticoutcomes. Therapeutic jurispru-dence attempts to combine a“rights” perspective—focusing onjustice, rights, and equality issues—with an “ethic of care” perspective—focusing on care, interdependence,and response to need.4

Restorative justice and communityjustice are related approaches toproblem solving that offer the fieldof therapeutic jurisprudence poten-tial strategies for achieving thera-peutic outcomes. In addition, court

and community collaboration is avehicle for implementing therapeu-tic jurisprudence. (See “AchievingCourt and Community Collabor-ation.”) These emerging partner-ships are a response to forces push-ing and pulling courts toward amore problem-solving and commu-nity-focused orientation.

The Road toTherapeuticJurisprudenceThe main push for this change camefrom the societal changes thatplaced courts in the frontline ofresponses to substance abuse, familybreakdown, and mental illness.Courts cannot restrict the flow ofsuch problems into the courtroom,and often such problems stand inthe way of effective adjudication ofcases.5 Consequently, courts arestruggling to create appropriate dispositional outcomes, includingsecuring treatment and social ser-vices.

The push provided by rising case-loads coincided with demands fromthe public and individual communi-ties for a more responsive andinvolved judiciary. In recent de-cades, the courts of most urban andmany rural areas have become dis-tant from the public, both physicallyand psychologically. The publiclacks a sense of connection to thecourt system and views courts asirrelevant to solving the problems ofgreatest concern to most citizens—the breakdown of social and familysupport networks. Public opinionsurveys indicate considerable dissat-isfaction with the accessibility andrelevance of the courts and low lev-els of trust and confidence in thejudiciary.

Judges and courts also were pulledrather than pushed toward a prob-lem-solving, proactive orientation.One pull came from a new modelfor judging that reshapes the natureof the judicial process across theboard. (See “A Comparison ofTraditional and Transformed CourtProcesses.”) The Commission on

about the authorsDavid Rottman and Pamela Casey are Associate Directors in the Research Division of the NationalCenter for State Courts. This article is based, in part, on a white paper prepared at the request ofthe California Judicial Council (contract 992479) and benefited from the comments of David B.Wexler and staff from the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

Achieving Court and Community Collaboration

The following describes how courts can achieve a collaborative relationship with the community:

■ Collaboration can be achieved by working with community organizations and the public to identify critical community problems and implement problem-solving strategies. The community can contribute in a variety of ways—for example, by providing paid and volunteer staff, assessment and sentencing options, and advice and support to the court.

■ Court and community collaborations can problem-solve at both the community and the individual-case level. Such collaborations can address community wide problems in the aggregate, for example by engaging the court and community in programs designed to reduce the frequency of domestic violence, drug use, or juvenile delinquency.

■ Collaboration means that the court is engaged with a cross-section of the community in an ongoing dialog that is expansive in scope.

Source: Rottman, D., H.S. Efkeman, and P. Casey, A Guide to Court and Community Collaboration, National Center

for State Courts, 1998.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence14

Trial Court Performance Standardsdeveloped and published in 1990 aset of standards, several of which arerelevant to this discussion. First, onestandard recognizes an obligation onthe part of courts to anticipate andadjust their operations to meet newconditions. Second, three standardshold courts responsible for theirstanding with the public. These stan-dards acknowledge that objectivelymeasured high performance is notenough if the public fails to perceivethat high performance.6

TherapeuticJurisprudence and Its ApplicationTherapeutic jurisprudence is onesource of guidance as the judiciarythinks through the philosophicaland practical issues associated with

these changes in their role and pub-lic expectations. Formally, therapeu-tic jurisprudence is a relatively newand rapidly growing area of academ-ic inquiry. In essence, it “proposesthe exploration of ways in which,consistent with principles of justice,the knowledge, theories, and insightsof the mental health and related dis-ciplines can help shape the law.”7

The fundamental principle underly-ing therapeutic jurisprudence is theselection of a therapeutic option—an option that promotes health anddoes not conflict with other norma-tive values of the legal system.

Therapeutic jurisprudence claimsthat attending to the individuals aswell as the issues involved in a caseleads to more effective dispositions.8

Legal rules, legal procedures, andthe roles of legal actors (such aslawyers and judges) constitute

social forces that, like it or not,often produce therapeutic orantitherapeutic consequences.Therapeutic jurisprudence pro-poses that we be sensitive tothose consequences, and that weask whether the law’s antithera-peutic consequences can bereduced, and its therapeutic con-sequences enhanced, withoutsubordinating due process andother justice values. 9

Thus, the orientation underlyingtherapeutic jurisprudence directs thejudge’s attention beyond the specificdispute before the court and towardthe needs and circumstances of theindividuals involved in the dispute.

Within these broad parameters,therapeutic jurisprudence can beimplemented on a continuum. First,therapeutic jurisprudence can bepracticed by judges when interactingwith the individuals involved in aparticular case. Second, therapeuticjurisprudence may be practiced atthe organizational level of the courtby devising new procedures, infor-mation systems, and sentencingoptions and by establishing links tosocial service providers to promotetherapeutic outcomes. Third, forsome areas of law and court policy,the practice of therapeutic jurispru-dence principles requires changes toState statutes or to court rules, poli-cies, or procedures that apply acrosscourts. The following real-life exam-ples help to clarify the role of thera-peutic jurisprudence at all three levels.

At the Individual Case Level.At the individual case level, thera-peutic jurisprudence proposes thatjudges look for “psychojudicial softspots”—areas in which judicial sys-tem actions could lead to antithera-peutic consequences—when inter-acting with individuals in the court-room. In some cases, these “thera-peutic moments,” or opportunitiesto promote a more therapeutic out-

Traditional Process

■ Dispute resolution

■ Legal outcome

■ Adversarial process

■ Claim- or case-oriented

■ Rights-based

■ Emphasis placed on adjudication

■ Interpretation and application of law

■ Judge as arbiter

■ Backward looking

■ Precedent-based

■ Few participants and stakeholders

■ Individualistic

■ Legalistic

■ Formal

■ Efficient

Transformed Process

■ Problem-solving dispute avoidance

■ Therapeutic outcome

■ Collaborative process

■ People-oriented

■ Interest- or needs-based

■ Emphasis placed on postadjudication and alternative dispute resolution

■ Interpretation and application of social science

■ Judge as coach

■ Forward looking

■ Planning-based

■ Wide range of participants and stakeholders

■ Interdependent

■ Common-sensical

■ Informal

■ Effective

A Comparison of Transformed and TraditionalCourt Processes

Source: Warren, Roger K., “Reengineering the Court Process,” Madison, WI, Presentation to Great Lakes

Court Summit, September 24–25, 1998.


come, are discovered simply bybeing attentive to the emotionaldynamics of the courtroom.Consider a therapeutic momentdescribed by Justice John Kelley ofAustralia at the London Conferenceon Criminal Law Reform.

It happened in a rape case in whichJustice Kelley reports that he:

. . . made a special effort toensure that the victim felt vindi-cated. He had just sentenced thedefendant to prison, but beforecalling the next case he asked thevictim to approach the bench.Justice Kelley had watched thecomplainant throughout theproceedings, and it was clearthat she was very distraught,even after the offender’s convic-tion and sentencing. The justicespoke with her briefly and con-cluded with these words: “Youunderstand that what I havedone here demonstrates conclu-sively that what happened wasnot your fault.” The youngwoman began to weep as she leftthe courtroom. When JusticeKelley called the family severaldays later, he learned that hiswords had marked the begin-ning of psychological healing forthe victim. Her tears had beentears of healing.10

Most of the examples of therapeuticjurisprudence that have been dis-cussed in the literature, however,reflect a systematic approach toidentifying psychojudicial soft spots,which can be applied to more thanone individual or case at a time,rather than ad hoc comments.Typically, the examples relate todecisions that the judge must makein a particular category of cases buthas discretion in how she or hedecides (e.g., accept a no contestplea). For example, research indi-cates that individuals who commitacts of domestic violence or sexualmolestation frequently deny respon-sibility for or distort the seriousness

of their acts.11 Because such cogni-tive distortions are likely to lead torecidivistic behavior, attempts torestructure these individuals’ cogni-tive distortions may prove beneficialfor the effective disposition of theircases.

One approach for incorporatingcognitive restructuring into thecourt process is to require defen-dants who enter guilty pleas to pro-vide details about their offenses.After receiving a defendant’s guiltyplea, for example, one metropolitancourt “requires the defendant to takethe stand, under oath, and state thathe did commit the crime and exact-ly how he committed it.”12 Thedefendant’s acknowledgment anddescription of the offense may behelpful in convincing the defendantto participate willingly in treatment.In addition, the detailed descriptionof the offense subsequently may behelpful during treatment if theoffender relapses into denying par-ticipation in the offense. A relatedapproach is to respond to offenders’denial and minimization of acts ofdomestic violence by explicitly sen-tencing them in the same way asoffenders who attack strangers.13

Concepts associated with behavioralcontracting can be adapted bycourts to increase compliance withorders in a treatment setting.Behavioral contracting is used insome treatment settings to increaseadherence to a treatment plan. In acourt setting, it would be used toseek an offender’s agreement tocomply with the conditions of anorder. Agreement is fostered bycourt efforts to involve the offenderin the development of the condi-tions of the order.14

At the Court Level. In somejurisdictions, the therapeuticjurisprudence approach has beenadopted at the organizational levelin the form of special court pro-grams or specialized courts. Drugtreatment courts are the best known

example of a court for which thera-peutic jurisprudence arguably pro-vides the underlying legal theory.15

Such courts have five essential ele-ments: (1) immediate intervention;(2) nonadversarial adjudication; (3)hands-on judicial involvement; (4)treatment programs with clear rulesand structured goals; and (5) a teamapproach that brings together thejudge, prosecutor, defense counsel,treatment provider, and correctionalstaff.16 The therapeutic potential ofthe courtroom can be exploited in adrug treatment court through sim-ple changes to procedures such asthe court calendar. Scheduling newdefendants to appear last allowsthem to observe the court in action,and thus learn what is expected andunderstand that participating in theprogram will take considerableeffort but can succeed in turningtheir lives around.17

Although other specialized courtsare not specifically founded on ther-apeutic jurisprudence principles,they reflect the same school ofthought. For example, consider thefollowing statement from the mis-sion of the Jefferson County FamilyCourt in Louisville, Kentucky:

Cognizant of the fact that tradi-tional legal approaches may cre-ate new barriers to relationshipsand exacerbate problems withinfamilies, the court encouragesalternative dispute resolution,and, as appropriate, recom-mends or orders counseling,self-help, and other available,suitable governmental and com-munity services.18

The court’s advisory committee hasestablished a subcommittee on thefamily court as social services deliv-ery system to improve practice onall family court dockets and coordi-nate social services for all familycases.

