U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice ENTENCING & CORRECTION Issues for the 21st Century MayS 2000 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and CorrectionsS No. 7 But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry by Jeremy Travis Directors’ Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number he explosive, continuing growth of the States, truth-in-sentencing statutes have cur- of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As Nation’s prison population is a well- tailed the duration of postrelease oversight a result, the sentencing policies driving that known fact. There are now over a to 15 percent of the sentence imposed for T number, and the field of corrections, where million people in State and Federal prisons— violent offenders. And underfunded parole the consequences are felt, have acquired an more than a threefold increase since 1980. agencies in many jurisdictions have made unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined Less well recognized is one of the conse- parole more a legal status than a systematic more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and quences of this extraordinarily high figure: process of reintegrating returning prisoners. expense than by any consensus about future A growing number of people now under directions. Assuming these trends continue, it seems the confinement are being released into the com- Are sentencing policies, as implemented through munity after serving their prison terms. If time is right to revisit the processes and goals correctional programs and practices, achieving current trends continue, this year more than of prisoner reentry. The argument presented their intended purposes? As expressed in the half a million people will leave prison and here is that (1) the reentry process presents movement to eliminate indeterminate senten- return to neighborhoods across the country; singular opportunities for advancing social cing and limit judicial discretion, on the one by comparison, fewer than 170,000 were goals—opportunities difficult to pursue with- hand, and to radically restructure our retribu- released in 1980.1 in the legal constructs and operational reali- tive system of justice, on the other, the purpos- ties of current criminal justice policy; (2) es seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting This increase in the movement from prison the role of “reentry manager” (the institution values. The lack of consensus on where sen- door to community doorstep comes at a time responsible for achieving reentry goals) is tencing and corrections should be headed is when traditional mechanisms for managing undergoing major redefinition; and (3) the thus no surprise. reentry have been significantly weakened. judiciary should play a far greater role in Because sentencing and corrections policies While it is true that almost all States still managing reentry. have such major consequences—for the maintain some form of postprison supervi- allocation of government resources and, more sion, 14 have abolished discretionary parole The emphasis here will be on the process fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality and the parole boards that historically have of managing the transition from the status of of justice in this country and the safety of its citizens—the National Institute of Justice and the overseen the processes of reentry.2 “imprisoned offender” to the status of “re- Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office leased ex-offender.” Too often, discussions of of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore About one in five State prisoners leaves prison the purposes of sentencing and corrections them in depth. Through a series of Executive 3 with no postrelease supervision. In many are constrained by organizational boundaries Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000, Research in Brief CONTINUED ... 2 Sentencing & Corrections

and legal constructs. For example, we attempt community without a period of supervised Directors’ Message to compare the value of incarceration to the release is morally unsatisfying; they have not CONTINUED ... value of probation or parole. By compartmen- yet earned their place at our table. By con- practitioners and scholars foremost in their talizing the analysis of reentry goals into de- trast, accepting an offender who has demon- field, representing a broad cross-section of bates about the separate and relative values strated, during a period of transition, that he points of view, were brought together to find of imprisonment and community corrections, can abide by the rules can be highly satisfying out if there is a better way to think about the we pay a price. We overlook the reality that to the offender, his family, and the broader purposes, functions, and interdependence of offenders cross these institutional and legal community. Graduation ceremonies in drug sentencing and corrections policies. boundaries and carry with them the capacity courts attest to this. We are fortunate in having secured the assis- to achieve or frustrate the purposes of sen- tance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor tencing. We overlook the complex organiza- To achieve this goal, the primary objective, for of Law and Public Policy at the University of tional relationships that exist (or could exist) offender and criminal justice agency alike, is Minnesota Law School, and Director, Institute between agencies that manage imprisonment to prevent the recurrence of antisocial behav- of Criminology, University of Cambridge, as and those that manage restricted liberty. And ior. If that is to happen, a great deal must be project director. we overlook the practical and symbolic im- done, for each individual offender, to ascer- One product of the sessions is this series of portance—to the offender, his family and tain the conditions that lead to relapse and to papers, commissioned by NIJ and the CPO as community, the victim, and society as a whole develop a plan to