A handgun intervention programwas established in 1993 by a judgein the 36th district court in Detroit,


Michigan, working with a group ofvolunteers, including court employ-ees (probation officers, clerks, andtranslators); law enforcement offi-cers; members of the clergy; andother community leaders. The pro-gram represents the potential of aspecial court to work collaborativelywith a community to foster thera-peutic outcomes for individuals,families, and the entire community.

The program requires that adultscharged with felony firearm offensesattend a special 4-hour presentationon the dangers and consequences ofgun violence before they are consid-ered eligible for bail release. Juveniledefendants attend on referral. Otherparticipants attend voluntarily, typi-cally on referral from teachers, cler-gy members, social workers, parents,and past participants. The program,which is held weekly in a courtroomon Saturday mornings, featurespolice officers, probation officers,and a judge who present a focused,fine-tuned message aimed at raisingawareness. All of the presentationsreinforce the basic message of theprogram: the need to make positivelife choices and to take responsibili-ty for one’s own life and the life ofone’s community. The message isbalanced by the availability of prac-tical advice, as well as educationaland employment resources.

It should be noted that althoughspecialized courts may be optimalfor practicing therapeutic jurispru-dence for some categories of casesand defendants, the potential limita-tions associated with the establish-ment of specialized courts in generalmay prove them less optimal. Forexample, defining the subject matterof the specialized court can be aproblem. If the specialization is toobroad, it is diluted; if it is too nar-row, the volume of cases may be toolow to warrant a specialized court.And if the court shares jurisdictionof a particular subject matter, the

court system becomes more com-plex for the user.

Another potential limitation is thatspecialized courts usually requiresome amount of judicial specializa-tion. Although such specializationcan result in improved precisionand accuracy and more creativeresponses to complex problems, itcan result in judicial stress andburnout. Specialized courts also arelikely to afford fewer opportunitiesfor judicial career advancement, andbecause specialized courts generallyare viewed as less prestigious amongmembers of the judiciary, it may bemore difficult to attract high-qualityjudges to serve in these courts.

At the Policy Level. Althoughsome therapeutic outcomes can beachieved at either the individualcase level or at the court organiza-tional level, some must be addressedat the policy level. For example, ajudge may be able to reduce a sexualoffender’s minimization of anoffense by using some of the cogni-tive restructuring and behavioralcontracting ideas mentioned above.However, if the system routinelyallows defendants to plead to a less-er offense or enter a nolo con-tendere or Alford plea, cognitiverestructuring to overcome offensedenial will be more difficult toachieve.19 Therapeutic jurispru-dence, then, would call into ques-tion the benefits of the plea bargain-ing policy, at least for certain offenses.

Examining the consequences oflabeling individuals incompetentprovides another example of usingthe therapeutic lens at the policylevel. Labeling individuals “asincompetent and thereby deprivingthem of the opportunity for self-determining behavior induces feel-ings of helplessness, hopelessness,depression, and low self-esteem.”20

These antitherapeutic consequencessuggest revisiting the definition of

competency for the purpose of clar-ifying the concept and narrowing itsapplication.

Another therapeutic issue for courtsto consider at the policy level is thecoordination of cases involvingmembers of the same family. A fam-ily in crisis may come to thecourt(s) through a civil case (pro-tection order), adult criminal case(assault), juvenile criminal case(delinquency), dependency case(child abuse or neglect), and/ordomestic relations case (custody).Notwithstanding these complexities,coordination can be crucial for thephysical and psychological well-being of a family. Without informa-tion about the family’s legal history,such as former and pending casesinvolving intrafamilial matters, ajudge could unknowingly add to thetragedy of a family crisis situationby, for example, awarding unsuper-vised visitation to a parent who hasa juvenile court history of abusingthe child. Also, the judge is unlikelyto know what services, if any, havealready been provided to familymembers and the impact of thoseservices on the family. Thus, thedevelopment and evaluation ofmechanisms to track these cases is apolicy issue with considerable thera-peutic consequences for courts toaddress.

AlternativeApproaches forImplementingTherapeuticJurisprudenceAs noted, the practice of therapeuticjurisprudence principles can occurat any point on a continuum thatranges from one judge in one caseto an entire State court system.Although individual judges andcourt staff may view the applicationof therapeutic jurisprudence princi-ples as beneficial, they also may see


it as resource- and time-intensive.Even modest efforts by an individualjudge can be time-consuming as thejudge begins the process of identify-ing problem areas and possible ther-apeutic strategies. Some support forexperimenting with therapeuticjurisprudence principles may pro-vide the incentive for individualjudges to make the extra effort. Forexample:

■ Recognize the importance oftherapeutic jurisprudence at theState level. This will let judgesknow that their efforts in thisarea are welcomed and consid-ered consistent with State judi-cial goals. This may be particu-larly important for judges whowork in relative isolation orwhose colleagues do not viewtherapeutic jurisprudence as aworthwhile endeavor.

■ Provide funding for therapeuticjurisprudence pilot projects.Modest funding might be need-

ed, for example, to support theadministration of and incidentalcosts associated with a smallworking group of judges andcourt staff seeking to identifytherapeutic strategies to addressa specific problem, accessing rel-evant resources in the jurisdic-tion, or implementing a specifictherapeutic jurisprudence pro-ject.

■ Offer training and informationon therapeutic jurisprudence.Educational programs may offerjudges an effective and efficientforum for exploring the conceptof therapeutic jurisprudence.A clearinghouse at the State levelalso could facilitate the transferof therapeutic jurisprudenceknowledge and experience fromone jurisdiction to another andprovide relevant materials andreferences to assist judges whoare just learning about the concept.

■ Recognize innovative therapeu-tic jurisprudence programs.The identification of therapeuticjurisprudence practices thatwork will showcase particularjurisdictions and facilitate thetransfer of effective programs.

■ Provide opportunities forjudges to share their experiencesand ideas. Judicial interactioncan be accomplished at annualconferences and incorporatedinto judicial education pro-grams, but it also can take placein more informal settings on alocal level, such as the therapeu-tic jurisprudence discussiongroup in Kalamazoo, Michi-gan.21 By continually describingand discussing the application oftherapeutic jurisprudence, prac-titioners will increase theirawareness of and sensitivity totherapeutic problems andpotential strategies.22

■ Revise the code of judicialethics. The wording of Statecodes of judicial ethics mayappear to discourage or place little value on problem-solvingand court and community col-laboration.

The California Judicial Council,working with the American Judica-ture Society, recently revised its codeof judicial ethics to make involve-ment in problem-solving with thecommunity an expectation. InCalifornia, “The question for judi-cial officers is not ‘How to avoidcommunity involvement to ensurecompliance with the canons ofethics?’ Rather, the question is ‘Howcan judges most effectively balancetheir community leadership respon-sibilities within the appropriate lim-itations?’”23

Drug treatment courts are the best known example of a court for which therapeutic jurisprudenceprovides the underlying legal theory. In this court in Richmond, California, graduate JohnnyMartinez speaks to one of the several police officers who routinely attend drug court graduationceremonies to celebrate the accomplishments of offenders who complete the program and have their drug charges dropped. Photo: Scott Bhla, West County Times.

Notes1. Zimmerman, Michael D.,

“A New Approach to CourtReform,” Judicature 82(3)(November–December 1998).Justice Zimmerman offers a concise and coherent view ofchanges now occurring in theState courts in response tochanges in societal conditionsand public expectations of thecourts.

2. Goldstein, Herman, “ImprovingPolicing: A Problem-OrientedApproach,” Crime and Delin-quency 25(2) (April 1979):242.Goldstein’s definition of a lawenforcement problem is notable:“By problems I mean the incredi-bly broad range of troublesomesituations that prompt citizens toturn to the police, such as streetrobberies, speeding cars, runawaychildren, accidents, acts of terror-ism, even fear.”

3. Kelling, George L., and Mark H.Moore, “The Evolving Strategy ofPolicing,” Perspectives on Policing4 (November 1988):1.

4. Janoff, S., “The Influence of LegalEducation on Moral Reasoning,”Minnesota Law Review 76(1991):194–95.

5.Domestic relations cases in theUnited States grew by 77 percentand juvenile cases grew by 68percent between 1984 and 1997.By contrast, the State courts’criminal caseloads grew by 45percent, their civil caseloads by34 percent, and the national pop-ulation by 13 percent during thesame time period. See BrianOstrom and Neal Kauder, eds.,Examining the Work of StateCourts, 1997: A NationalPerspective From the Court

Statistics Project, Williamsburg,Va.: National Center for StateCourts, 1998.

6. Standard 4.5 Response to Change:The trial court anticipates newconditions and emerging trendsand adjusts its operations as nec-essary. Commentary: “Effectivetrial courts are responsive toemergent public issues such asdrug abuse, child and spousalabuse, AIDS, drunken driving,child support enforcement . . . .”Public trust and confidence is thefifth court performance area withstandards such as “The public hastrust and confidence that basictrial court functions are conduct-ed expeditiously and fairly, andthat court decisions have integri-ty.” See Commission on TrialCourt Performance Standards,Trial Court Performance Stan-dards With Commentary,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, 1997:20. The stan-dards were approved by theCommission and first publishedin 1990.

7. Wexler, D.B., and B.J. Winick,eds., Law in a Therapeutic Key,Durham, N.C.: CarolinaAcademic Press, 1996:xvii.

8. Janoff, “The Influence of LegalEducation on Moral Reasoning,”194–95.

9. Wexler and Winick, Law in aTherapeutic Key, xvii.

10.Van Ness, D.W., “New Wine and Old Wineskins: Four Challenges of Restorative Justice,” Criminal Law Forum 4(252) (1993).

11. Simon, L.M.J., “A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to the Legal Processing of Domestic

Violence Cases,” and Wexler,D.B., “Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” inD.B. Wexler and B.J. Winick, eds.,Law in a Therapeutic Key,Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1996:243–85 and 811–29.

12. The court’s practice was included in a study by Donald Newman that is cited in Wexler,“Reflections on the Scope ofTherapeutic Jurisprudence,” 161.

13. Simon, “A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to the Legal Processing of Domestic Violence Cases,” 261–62.

14. Wexler, “Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” 168.

15. Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G.Schma, and John T.A. Rosenthal,“Therapeutic Jurisprudence andthe Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing theCriminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America,” Notre Dame Law Review 74(2) (January 1999):453.

16. Ibid., 453.

17. Ibid., 474.

18. Kentucky Rules of Court, State,St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing,1997:429.

19. Wexler, “Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” 159–60.

20. Winick, B.J., “The Side Effects ofIncompetency Labeling and the Implications for Mental Health Law,” in D.B. Wexler and B.J.Winick, eds., Law in a Therapeutic Key, 37.


21. Patry, M.W., D.B. Wexler, D.P.Stolle, and A.J. Tomkins, “Better Legal Counseling Through Empirical Research: Identifying Psycholegal Soft Spots and Strategies,” California Western Law Review 34 (1998).

22. Wexler, D.B., “Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence:Psycholegal Soft Spots and Strategies,” Revista Juridica 67,(1998):336–42.

23. Judicial Council of California,Courts Reaching Out to Their Communities: A Handbook for Creating and Enhancing Court and Community Collaboration,San Francisco: California Judicial Council, 6.1 (1999).


Search the NCJRS Abstracts Database—a staple resource for criminal justice researchers for many years—directly on the World Wide Web at http://www.ncjrs.org/database.htm.

This service is free to all users on the Web.

The Database provides abstracts (100 to 200 words in length) for more than 151,000 justice-related Federal, State, and localgovernment documents, books, research reports, journal articles,program descriptions, and evaluations. The NCJRS AbstractsDatabase (formerly known as the NCJRS Document Data Base) isalso available for purchase on CD-ROM, and is accessible via DIALOG, a commercial database vendor.

The NCJRS Abstracts Database — Free on the Web!Features of the Abstracts Database with its enhanced searchengine allow users to:

◆ Perform simple or complex searches, combining words and phrases with "and," "or," "not," and parentheses. For example, "drug courts and (California or Florida)."

◆ Perform "pattern" and "concept" searches.

◆ Search all parts of the records, or search specifically by subject, author, or NCJ number.

◆ Limit searches by publication date. The entire Database, from the early 1970s to the present, is online.

◆ Link search results to full-text documents (when available).

NCJRS welcomes your feedback on this new service! E-mail [email protected], or call 800–851–3420 or 301–519–5500 with questions and comments.

Private Funding for Criminal Justice Initiatives20

What You ShouldKnow About theGrantseekingProcess

by Kate Chieco

Over the years, foundations havebeen important partners with NIJ insupporting criminal justice researchand initiatives. Although they supportresearch and evaluation, foundationsare more likely to provide the type offunding that grantmaking researchinstitutes such as NIJ are less likely toprovide—support for program devel-opment and service delivery.

NIJ is pleased to present this articlefor readers who arebeginning the search forfoundation funds to getan innovative idea offthe ground or to keepan innovative programrunning.

A t the height ofNew York City’s AIDS

crisis in the late 1980’s,the Correctional As-sociation, a long-timecriminal justice advo-cacy group, recognizedthe potential for a sig-nificant interventionto control the spreadof AIDS. Prisons andjails, with their con-fined populations andlarge number of HIV-infected inmates, werea troublesome, enabl-ing environment forthe disease. And as yet,few had addressedeither the issue oftransmission in prisons or the careneeds of those already infected.

The Association’s fundraising strate-gy for its AIDS in Prison Projectincluded approaching the AaronDiamond Foundation, a newlyestablished foundation with signifi-cant amounts of money earmarkedfor organizations in New York City.One major problem: Diamond’sprogram areas included public edu-cation, arts and culture, and AIDSbiomedical research—nowhere wasthere a stated interest in criminaljustice.

“I hoped that if I could make astrong case for our program as apublic health effort I could getDiamond’s attention,” said RobertGangi, the Correctional Associa-tion’s director. He wrote a strongproposal, approached a personalcontact at the foundation, and wasinvited for a meeting. He laid outthe problem, emphasizing both thecritical importance of the interven-tion and the fact that society’s lackof attention to prisoners and theirplight would have far-reaching pub-lic health implications. He receivedthe grant, and Diamond was able tobe involved in the development of aproject that would have a profoundimpact on the AIDS crisis.

“It was a long shot that really paidoff,” said Gangi, who noted that thefirst small grant of $10,000 led toseveral larger grants from Diamond,culminating in a recent award of$300,000. “The personal contacthelped, but the most importantthing was our strategic framing ofthe issue. If we had been perceivedas just a criminal justice advocacygroup, it probably would not havehappened.”

Private Funding for CriminalJustice Initiatives

Photo: PhotoDisc


The Correctional Association’s storyillustrates a few important points inthe search for foundation dollars,especially for community-basedadvocacy or service organiza-tions: do your homework,target your grant, take advan-tage of personal contacts youmay have at a foundation,and frame your issue asbroadly as possible.

According to the FoundationCenter, a nonprofit organiza-tion that conducts researchon giving, in l997, the year ofthe most recent statistics, pri-vate foundation grants forcrime, law enforcement, andabuse prevention totaled$238,864,836, with 3,561grants of $10,000 or moredispensed by 588 foundationsnationwide.1 Compare thatnumber with the nearly $4billion annually it costs theState of California to run itsprison system,2 or the morethan $680 million per yearthat New York State spends tokeep its nonviolent drugoffenders in prison,3 and itputs things in perspective. Italso is important to note thatthe Foundation Center’s defi-nition of foundation giving to“crime, law enforcement, andabuse prevention” includesgrants for programs in crimeprevention, correctional facil-ities, rehabilitation servicesfor offenders and ex-offend-ers, courts and the adminis-tration of justice, law enforce-ment agencies, and victims’services, among others. (See“Foundation Funding for Crime,Law Enforcement, and AbusePrevention, 1996–1997.)

Given that spread, what is the likeli-hood of a small, locally based crimi-nal justice project receiving a grant?Is it worth the effort? The purposeof this article is to help local practi-

tioners think about how toapproach the grantseeking process.The article does not specificallyaddress grantseeking for individualresearchers or research projects,although parts of the article may beapplicable to those types ofgrants, too.

A Bit of History“Community-based organizationsdoing prison and criminal justicereform have always had a difficulttime getting attention anywhere,”said Tom Coury, executive directorof the Gardiner Howland ShawFoundation in Massachusetts. “Wewere always fighting a public climate

about the authorKate Chieco is a freelance journalist in Washington, D.C. She has been a program officer atseveral foundations and director of a diversion program in Brooklyn, New York, for the Legal AidSociety of New York.

Among the 3,561 foundation grants for crime, law enforcement, and abuse prevention awardedin 1996–97, the Foundation Center identified 21different population groups that were served, 31types of support provided, 38 types of grantrecipients, and 24 funded subject areas.

Population Groups Served*

Children and youth $100 million

Crime and abuse victims $65

Economically disadvantaged $45

Women and girls $40

Offenders or ex-offenders $29

Alcohol or drug abusers $10

Men and boys $5

Single parents $2.3

Aging persons $2

People with AIDS $1.4

Types of Support

More than 56 percent of the funds—approximate-ly $135 million—supported program develop-ment. Almost 10 percent (approximately $24 mil-lion) of the funds supported research, and 3 per-cent (approximately $8 million) supported pro-gram evaluation. Foundations spent $15 millionon building or renovation, $24 million on generalsupport, and $51 million on continuing support.

Recipients*

Human service agencies $167 million

Civil rights groups followed $32

Professional societies and associations $24

Colleges and universities $20

Government agencies $11

Youth development organizations $6

Research institutes $6

Schools $2

Other recipients included animal and wildlifeagencies, libraries, and recreation organizations,although five or fewer grants were given for these purposes.

Subject Areas

Grants that addressed crime, justice, and publicprotection made up 40 percent of all the grantsgiven in this field. Human services-related grantsmade up almost 17 percent of the grants, andgrants addressing civil rights and social actionmade up another 10 percent.

*Note, these lists are a sampling of the entire lists ofpopulation groups served and grant recipients.

Source: Grants for Crime, Law Enforcement, andAbuse Prevention, New York, N.Y.: FoundationCenter, December 1998.

Foundation Funding for Crime, Law Enforcement,and Abuse Prevention, 1996–97


that had little sympathy for thispopulation, and working it narrowlydidn’t work.”

The Gardiner Howland ShawFoundation has a projected budgetof $850,000 to $900,000 in fiscalyear 2000, all of which is earmarkedfor criminal justice programs.Approximately 70 percent of thisbudget is dedicated to juvenile jus-tice and criminal justice grantsalone. In fiscal year 1999, whichended April 30, 1999, the Founda-tion awarded approximately 40grants, totaling $800,000. Thesegrants are almost exclusively forongoing projects in Massachusetts.

For many years, Coury took the leadin Grantmakers in Justice, an affini-ty group of the National Council onFoundations. Consisting of approxi-mately 20 foundations interested inthe field, including the Florence V.Burden Foundation, the EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation, andthe Philadelphia Foundation,Grantmakers facilitated regularcommunication among membersseeking to define common causesand develop funding strategies.Burden regularly published analysesof giving in the criminal justice fieldand polled criminal justice practi-tioners to get their opinions on

what aspects of service, advocacy,and research were most in need offoundation support. The last Bur-den Study of Foundation Grant-making Trends was published in1991.4 In that report, respondentpractitioners listed support to fami-lies, alternatives to incarceration,rehabilitation, substance abuse,crime prevention, and juvenile jus-tice—in that order—as areas theyfelt were underfunded.