prevent it. This process the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the —of the moment of release. For these rea- should begin at sentencing and continue research and experience of the session partici- sons, a focus on reentry could be a way to throughout the period of release. For each pants, the papers are intended to distill their “unpack” some of the philosophical and individual, that means mobilizing the net- judgments about the strengths and weaknesses works of formal and informal social control of current practices and about the most prom- policy dilemmas that beset sentencing today. that create a support system by detecting early ising ideas for future developments. ■ ■ ■ warning signals of relapse and responding to The sessions were modeled on the executive them. Whatever conditions of release are sessions on policing held in the 1980s and Reentry reconsidered imposed should be directly related to giving 1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and the offender the opportunity to support his Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. hat do we hope to accomplish in man- claim to reintegration; that is, they should be Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing Waging reentry? Why not simply show the community policing and spreading it. Whether prisoner to the door and tell him he is free? geared to preventing the recurrence of antiso- the current sessions and the papers based on Why impose any restraints on his liberty when cial behavior and promoting productive activi- them will be instrumental in developing a new that means setting up mechanisms for enforc- ty valued by society. The powers and authority paradigm for sentencing and corrections, or ing them? Martin Horn, who heads correc- of the criminal justice agencies should be even whether they will generate broad-based tions in Pennsylvania, proposed the following mobilized to achieve these objectives. And, support for a particular model or strategy for thought experiment: Perhaps we should sim- when the goal of reintegration has been met, change, remains to be seen. It is our hope that ply abolish parole supervision, offer released the moment should be officially acknowl- in the current environment of openness to new prisoners a set of vouchers to purchase serv- edged and celebrated so that the offender’s ideas, the session papers will provoke com- ices at lower cost, and invest the savings in new life can begin. ment, promote further discussion and, taken together, will constitute a basic resource docu- prevention programs. This is a radical idea, to Currently there is no effective means of man- ment on sentencing and corrections policy be sure, but the more radical question is why aging reentry to achieve this goal. Parole issues that will prove useful to State and local even pay for the vouchers? What are our goals policymakers. in providing any continuing supervision and supervision agencies could conceivably man- assistance to returning prisoners? age many parts of the process, but they can- Julie E. Samuels not realistically extend their reach to the work Acting Director National Institute of Justice The overarching goal of reentry, in my view, of correctional institutions, and they rarely U.S. Department of Justice is to have returned to our midst an individual play a role at sentencing. Correctional institu- tions can help prepare offenders for release, Larry Meachum who has discharged his legal obligation to Director society by serving his sentence and has but their authority is generally limited to what Corrections Program Office demonstrated an ability to live by society’s happens within prison walls. Parole boards U.S. Department of Justice rules. Accepting released offenders into the theoretically influenced both ends of the Sentencing & Corrections 3

continuum, but in reality even that model lines, restrictions on good time, and other advocates of parole are having a hard time had little capacity to integrate sentencing sentencing and corrections reforms have had justifying its existence. decisions, in-prison activities, and community- the combined effect, for a large percentage of based supervision. Some drug treatment offenders, of limiting the temporal window The answer to the question, “If not parole, programs (discussed below) most closely in which release is possible. Truth-in-sentencing then what?” is typically, “More prison.” Yet resemble components of an effective reentry laws adopted in many States have set a high asking a different question—“How should management process, and some other treat- floor for that window: Although the types of we manage the reentry of large numbers ment interventions, such as programs dealing offenses covered by these laws vary, more of people who have been imprisoned for a with sex offenders, may also serve this pur- than half the States now require that violent long time?”—might elicit a different answer. pose. Similarly, a number of recent innova- offenders serve at least 85 percent of their More prison is certainly not the answer. Just tions at the pretrial phase of criminal justice sentence before they are eligible for parole.4 as increased borrowing does not reduce processing can also shed light on the reentry The net effect is that for a larger percentage the national debt but only delays the day of issue. Yet we cannot avoid concluding that of a larger number of cases, one traditional reckoning, longer prison sentences cannot our system of justice lacks the organizational function of parole boards—deciding release obviate the reentry phenomenon: They all capacity to manage the reintegration of re- dates for prisoners—has been severely come back.6 So a focus on reentry is timely leased offenders. diminished, if not eliminated. because of the sustained and successful at- tacks on the philosophical underpinnings ■ ■ ■ Parole boards have historically served a sec- of parole. Ironically, such a focus would ond important function—deciding whether a necessarily require reconsidering one of the Restructuring reentry— prisoner is “ready” to be released and super- traditional functions of parole boards—the pressure from the collapse vising the development of a release “plan.” integration of activities inside and outside of parole This baby may have been thrown out with the the prison, and the articulation of a rationale bathwater of discretionary release. Although for setting the conditions and timing of the focus on the processes and goals of imperfect, the system integrated the prere- prisoner’s release. reentry is particularly timely because A lease and postrelease functions of the relevant the traditional “reentry manager”—the government agencies and provided a rationale The shifting profile of the parole board—has been significantly weak- for the offender’s reentry. In the best of cir- prison population ened, and the system of parole supervision cumstances, the parole board would be able After growing at a staggering pace for almost is struggling to find its sense of purpose. to say, “Harry Jones has made sufficient two decades, the Nation’s prison population Ironically, the rise in the number of prisoners progress in his personal rehabilitation while may be reaching a new equilibrium, as the has been accompanied by loss of confidence in prison, and he has a network of family, rate of increase shows signs of slowing down. in the institution entrusted with supervising neighborhood support, and work opportuni- Hidden by the focus on overall trends, however, their return. Moreover, as the rate of new ties on the outside sufficient for us to deter- is the fact that much of the most recent in- admissions to State prisons levels off, these mine he is ready to be released.” crease is due to an increase in time served facilities are increasingly becoming populated rather than new admissions. Further analysis by parole violators, raising new questions The underpinnings of this approach have reveals that admissions resulting from parole about the effectiveness of sanctions for been severely weakened by research findings, violations now drive much of the prison postrelease misconduct. public outcry, and political attacks from the growth: Parole violators now constitute 34 The pressure on parole left and right. Rehabilitation programs were percent of all admissions, a figure that has found by researchers to be ineffective; parole almost doubled since 1980.7 The growth in The movement to abolish or severely restrict decisions were faulted as highly arbitrary; absolute numbers underscores the power parole continues to attract support in the and parole supervision, even if intensive, of parole failures to increase prison popula- political arena. We are a long way from the was found not to reduce recidivism.5 Finally, tions: In 1991, about 140,000 parole viola- ideals of the Model Penal Code, which grant- public pressure has undermined confidence tors were returned to prison; 7 years later, ed parole boards enormous power to decide in the parole system, particularly because that number had risen to more than 200,000 — the moment and conditions of reentry. of the highly visible, heinous crimes commit- a 45-percent increase.8 Another policy per- Mandatory minimums, sentencing guide- ted by some parolees who might otherwise spective highlights the lost reentry opportu- have been in prison. In this environment, nities represented by these developments: 4 Sentencing & Corrections

In 1984, 70 percent of those who left parole has been served. Placing an offender in a The success of the drug status were determined to be “successful”; in drug treatment program and explaining the treatment continuum 1996, less than half successfully completed terms of his participation in drug court can One of the more important developments their parole terms and a like percentage were be the beginning of the road to recovery from under way in criminal justice policy is the returned to prison.9 Parole supervision is drug addiction. linkage of criminal justice processes to drug now as likely to end up in revocation as in treatment processes. Drug courts are one reintegration. The events that occur with some frequency manifestation; increased funding for drug in the pretrial context of reentry management treatment in prisons is another; expanded In short, the factors governing use of prison can induce us to think more broadly about use of drug testing as a condition of pretrial space for punishment purposes have changed reentry in the postimprisonment context. We release, probation, or parole is still another. significantly. The growing number of prisoners might ask questions not typically considered at These developments shed light on a reconsid- released on parole who face an increased the point of release from prison: What author- eration of reentry. Research findings on the likelihood of revocation will be an ever greater itative figure should explain the conditions of effectiveness of drug treatment offer hope driver of prison expansion. Reversing the trend liberty to a prisoner? Can adequate provisions that recidivism can be reduced. New models would certainly relieve pressure on prison be made for victim safety and public safety? of treatment supervision and judicial oversight space. More successful reentry management Can restitution goals be incorporated and suggest different approaches to reentry man- would also restore parole supervision as a achieved? Can participation in drug treatment agement. And the understanding of relapse period of transition to a law-abiding life. or other support programs be integrated into leads to new strategies for risk management. the process of reentry from prison? The les- ■ ■ ■ sons learned from innovative pretrial practices Treatment effectiveness in the criminal can inform the development of policies to justice context. The evaluation of Delaware’s Reentry—cues from the manage reentry on the other end of the con- “Key-Crest” therapeutic community treatment pretrial phase tinuum—from prison to the community. program typifies the literature on treatment t is useful