The affinity group foundered in theearly 1990’s as some of the largerplayers—like Burden, Clark, and theFord Foundation—announced theirintention to cut back, eliminate, ordisperse their involvement in thefield. According to several founda-tion sources, there has been nothingapproaching a coherent strategyamong foundations since that time,but now signs are appearing thatthat may be changing.

Current Trends“The several big changes in thefoundation landscape in the last fewyears,” said Gangi, “have been EdnaMcConnell Clark’s phase-out andFord’s decision not to have a crimi-nal justice program per se, butrather to disperse monies through

other program areas. The other bignews is the addition of Soros’s OpenSociety Institute.”

Open Society Institute’s (OSI)Center on Crime, Community, andCulture is part of the network offoundations founded by philan-thropist George Soros. Based in NewYork City, the Center is a source ofinformation on and analysis of vari-ous aspects of prisons and jails.According to Nancy Mahon, theCenter’s founding director, theCenter gives away approximately$13 million per year, making it thelargest private funder of criminaljustice initiatives.

The goal of the Center is “to create abetter understanding of and supportfor effective and humane responsesto criminal behavior and victimiza-tion.” It “seeks to turn the currentnational debate on crime into anopportunity to reinvigorate basicprinciples of individual rights andresponsibilities, bolster communityintegrity, and promote social inno-vation.” In the past 2 years, theInstitute’s criminal justice fundinghas focused on six major areas:restorative justice, effective post-release programs, intimate violence,youth gun violence, economics ofcriminal justice policy, and commu-nity policing.

OSI is a leading campaigner againstoverreliance on incarceration as asolution to the crime problem and aleading force behind trying toreconstitute some sort of founda-tion affinity group. “Our Council onFoundations Affinity Group is gain-ing momentum,” said Mahon. “Weare working toward funding collab-orative efforts. Our goal at OSI is tobe an important resource to privategrantmakers––we talk to themabout what others are funding,about funding ideas, and about howsomething might fit into the overallpicture.”

“Mahon is defining the issue as oneof public safety,” said Coury. “That

NIJ-Foundation PartnershipsNIJ has partnered with several foundations over the years, including The CarnegieCorporation of New York, The Ford Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. NIJ currently is collaborating with The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation onthe Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, a longitudinal studyinvolving a variety of research disciplines to develop a better understanding of thedevelopment of both prosocial and antisocial behavior from birth to age 26.

NIJ partnered with the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in fiscal year 1997 to launchNIJ’s “Perspectives on Crime and Justice” lecture series, which brings nationally rec-ognized academics to Capitol Hill to discuss research perspectives on the challengesof contemporary crime issues that policymakers face. The Kauffman Foundation part-nered with NIJ to support an evaluation of the sales tax levied by Kansas City, Missouri,to fund broad-based antidrug efforts.

For more information about NIJ projects and funding partners, see the National Instituteof Justice 1997 Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998, NCJ 171678), which is available onthe NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal JusticeReference Service at 1–800–851–3420.


widens the net and allows founda-tions who wouldn’t say they careexplicitly about criminal justice away to think about how their con-cerns do intersect. Perhaps we arebeginning to see a recognition thatcrime is the result of a failure ofmany social systems. The opportu-nity for intervention becomes muchgreater.”

Further evidence of this growingtrend is the impending entry intothe field by the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation. Based in NewJersey, Johnson is a major player inthe public health and health fields. Itcurrently is developing what will bea $36-million juvenile justice pro-gram.5 Details about the programare expected to be announced laterthis year.

This redefining of criminal justiceconcerns as a matter of communitycouldn’t come at a better time. TheU.S. incarceration rate more thantripled between 1980 and 1996, andas of June 1998, 1 in every 150 U.S.residents was incarcerated, withmore than 1.8 million inmates inFederal and State prisons and localjails.6 But the explosion of theprison population coincided with awidespread drop in crime andreflects the prevailing climate of thelast two decades.

Getting criminals—especially drugoffenders—off the streets was theprimary intent behind many States’get tough on drug offender laws,which impose harsh sentences andallow little discretion. But a compli-cated debate is now taking place,with many people saying that theapproach has resulted in little or noreal impact on drug use, but rather aswelling prison population that con-sists of first-time, nonviolent of-fenders and a disruption of humanlives that is exacting a disastrousprice. In a recently completed analy-sis of Federal and State data,researchers examining the growth in

incarceration noted that the UnitedStates spends more than $20 billionannually on incarceration, but thatthe costs to families and communi-ties disrupted by imprisonment areimmeasurable.7

Foundations are paying increasedattention to both the incarcerationrate and the implications for fami-lies and communities. The racialand ethnic composition of prisonpopulations—disproportionatelyAfrican American and Hispanic—isan unignorable fact that is startingto surface in the media and in dis-cussions among researchers, practi-tioners, and policymakers, as is thegrowing pool of youthful offenders.Programs that deal with youth—especially low-income minorityyouth—have an obvious connectionto criminal justice.

Advocates of reform, who have longbeen arguing that the long-term aswell as the short-term costs of anindiscriminate “lock-’em-up” strate-gy are unacceptable, may be gettinga boost from the rise in attention.This can only mean good news forcommunity-based organizationsthat are trying to address the rootsof crime.

The GrantseekingProcessWhile government funding is thebackbone of much criminal justicereform, private foundations are animportant source of funds for inno-vative community-based criminaljustice efforts. The philanthropicsector likes to define itself as theplace where innovative programs—programs that will come to define,not follow, public policy—can get astart.

The national foundation scene isrelevant as a backdrop against whichfunding of local, community-basedorganizations can be viewed. The

fact is, most smaller organizationswill not try to tap Ford or OSI forfunding. Most will get their moneyfrom smaller local, regional, or com-munity foundations—in otherwords, if you run a modest, solidprogram for ex-offenders in Idaho,your best bet is to approach a foun-dation in your area. A local funder ismore likely to know and be con-nected to the community you workin and be more flexible in itsapproach.

Sometimes an organization getslucky and identifies a national foun-dation with local program interests,like the Washington, D.C.-basedPublic Welfare Foundation, whichhas a projected budget of $17.6 mil-lion divided into 11 funding priori-ties, including criminal justice, dis-advantaged elderly, disadvantagedyouth, community economic devel-opment and participation, and theFund for Washington’s Children andYouth. Approximately $1.5 millionof its budget is earmarked for crimi-nal justice alone.

Public Welfare has a strong, explicit-ly stated interest in community-based groups and it has funded pro-grams like the Center for Com-munity Alternatives in Syracuse,New York, and the Prison and JailProject of the Oakhurst PresbyterianChurch in Americus, Georgia.

Neil Stanley at Public Welfare cau-tions that few national foundationshave such strong local interests and,therefore, competition is fierce, buthe emphasizes that strategy is criti-cal in making it through the compe-tition. “Don’t just define yourself asa criminal justice organization,” saidStanley. “Your proposal should placeyour program in a context thatwould enable many different foun-dations with broad interest in thelife of communities to see the fit.”

OSI offers similar advice to practi-tioners looking for grants. “Go local


and don’t be afraid to ask,” saidMahon. “Public safety is a difficultissue to tackle and many people areinterested in it. But don’t expectpeople to come to you and offerfunds. Community foundationsneed to be asked.”

Say you are the executive director ofa locally based program that tries tofind jobs for ex-offenders. You start-ed the program in response to com-munity need—employers did notperceive ex-offenders as desirableemployees and the offenders could-n’t get jobs. With a small govern-ment grant, a Rolodex of communi-ty contacts, and an office in a localchurch, you built a base of employ-ers and began arranging placements.The program has been successful,but now you need more: morecounselors to work with clients onthe prison-to-work transition, andadditional staff to solicit more jobplacements and network with otherorganizations in the community toprovide some of the social serviceneeds of ex-offenders. You need afoundation grant, but you don’tknow where to start. Just rememberthat private philanthropy is simplyanother system—once you under-stand the parameters, the language,and protocols, you can find yourway. The good news is that for thoseseeking grants, the number beingawarded, the types, and the access toresources for the search have neverbeen better.

“If You Don’t Qualify, Don’tApply.” That blandishment isincluded in one of the many guidesto grantseeking now available tothose hoping to land their firstfoundation grant. It’s a phrase wellworth remembering, but it is notmeant to discourage you. All it reallymeans is––do your homework. Ifgrantmaking is more art than sci-ence (which most program officerswill admit), then the same is true forgrantseeking. You can tip the scalesin your favor with some basic

research, strategy, and creativity inhow you go after the grant.

The Foundation Center contains awealth of information on giving inthe United States. It can provide youwith information on your programarea, foundations that fund in thatarea, and how to find the specificson each potential funder. TheFoundation Center has a Web site,as do many foundations.

Define Your Program Broadly,Then Target Your Choices.When looking into possible founda-tions, remember to both target yourchoices and cast your net wide.Because of the emerging emphasison communitywide solutions tocrime and the growing appreciationfor the public health, quality-of-lifeissues inherent in crime and justice,you need to think about your pro-gram in those contexts. Do youwork with others in the community?Foundations look more favorably oncollaboration these days, mirroringtheir own increasing tendency topool resources for maximum effect.For example, several years ago theAnnie E. Casey Foundation inBaltimore launched an intensive,eight-city community developmentproject that sought to bring as manyresources as possible to bear on spe-cific communities. The projectinvolved job development, arts andculture, health care, social services,and economic development—all ofwhich are connected to criminal jus-tice in the deepest sense, especiallyin low-income communities rivenby crime. Thinking about your ex-offender job placement efforts inthis way may suggest new partners,new program development, and,thus, new funding strategies.

Once you have defined your pro-gram, go through the foundationlists you’ve obtained and identify 5to 10 foundations that seem mostlikely to fund your program. Onceagain, while your initial search canbe among foundations with an

explicit criminal justice focus, alsolook for foundations that fall underthe broadest conception of yourprogram. Send for annual reports ordownload them from foundationWeb sites and study them for listsand descriptions of previous grantsthat might resemble yours. Talk toanyone you know who might have acontact there. Talk to your boardmembers or to other organizationsthat have successfully approached aparticular foundation. Study thefoundation’s priorities and be hon-est about the fit: don’t waste theirtime and yours on a long shot, butbe creative in attracting their interest.

Make Your Case: The Pro-posal. A great deal rests on theprogram proposal. Fortunately,writing a good one is not difficult.“Lead with substance,” said Mahon.Tell them the facts about the prob-lem at the community level andstate the ways that your programwill address the problem. It is key tomake a strong case and make it in ashort amount of space. If you areapplying to a local foundation,emphasize the events or conceptsthat evoke a connection to the com-munity. If you are applying to afoundation outside your communi-ty, write in a way that conveys boththe passion and the efficacy of yourorganization to someone who hasnever seen your community or metyou.

You also need to prove things, notjust state them. Use hard statisticswhere possible to give an overviewof the problem. Some foundationsspecify the exact form a proposalshould take while others provideactual application forms. However,most proposals take the form of anexecutive summary (an overall state-ment of the case for your program),a need statement (a tightly con-structed statement about why thisproject is necessary, what need itmeets in the community, and so


forth), a project description (thenuts and bolts of how the projectwill be carried out and by whom), abudget (including financial infor-mation and explanatory notes),organizational information (a briefhistory of the organization and adescription of the organization’sgoverning structure, primary activi-ties, whom it serves and what itdelivers), and a conclusion (a rous-ing summary of the proposal’s mainpoints and the critical need for thegrant). Use news clippings or otherarticles to help bring your commu-nity or program to life. Surveys offoundation officers are mixed as towhether videos are useful––most saythey don’t have time to watch them.

For those who need it, help in struc-turing and writing proposals isavailable from a vast landscape ofintermediary organizations thathave grown up around philan-thropy. Everything from books toconsultants to nonprofits that helpemerging organizations fundraiseand structure their work can befound through the FoundationCenter. A helpful and detailed bookis The Foundation Center’s Guide toProposal Writing.8 (See “TheFoundation Center: A Resource forGrantseekers.”)

Once you have all this in hand, takeyour shot. If you’ve done yourhomework well enough, you shouldat least receive a hearing, a review,or a site visit. Mahon recommendsencouraging a site visit. “Once youhave contacted [the prospective fun-der], invite them to come out, anddon’t just show them a building—have them talk to your clients,” shesaid. Spark their interest. You mayget the grant, but even if you don’t,the foundation may be able to pro-vide other help: suggestions onwhere else to apply, referrals fortechnical assistance to improve yourprogram idea or management, evensuggestions about local partnerswho can provide inkind assistanceto improve services. Or like OSI, the

local foundation may fund some ofwhat you need and then help you tobroker deals with other foundationsor funding sources to help raise allof the money you need. Look onthis foray into philanthropy as a wayto access a number of kinds of assis-tance—not just financial.

In sum, despite the competition forlimited funds, there is reason to

hope. And the good news is thateven a modest grant from a localfoundation can usually be parlayedinto more foundation funding.Once your program has received theimprimatur of a private fundingsource, others are likely to follow.

The Long View. One of the waysto think about looking for founda-tion funding is to consider the long

view. The strand that connects thecurrent Zeitgeist with the iterationsin public policy and programs hasalways been mysterious but power-ful. Attempts to change the worldare connected with efforts to changeindividual lives—to intervene wherenecessary and critical, to make a dif-ference. Those working in criminaljustice at all levels—from public

policy to advocacy to drug treat-ment, job development, and coun-seling—are all attempting to changethings for the better. And philan-thropy, the so-called third sector,exists in order to further this better-ment. Think about looking for agrant as looking for a partnership.Think about foundations as allies,and get them to think about your

The Foundation Center: A Resource forGrantseekersThe Foundation Center is a nonprofit service organization established by a group offoundations in 1956 to foster public understanding of the field by collecting, organiz-ing, analyzing, and disseminating information on foundations, corporate giving, andrelated subjects. Many grantseekers begin their search at one of the Center’s fivelocations (Atlanta, Cleveland, New York, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C.), at oneof the 200 Cooperating Collections around the country, or online on the organiza-tion’s Web site.

A good place to begin a search is the organization’s database of foundation and corporate grantmakers and their associated grants. A grantseeker can search thedatabase using 21 different criteria, such as subject area and geography. The data-base includes profiles of approximately 50,000 U.S. foundations and corporategivers; the names and foundation affiliations of more than 200,000 trustees, officers,and donors who make funding decisions at these institutions; and descriptions ofmore than 200,000 newly reported grants. By conducting a search using subjectterms and geographic location, grantseekers can generate a list of grantmakers withthose specific interests or a list of similar grants and their respective funders.

Although the Center’s Web site does not allow access to the database, it does provide other useful information, such as links to individual foundation Web sites,descriptions of how to approach funding research, and tips on proposal writing.

Foundation Web sites are an important resource for up-to-date information once youidentify prospective funders. Foundation Web sites often provide specific informationon what the foundation does or does not fund, annual reports, lists of grants, andapplication forms and instructions.

For more information about the Foundation Center, visit its Web site athttp://www.fdncenter.org, or contact the New York office at 212–620–4320.

program in the same way. Thinkhard about your program’s philoso-phy, and then go out and find afoundation with a similar one. Andeven if you at first don’t succeed, theinformation you provide to thatprogram officer will be a bit of wis-dom, an approach to the issue thatmay lodge and grow and add to thesum of knowledge—and ultimately,to the reform that striving forhuman justice is all about.

Notes1. Foundation Center, Grants for

Crime, Law Enforcement, andAbuse Prevention, New York, N.Y.:Foundation Center, 1998:iii.

2. According to the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections,which operates all of the State’sprisons, oversees community cor-rectional facilities, and supervisesall parolees during their reentryinto the community, its 1998–99budget was $3.9 billion.

3. Gangi, Robert, Vincent Schiraldi,and Jason Ziedenberg, New YorkState of Mind? Higher Educationvs. Prison Funding in the EmpireState, 1988–1998, Washington,D.C.: Justice Policy Institute,1998:3.

4. Jacobs, Nancy F., and Ira BrantSommers, Crime and Justice: TheBurden Study of FoundationGrantmaking Trends, New York,N.Y.: Foundation Center, 1991.This report provides criticalinformation on the types of sup-port given and detailed descrip-tions of the foundations consis-tently interested in criminal jus-tice. It also profiles the givingpatterns of some of the majorfoundations interested in thefield. Much of the information isstill current.

5. The Johnson Foundation recentlyconvened a conference of expertsin the criminal justice/juvenilejustice field and will continue to

seek input over the next fewmonths. Although the scope andparameters of the program arenot complete, a spokespersonemphasized that the Foundationis seeking to incorporate the bestcurrent thinking about the issuein its planning.

6. Gilliard, Darrell K., Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998,Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999, NCJ173414.

7. Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J.Beck, “The Growth ofIncarceration in the United States:Where Are All the PrisonersComing From?”, presented at anNIJ Research in Progress Seminar,Washington, D.C., 1998. A 60-minute VHS videotape for eachseminar is available for $19 ($24in Canada and other countries) bycontacting the National CriminalJustice Reference Service at800–851–3420. A full discussionof this research will appear in theforthcoming Volume 26 of Crimeand Justice: A Review of Research,a thematic volume on prisonsedited by Michael Tonry and JoanPetersilia.

8. Greever, Jane C., and PatriciaMcNeill, The Foundation Center’sGuide to Proposal Writing, rev.ed., New York, N.Y.: FoundationCenter, February 1997.


For More InformationThe Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation: 781–455–8303

Open Society Institute’s Center on Crime, Communities and Culture:http://www.soros.org/crime or 212–548–0152

The Public Welfare Foundation: http://www.publicwelfare.orgor 202–965–1800

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: http://www.rwjf.org/main.html or 609–452–8701

The Foundation Center: http://www.fdncenter.org or 212–620–4320


At-A-Glance:Recent Research Findings

The summaries in this section arebased on recent NIJ reports and/orongoing research. The ongoingresearch was presented as part of theNIJ Research in Progress seminarseries, which features well-knownscholars discussing their work with anaudience of researchers and criminaljustice professionals and practitioners.The reports and a 60-minute VHSvideotape of the Research in Progressseminar on law enforcement stress areavailable from the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS) at1–800–851–3420. Videotaped semi-nars are $19 ($24 in Canada andother countries). The reports also canbe downloaded from the NIJ Web siteat http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

The Public Health and LawEnforcement Stress

A recent study of the prevalence oflaw enforcement officer stress andits implications for the BaltimorePolice Department found thatapproximately 10 percent of officersexperience high lev-els of stress andthat these officersalso are much morelikely than others toreport poor physical and psycholog-ical health, family problems,alcohol abuse, and depression.

Previous research has shown thatpolice officers have high levels ofmany stress indicators, includingpost-traumatic stress disorder, sui-cide, and alcohol abuse. Studieshave found that among officers withmore than 10 years’ experience,there are increased risks for cancer(particularly digestive and bladdercancers), heart disease, hyperten-sion, and chronic back pain, andthat the rate of alcohol abuse amongpolice officers is twice that of thegeneral population.

Occupational and EnvironmentalHealth and Safety Specialist RobynGershon and her colleagues AntonioEscamilla, Dana LaFon, ChristineKarkashian, and David Vlahov atJohns Hopkins University have con-ducted a survey of Baltimore policeofficers to examine the prevalence ofpolice stress; its psychological, phys-ical, and behavioral effects; and itseconomic and organizational impli-cations. In developing the surveyand designing the research project—which is called Project SHIELDS(Study to Help Identify, Evaluate,and Limit Department Stress)—theycollaborated with the Baltimore(Maryland) Police Department, theFraternal Order of Police, and theProject SHIELDS advisory board.

Approximately 70 percent (1,106) ofBaltimore officers responded to thesurvey. Eighty-five percent ofrespondents were male, 64 percentwere white, 68 percent were marriedor had a domestic partner, and 85percent had at least some college

education. The averageage was 36 years andthe average length ofpolice experience was11.5 years.

The survey categorized major stres-sors into (1) critical incidents and(2) organizational or job-relatedstressors. The critical incidents offi-cers cited most frequently as majorstressors were attending a policefuneral and being investigated byinternal affairs. In the second cate-gory, officers said their split-seconddecisionmaking on the street and itspotentially serious consequences area major stressor.

Gershon and her colleagues onProject SHIELDS found the follow-ing outcomes of police stress: lowenergy, headaches, pounding in thechest, and suicidal thoughts.

Researchers also identified suchphysical outcomes as chronic lowback pain, foot problems, migraines,high blood pressure, insomnia, andreproductive problems. Behavioraloutcomes included increased alco-hol abuse and injuries.

The researchers also found signifi-cant associations between policestress and family violence or assault.Approximately 9 percent of officersreported physically assaulting aspouse or domestic partner, 9 per-cent assaulting their children, and 7percent assaulting another officer.Spousal/partner abuse rates werehighest for female officers who havefemale domestic partners. (It shouldbe noted, however, that the samplesize for this category was quitesmall.)

Officers reporting high stress(approximately 10 percent of allofficers) were 3 times more likely toreport poor health, 3 times morelikely to abuse spouses or partners, 5times more likely to report alco-holism, and 10 times more likely toexperience depression than otherofficers.

The public health implications—and factors to consider when devel-oping and implementing interven-tions—include the costs associatedwith officer stress, such as hiring,training, and retraining recruits;employee turnover; stress-related ill-ness and injuries; lost productivity;and aberrant behaviors. Together,these variables potentially representa large amount of police departmentresources.

International Drug Use:Comparing British andAmerican Arrestees

Countering the conventional beliefthat the United States has the high-est rates of drug abuse, researchers

New & Noteworthy28

at NIJ and the University of Cam-bridge found that, for several types ofdrugs, rates among detained arresteesin England are about the same orhigher than those in the U.S.

The study compares the results ofurinalysis and interviews conductedamong detained arrestees at five loca-tions in England and five matchedlocations in the United States. Rates

of drug use by this at-riskpopulation were found to behigh in both countries. Use ofopiates/heroin, methadone,and amphetamines was high-er in the English sample, andfor benzodiazepines and mar-ijuana, there was no real dif-ference between the twocountries. Only for cocaineand crack cocaine were rateshigher in the United States.

Various aspects of behaviorrelated to drug use also werestudied. English arrestees

tended to spend more money ondrugs and to report higher levels ofillegal income than their counter-parts in the United States. Only smalldifferences between the two coun-tries were found in arrestees’ use ofor need for drug treatment. Therealso were few differences in the age atwhich drug use began, althoughthere were some differences for spe-cific types of drugs.

The report is a product of NIJ’s I-ADAM (International ArresteeDrug Abuse Monitoring) program,begun in 1998 under NIJ sponsor-ship as a means to integrate, at theinternational level, the process ofmonitoring drug abuse by arresteesand to coordinate related research.Currently, seven countries participatein I-ADAM, and more plan to joinnext year. Analysis of I-ADAM datafrom other countries is now underway and will be published as itbecomes available.

Copies of the Research Report,Comparing Drug Use Rates AmongDetained Arrestees in the UnitedStates and England (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, April1999) by Bruce Taylor and TrevorBennett (NCJ 175052), may beobtained from NCJRS at 1–800–851–3420. Copies also can bedownloaded from the NIJ Web site:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

Innovations in AmericanGovernment Competition—1999 semifinalists announced

The Innovations in AmericanGovernment awards program named12 criminal justice innovationsamong the semifinalists in its 1999competition. Sponsored by the FordFoundation and administered byHarvard University’s Kennedy Schoolof Government in partnership withthe Council for Excellence inGovernment, the Innovations pro-gram confers one of the country’smost prestigious public-serviceawards. It recognizes government ini-tiatives at the local, State, and Federallevels that are original and haveproved effective.

The 12 innovations encompass awide range of criminal justice

arenas—policing, corrections, com-munity corrections, and juvenile jus-tice, among others—and cover suchvaried issues as domestic violence,videoconferencing, reduction ofinmate litigation, and 311 nonemer-gency systems.

Selected from a pool of more than1,600 applicants, the semifinalists areeligible for 1 of 10 $100,000 awards.From the group of semifinalists,finalists are chosen and announcedin September; winners in October.NIJ works with selected winners andfinalists in criminal justice and relat-ed fields to assist them in replicationand dissemination of informationabout their programs.

For information about last year’swinners, see the January 1999 issueof the NIJ Journal (JR 000238). To

learn more about the Innovations inAmerican Government competition,visit its Web site at http://www.innovtions.harvard.edu or call617–495–0558.

Lawyers in Their Communities

NIJ-sponsored research has identi-fied attorneys who are stepping outof their traditional roles of process-ing cases and taking a direct workinginterest in the problems of particularplaces and communities. For example:

■ An assistant prosecutor in Oregonsuppressed street prostitution bynegotiating an enforceable agree-ment with small motel operatorsrather than bringing more misde-meanor prosecutions of prosti-tutes and johns.

New &Noteworthy

continued from page 27


■ An assistant city attorney in Nevadaworked out the legal issues enablingcounty jail inmates to clean up aproperty that had been neglectedfor 20 years, thereby shorteningtheir sentences, while the city supplied the dump trucks.

■ Legal aid lawyers in Maryland rep-resented neighborhood groups incivil lawsuits that closed drug hous-es and transferred titles of aban-

doned properties to nonprofitdevelopers.

Scholars and practitioners participat-ing in an NIJ-sponsored focus groupearlier this year agreed that “commu-nity oriented lawyering” may beemerging as a new practice specialty,not only among prosecutors and cityattorneys, but also legal aid groups,pro bono attorneys, and criminaldefense attorneys. Readers who know

of such attorneys—or who want toknow more about them—are encouraged to contact NIJ VisitingFellow Roger Conner by e-mail [email protected] or by mail at the following address:U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice Attn: Roger Conner 810 7th St., N.W.Washington, DC 20531.

NIJ Is Developing and Testing Technologies for CriminalJustice ApplicationNIJ has pioneered the development ofsome of the technologies, products,and standards that are now common-place in criminal justice settings—forexample, soft body armor and advancesin the use of DNA science in forensics.The following describes several of thelatest tools NIJ is developing and test-ing.

Investigative Technologies

Applying Space Technology toForensic Science. NIJ is supportingthe identification and field-testing ofvarious National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) technologies forcrime-scene investigations. NASAtechnologies, such as remote sensing,neutron/gamma-ray spectroscopy, andx-ray spectroscopy, potentially could beused by law enforcement for investiga-tion of physical evidence at crimescenes. The use of magnetometersalso may assist investigators in thelocation of buried bodies by detectingminute variations in magnetic fields atsuspected homicide grave sites. Thegoal of the project is to evaluate NASAtechnologies that may be applicable tolaw enforcement settings. For moreinformation, contact Lisa Forman of NIJat 202–307–6608.

Evaluation of Voice Stress AnalysisTechnology. In response to queriesfrom a number of law enforcement

agencies, the Air Force ResearchLaboratory (AFRL) in Rome, New York,and the National Law Enforcement andCorrections Technology Center(NLECTC)–Northeast are evaluating thescientific value and utility of existingcommercial voice stress analysis tech-nology for law enforcement and militaryapplications.

Vendors of this technology claim it candetect stress, indicating possibledeception, in voice communications.The systems are advertised as beingcheaper, easier to use, less invasive,and less constraining than polygraphtechnology.

AFRL and NLECTC have researched thedevelopment of voice stress analysis,previous evaluation efforts, and theexistence of various commercial voicestress analysis systems that are beingmarketed to law enforcement agencies.

The evaluators have purchased onesuch system, and a police officer and alaboratory researcher have been trainedin its use. The evaluators also are col-lecting speech data for the laboratoryevaluation and contacting voice stressanalysis users, potential users, andother researchers involved in ongoingevaluations.

AFRL and NLECTC will produce a tech-nical report and videotaped presentationof evaluation results. For more infor-

mation, contact Sharon Walter ofNLECTC–Northeast at 888–338–0584.

Concealed Weapons DetectionTechnology Development andTesting

NIJ and the Department of Defensejointly sponsor the Joint ProgramSteering Group to support the develop-ment and testing of technology that canbe applied in both criminal justice andmilitary settings. The technologiesdescribed below are some of the recentproducts of this partnership. For moreinformation, contact Pete Nacci at theJoint Program Steering Group at703–351–8821.

Backscatter Imaging System forConcealed Weapons Detection. Amodified version of an off-the-shelfconcealed weapons detection technolo-gy that uses what is known as theCompton effect, or x-ray backscatter, isnow commercially available. The tech-nology was developed by NicoletImaging Systems of San Diego,California.

Standard medical radiology uses x-raysthat pass completely through the body.However, the low-energy x-rays emittedby this system, which are equivalent toabout 5 minutes of exposure to sunlightat sea level, are reflected back ratherthan penetrating the body, hence the

continued on page 30

Events30

EventsNIJ Participates in UN CrimeMeetings

Several NIJ representatives attendedthe eighth session of the UnitedNations Commission on CrimePrevention and Criminal Justice heldin Vienna, Austria, from April 27 toMay 6, 1999. The United NationsInterregional Crime and JusticeResearch Institute (UNICRI) in Romehas responsibility for implementing amajor part of the UN’s crime preven-tion and criminal justice research pro-gram.

NIJ participated in the meeting as amember of the network of researchinstitutes affiliated with the UnitedNations’ crime prevention and crimi-nal justice program.

The Commission meetings dealt withcriminal justice reform, the strengthen-ing of legal institutions, crime preven-tion, and international cooperation incombating transnational crime. NIJrepresentatives also attended the meet-

ings of the Ad Hoc Committee on theConvention Against TransnationalOrganized Crime that were held simul-taneously with the Commission meet-ings in Vienna.

The Future of DNA Evidence

Attorney General Janet Reno directedNIJ to establish and administer theNational Commission on the Future ofDNA Evidence to make recommenda-tions on the use of DNA in the opera-tion of the criminal justice system. Atthe Commission’s fifth meeting onMay 7–8 in Santa Fe, New Mexico,members heard presentations on theactivities of the Commission’s fiveworking groups on legal issues, post-conviction issues, research and devel-opment, laboratory funding, and crimescene investigation.

In addition to hearing the workinggroups’ reports, Commission membersand attendees heard presentationsfrom George Trubow, Director, Center

for Information Technology andPrivacy Law at The John Marshall LawSchool; David Coffman, Supervisor,Florida DNA Investigative SupportDatabase; and Pam Collins andKathryn Scarborough of EasternKentucky University, who spoke onInternet and CD-ROM training for law enforcement officers.

The Commission’s sixth meeting willbe held in Boston, Massachusetts, July25–26. Complete transcripts from thefifth meeting—and from all four previ-ous Commission meetings—are avail-able online from the DNA Commis-sion’s page on the NIJ Web site athttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna.

MethamphetamineInteragency Task Force HoldsThird Meeting

San Diego, California, was the settingfor the third meeting of the Meth-amphetamine Interagency Task ForceMay 4–5. The Task Force members

term “backscatter.” An individual standsbefore the device and is scanned.Computer software creates a compositeimage of the individual from the reflectedx-rays. As various materials absorb andreflect the x-rays differently, they showup as different shades and shapes in theimage. By viewing the false color featurethat has been added and the shape of anobject in the image, the operator candistinguish normal anatomical featuresand everyday items, such as keys, fromsuspicious articles.

The major advantage this system hasover magnetometers is that it can detectnonmetallic as well as metallic weapons.This technology was successfullydemonstrated in a Los Angeles Countycorrections facility, a Federal courthousein Los Angeles, and a State prison inNorth Carolina. It is commercially avail-able through Rapiscan Corporation.

Electromagnetic Portal for ConcealedWeapons Detection. A weapons detec-tion technology that uses fluxgate mag-netometers is now ready for commercial-

ization. Fluxgate magnetometers detectanomalies in the earth’s magnetic fieldthat are caused by magnetic materialcontained in objects carried by individu-als. Most commercial weapons containferrous (iron-bearing) materials, whichare magnetic. Because this technologydoes not sound an alert on such innocu-ous objects as keys or coins, it signifi-cantly reduces the false alarm rate ascompared to currently available devices,which tend to detect all metal objects. Itcan detect weapons with even a smallsteel content, like that found in Exacto®

knives used by hobbyists.

A prototype of the technology has beeninstalled in the Bannock County, Idaho,courthouse for operational evaluation.The Idaho National EngineeringLaboratory developed the technology.

Handheld Acoustic System forConcealed Weapons Detection. JAY-COR is developing an inexpensive, hand-held device to alert police and correc-tions officers of the potential presence ofa weapon. The technology will allow

detection at a greater distance (4–12feet) than the handheld metal detectors inuse today, thus providing a greater mar-gin of safety. The device also will be ableto detect metallic and nonmetallicweapons concealed under an individual’sclothing by using acoustic technology.

The detector will be affordable for evensmaller law enforcement and correctionsagencies. A model already has beendemonstrated with positive results: It wasable to detect a plastic knife concealedunder a heavy sweatshirt at a distance of7 feet.

Two working models also have beendeveloped and are being tested to deter-mine performance parameters. The work-ing models were recently demonstrated atthe California Border Alliance Group andreceived a positive reception from lawenforcement representatives. Three devel-opmental units have been built and willbe operationally tested by the LosAngeles Sheriff’s Department.

continued from page 31

reviewed a draft of its “Report of theMethamphetamine Interagency TaskForce,” to be delivered to the AttorneyGeneral, and attended a town hallmeeting sponsored by the County ofSan Diego Meth Strike Force, at whichparticipants discussed meth problemsand solutions for the San Diego area.

Cochaired by NIJ Director JeremyTravis and Office of National DrugControl Policy Deputy DirectorDonald Vereen, the Task Force wasestablished by Attorney General JanetReno in 1996 to make recommenda-tions for combating the manufacture,sale, and use of methamphetamine inthe United States.

San Diego is one of the cities with ahigh incidence of methamphetamineuse featured in Meth Matters: Reporton Methamphetamine Users in FiveWestern Cities (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, May 1999) (NCJ176331), an NIJ Research Reportreleased at the Task Force meeting.Copies of the report are availablefrom the National Criminal JusticeReference Service by calling1–800–851–3420, and from the NIJWeb site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

The Task Force will meet again thisfall in Washington, D.C., at whichtime it will solicit comments on itsinterim report and recommendationsfrom interest groups, State and localofficials, and other stakeholders forhow best to implement an effectiveresponse to methamphetamine. Theinterim report, which will be availablelater this summer, will outline theguiding principles, research needs,and recommendations of the TaskForce. Following the fall meeting, theTask Force will submit its final reportto the Attorney General.

Armor and Trauma the Topicof NATO Meeting

The North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-tion (NATO) held a meeting in Aprilto discuss the issues surrounding

trauma experienced while wearingarmor. “Behind the Armor BluntTrauma” brought together researchers,medical professionals, and criminaljustice representatives from Canada,Denmark, France, Germany, theNetherlands, and the United States.Participants shared resources andfindings to better understand theeffects of blunt trauma to the chestand head while wearing protectivegarments such as body armor and bal-listic helmets.

Each of the countries is conductingfurther research on issues such ashead injuries during ballistic loadingof helmets, biophysics and pathophys-iology of blunt trauma behind per-sonal armors, and an analyticalmethod for evaluating the threat levelof ammunition relative to soft bodyarmor. NIJ Office of Science andTechnology Program Manager WendyHowe participated in the meetingwith Kathleen Higgins, Director of theOffice of Law Enforcement Standardsof the Department of Commerce’sNational Institute of Standards andTechnology. For more information,contact Higgins at 301–975–2757.

Cocaine Use Among AdultMale Arrestees Declined,According to New ADAM Data

Findings released recently at the thirdannual conference of the ArresteeDrug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)program indicatethat cocaine useamong adultmale arresteeshas declined over the pastyear. Cocaine remains the drug mostcommonly found in test results offemale arrestees, but it is now secondto marijuana among male arrestees.These and other findings were dis-cussed among researchers and practi-tioners at the conference, which alsofocused on ADAM’s development andexpansion and its application to Stateand local policymaking.

Presentations at the conference cov-ered the use of geographic informa-tion systems for analyzing ADAMdata, the relationship between domes-tic violence and substance abuse,comparisons between U.S. and U.K.arrestee drug use, and drug testingmethods for distinguishing betweenpowder or smokable (crack) cocaine.

The ADAM program estimates theprevalence of drug use among personswho are arrested and booked, andanalyzes the data to detect changes intrends in drug use among this popula-tion. There are currently 35 data col-lection sites in the United States and 6international ADAM sites. The dataare used by law enforcement and drugtreatment practitioners to allocateresources, design prevention strate-gies, and gauge the impact of localefforts to reduce drug use. (Seeannouncement of upcoming ADAMsolicitations, p. 32.)

The recent ADAM findings are pre-sented in Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring Program: 1998 AnnualReport on Drug Use Among Adult andJuvenile Arrestees (U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice,April 1999) (NCJ 175656). This year’sannual report was accompanied byfour separate reports on the use ofmethamphetamine, crack and powdercocaine, heroin, and marijuana.ADAM reports are available on thenew ADAM Web site at http://www.

adam-nij.net/adam andfrom the NationalCriminal Justice Ref-erence Service at1–800–851–3420.

Federal Partners Plan SchoolSafety Research

A sound research agenda built on col-laboration among disciplines and ofdemonstrated benefit for practitionersis a necessary part of the strategy toensure that the Nation’s schools aresafe. Several Federal agencies, includ-ing NIJ and the Justice Department’s

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program


Solicitations & Awards

ADAM Program Seeks 15 NewSites and Site ManagementTeams

NIJ has released a two-part solicitationunder its Arrestee Drug Abuse Mon-itoring (ADAM) program for additionalADAM sites and site managementteams. The ADAM program currentlyoperates 35 sites in the United Statesand works collaboratively with 6 inter-national sites that collect drug use dataon persons who are arrested andbooked. The program, previouslyknown as the Drug Use Forecasting(DUF) program, was enhanced andrenamed ADAM in 1997 to incorporatenew elements that strengthen the valueof the data.

The “Solicitation to Add Arrestee DrugAbuse Monitoring (ADAM) Sites” seeksapplications from municipalities andjurisdictions that want to be consideredas sites for ADAM data collection.Fifteen additional ADAM sites are to beidentified in fiscal year 1999, bringingthe number of operational ADAM sitesto 50 by fiscal year 2000, subject to con-gressional appropriation of funds. NIJanticipates that by 2001 there will be 75operational ADAM sites. Althoughmunicipalities that become ADAM sitesdo not receive direct funding from NIJ,they do have access to crime, drug,health, and treatment data collected bythe program, gain an opportunity todevelop partnerships with researchers,and improve local coordination to

address drug-related issues of concernto the community.

The second part of the solicitation,“Selection of Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring (ADAM) Site ManagementTeams,” seeks proposals from data man-agement professionals to direct the 15new sites. The management teams willenter into subcontracts with the ADAMprogram’s data and management con-tractor, Abt Associates Inc.

The deadline for proposals will be inearly fall 1999. For deadline informa-tion or copies of the solicitations, visitthe NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact the NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service at 1–800–851–3420.

NIJ to Release Investigator-Initiated Solicitation

NIJ’s 1999 “Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated Research,” an open invitationto the criminal justice research field topropose innovative research endeavors,will be issued soon in two parts. NIJ’sOffice of Science and Technology willseek proposals from the physical sci-ences field, which will be due October15, 1999, and the Office of Research andEvaluation will solicit social scienceresearch proposals, which will be dueJanuary 18, 2000.

This year, there will be one fundingcycle for each of the two parts of thesolicitation, rather than two cycles for

one solicitation, as in previous years.The broad themes that have guidedNIJ’s research agenda in recent yearsstill apply:

■ Rethinking Justice

■ Understanding the Nexus

■ Breaking the Cycle

■ Creating the Tools

■ Expanding the Horizons

Both parts of the “Solicitation forInvestigator-Initiated Research” willinclude a discussion and examples ofhow proposed research can fit into thesethemes. A discussion of these themesalso can be found in Building KnowledgeAbout Crime and Justice: The 1998Research Prospectus of the NationalInstitute of Justice (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, November 1998)(NCJ 172883), and National Institute ofJustice 1997 Annual Report to Congress(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice,August 1998) (NCJ 171679).

Visit NIJ’s Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij for the publications men-tioned above and for the latest informa-tion on the release of the “Solicitationfor Investigator-Initiated Research.” NIJpublications also are available from theNational Criminal Justice ReferenceService by calling 1–800–851–3420.

Solicitations & Awards32

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention, the Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services,the U.S. Department of Education, andthe U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, met last April to framesuch an agenda. Researchers and prac-titioners from the mental health, educa-tion, and criminal justice fields partici-pated in the meeting.

Papers commissioned for the meetingfocused on such topics as community/institutional partnerships for research;integrated prevention and interventionefforts for safer schools; and violencetrends among high school students.Among the issues participants discussedwere the tracking and analysis of orga-nizational data; investigation of classmanagement training offered to teach-

ers; and the functions and definition ofpolice resource officers.

NIJ plans to release a solicitation forresearch on school safety in the fall of1999. For more information on thissolicitation, watch the NIJ Web site athttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contactthe National Criminal Justice ReferenceService at 1–800–851–3420.


NIJ in the Journals

The following list summarizes key arti-cles of interest to the Journal’s readers.Most are based on studies sponsored byNIJ. Copies are available on loan fromthe National Criminal Justice ReferenceService (NCJRS); in some cases, photo-copies may be obtained for a fee. Forinformation on availability, call NCJRSat 1–800–851–3420; or [email protected]. Please cite the accession (ACCN) number.

“Collective Regulation of AdolescentMisbehavior: Validation ResultsFrom 80 Chicago Neighborhoods,”Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2)(April 1997), 227–44, by Sampson,R.J., grant number 93–IJ–CX–K005,ACCN 168642. This study tested aneighborhood-level approach to theinformal social control of children.Results showed that several dimen-sions of neighborhood structure (con-centrated poverty, ethnicity/immigra-tion, and residential stability) ex-plained a significant amount of thevariance in child social control. Whena neighborhood's informal social controls are taken into account, theimpact of residential stability ondelinquency is reduced by half. Evenafter adjusting for a neighborhood’scrime levels, informal social controlemerged as a significant inhibitor ofadolescent delinquency.

“Controlling Drug and DisorderProblems: The Role of PlaceManagers,” Criminology, 36(2) (May 1998), 371–403, by Mazerolle,L.G., Kadleck, C., and Roehl, J., grantnumber 95–IJ–CX–0039, ACCN174049. This study explored the roleof place managers in controlling drugand disorder problems on 100 streetblocks of Oakland, California. Placemanagers may be community activ-ists, business owners, or neighbor-hood guardians who lead a communi-ty’s effort to monitor activity in andaround a location. Street blocks where

place managers engaged in collectivecrime control activities had signifi-cantly fewer disorders and greater lev-els of civil behavior. Communitycohesiveness on street blocks wasassociated with fewer males sellingdrugs.

“Cost of Mental Health Care forVictims of Crime,” Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 13(1) (February1998), 93–110, by Cohen, M.A., andMiller, T.R., grant number 90–IJ–CX–0050, ACCN 174148. This articlereports on a nationally representativesurvey of 168 mental health care pro-fessionals about the prevalence andcost of treating crime victims. Crimevictims represent an estimated 20 to25 percent of the total client popula-tion of mental health care profession-als. Actual expenditures for mentalhealth care services to crime victimsare estimated to be between $5.8 and$6.8 billion.

“Defensive Gun Uses: New EvidenceFrom a National Survey,” Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 14(2) (June 1998), 111–31, by Cook, P. J.,and Ludwig, J., grant number93–IJ–CX–0017, ACCN 175056. Thisstudy analyzed the results of thePrivate Ownership of Firearms, anationally representative, random-digit-dial telephone survey estimatingthe prevalence of civilian defensivegun uses (DGU’s) against criminalattackers. The authors conclude thatestimates from the survey are subjectto a large positive bias. This analysissuggests that available survey data arenot capable of determining whetherreported DGU incidents, even if true,add to or detract from public healthand safety.

“DNA Dilemma,” CorrectionsCompendium, 22(5) (May 1997), 4–6,by Imwinkelried, E.J., Clarke, G.W.,and Stephenson, C., ACCN 168853.

These two commentaries focus on thefindings of an NIJ-sponsored reporton cases in which convicted personswere released from prison as a resultof posttrial DNA testing of evidence.The first commentary traces the rulesregarding the admissibility of scientif-ic evidence, with particular attentionto DNA evidence and testimony. Thesecond commentary argues for properuse and interpretation of DNA typingin sexual assault cases; DNA cannot,for example, exactly answer why,when, or how the assault was commit-ted. For this type of information, thevictim should be the primary source.

“Gender and Victimization RiskAmong Young Women in Gangs,”Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 35(4) (November 1998),429–53, by Miller, J., ACCN 175002.Using surveys of and interviews with20 female gang members in Colum-bus, Ohio, this study examined howgang involvement shaped youngwomen’s risks of victimization. Thestudy found that gang participationexposed youth to victimization risk,and it did so in ways that varied bygender. Young women can use genderto decrease their risk of being harmedby rival gangs or other street partici-pants by not participating in “mascu-line” activities such as fighting andcommitting crime; however, the con-sequence is that they are viewed aslesser members of their gangs andmay be exposed to greater risk ofvictimization within their gangs.

“Legal and Social Control ofAlcohol-Impaired Driving inCalifornia: 1983–1994” Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, 58(5) (September1997), 518–23, by Berger, D.E., andMarelich, W.D., grant number82–IJ–CX–0059, ACCN 174162. Thisarticle discusses the legal and socialforces that influence change in alco-hol-impaired driving behavior. The

study compared drinking and drivingattitudes, perceptions, and behaviors ofCalifornia drivers who were surveyed in1983, 1986, and 1994. All age groups—including men and women, both heavydrinkers and light drinkers—reported alarge reduction in drinking before dri-ving. Subjects also displayed: greaterknowledge of drinking and driving lawsand an increased expectation that viola-tions would be followed by unpleasantconsequences; heightened perceptionsthat friends and relatives were likely todisapprove of driving after drinking;more awareness of control of drinking bydrivers at occasions where alcohol wasbeing served; and an increase in the viewthat it is morally wrong to drive afterheavy drinking.

“Long-Term Rearrest Rates in a Sampleof Adjudicated Delinquents: Evaluatingthe Impact of Alternative Programs,”Prison Journal, 78(4) (December 1998),360–89, by Fendrich, M., and Archer, M.,grant number 95–IJ–CX–0108, ACCN175059. This study assessed the impacton recidivism of training school com-pared to alternative program placementsfor 266 youths remanded to the Texas

Youth Commission in 1983. Being male,younger at the time of commitment, andin an institutional program prior toparole were found to significantlyincrease the risk of recidivism. Theamount of time elapsed before commit-ting a new crime was significantly longerfor youths placed in alternative programscompared to youths who had been ininstitutions. An important benefit ofalternative programs may be to lengthena window of opportunity for additionalrehabilitative efforts and interventionsduring parole.

“Policing in Public Housing: UsingCalls for Service to Examine Incident-Based Workload in the PhiladelphiaHousing Authority,” Policing, 21(4)(1998), 618–31, by Kane, R.J., grantnumber 95–IJ–CX–0041, ACCN 174632.This article compares and contrasts find-ings from studies on police workload inhousing developments with prior find-ings of studies conducted in municipalpolice settings. While similar patterns ofservice requests appeared in the two set-tings, particularly in public order andreactive law enforcement, public housingpolice were required to respond to callsrelated to the physical structures of thepublic housing.

Youth Gangs and GenderTwo articles appeared recently based on anational study of 5,935 eighth-grade students and 11 cities:

“Multisite Examination of Youth GangMembership: Does Gender Matter?”Criminology, 36(4) (November 1998),799–828, by Esbensen, F., and Deschenes,E.P., grant number 94–IJ–CX–0058,ACCN 174652. This study examined dif-ferences between boys’ and girls’ attitudestoward membership. The study describedfindings in terms of demographic, attitu-dinal, and behavioral measures. Forexample, the social control model sug-gests that girls and boys join gangs fordifferent reasons. The factors that affecttheir reasons for joining include theirlevel of self-esteem, feelings of social iso-lation, extent of educational success, andfamily processes. The results refute themedia notion that females do not joingangs for the thrill of it: risk-seeking wasa predictor of female gang membership,but not of male.

“Race and Gender Differences BetweenGang and Nongang Youths: ResultsFrom a Multisite Survey,” JusticeQuarterly, 15(3) (September 1998),505–26, by Esbensen, F., and Winfree,L.T., grant number 94–IJ–CX–0058,ACCN 174167. This article examines thedemographic composition of gangs andthe level of delinquent activity of gangmembers compared with nongang mem-bers. The study found that gang mem-bers are disproportionately members ofethnic and racial minorities, but thatwhite involvement (25 percent of gangmembers) is greater than has generallybeen reported. All gang members,regardless of ethnicity, reported consider-ably higher levels of delinquency thantheir nongang ethnic counterparts.

NIJ in the Journals34

Abstracts of Recent NIJ Final Reports Now Available on the WebSummaries of recently received final reports from NIJ grantees are available onthe NIJ Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/newsletter/0499main.html. Thesesummaries describe completed NIJ-sponsored research projects. Full finalreports in manuscript form, as submitted by authors, are available from NCJRSthrough interlibrary loan and as photocopies. Call NCJRS at 1–800–851–3420for information.


Stay on the Cutting Edge ofCriminal Justice Research

Visit NIJ’s Web Site!

For the latest information on NIJ research, programs,

and grant opportunities, visit:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Documents

Putting Ex-offenders Back to Work A New Role for Courts?