to note that reentry is a nearly effectiveness and demonstrates the efficacy ■ ■ ■ Iuniversal experience for criminal defen- of a continuum of treatment after release. dants, not just returning prisoners. Everyone New directions in policy Researchers found that drug-involved offend- who is arrested, charged with a crime, and ers who were treated both in prison and after then released from custody moves from a ortunately, at the same time parole has release did better at staying drug free and state of imprisonment to a state of liberty. Flost its effectiveness as reentry manager, arrest free than those who received no treat- Everyone who is released on bail, placed on important innovations are taking place that ment. They also did better than those treated probation after a period of pretrial detention, suggest different opportunities—and risks— only in prison. In other words, treatment sentenced to weekend jail, or released to a for managing reentry in new ways. The drug following release produced a powerful drug treatment facility experiences a form of treatment continuum, for example, mixes “booster” effect. Preliminary findings of reentry. treatment processes with criminal justice a 3-year followup of these 6-month and 18- processes to achieve successful reentry by month studies confirmed the effectiveness Reentry in the pretrial context offers insights reducing drug use and recidivism. Recent of a continuum of treatment after release.10 that can enhance reexamination of the classic policies on sex offenders are a counterexam- Similar research in drug courts is not yet challenges posed by returning prisoners. ple showing how policy shifts and new legal mature, but evidence from the programs and Something as simple as a clear explanation of doctrines can militate against successful from a limited number of evaluative studies the terms of pretrial release, made by a judge reentry. Innovative programs that manage is very promising.11 Contrary to the view that to a defendant and his family, can advance the community supervision to achieve public “nothing works,” this research supports the interests of justice. Notifying the victim of safety demonstrate how a variety of criminal conclusion that drug treatment, provided in spousal abuse that her attacker is about to be justice agencies can enforce the terms of the criminal justice context, works to reduce released—and developing safety plans and reentry. Finally, restorative justice programs crime and drug abuse. securing appropriate protective orders—can are defining new roles for victims, families, help ensure her safety. Requiring that an and offenders, as well as for judges, police Reentry models. The innovations in the offender provide for restitution while on officers, and others, in shaping the terms of drug treatment continuum also provide rich probation can make victims feel that justice reentry. examples of successful reentry management. Sentencing & Corrections 5

Drug treatment programs in prison are clas- “zero tolerance,” the concept recognizes the tional questions: What would be the continu- sic reentry initiatives. They assume a fixed possibility of relapse as a daily threat. People um of risk management? What internal and (or predictable) release date. Typically, only who have been sober for decades still identify external support systems would be construct- inmates within a year of release may partici- themselves as alcoholics who take sobriety a ed for the offender? What level of personal pate. The programmatic offering is explicitly day at a time. accountability would be required? How would tied to the conditions of reentering the com- the support system be activated at times of munity—how to avoid relapse. And for pro- The moment of relapse is an occasion to relapse, whether real or potential? How would grams like Delaware’s Crest, which include work harder to support the individual offender, moments and environments that trigger re- postrelease supervision, the continuum is not an occasion to shun or exile him. Viewed lapse be reduced? How could the scarce complete and reentry is managed from the from this perspective, the practice of sending resource of imprisonment be calibrated to community side as well. a parolee back to prison to finish the rest of new acts of antisocial behavior? his term because of dirty urine or a technical Although drug courts do not represent them- violation of parole seems bizarre indeed. The The sex offender conundrum selves as being in the reentry business, the parsimonious sanctions meted out by drug The shifting sands of policies on sex offenders drug court movement also offers relevant courts, designed to change behavior, mark underscore the need for careful development insights. Participating offenders are continual- a different path for achieving the goals of of new reentry paradigms. Few areas of sen- ly reminded by the judge that their good reintegration. tencing policy have seen redefinition as exten- behavior buffers them from the loss of liberty. sive as this one. Currently, 49 States require Most drug courts operate with clearly articu- Finally, the concept of relapse recognizes the that communities be notified so residents lated contracts. A typical contract may state growing body of scientific literature demon- know when a convicted sex offender comes to that the first drug-positive urine test will strating that environmental factors can trigger live in their midst. Every State now has a sex result in a warning, the second in a day in brain reactions related to the disease known offender registry (some of them are even the jury box (truly low-cost detention), the as addiction.12 Simply placing a recovering online or on CD-ROM, with photos of the third in a 3-day stay in jail, and the fourth in addict at the street corner where he used to offenders) maintained by law enforcement revocation of bail or imposition of a sentence buy drugs may cause chemical reactions in agencies. A National Sex Offender Registry, of imprisonment. his brain that increase the craving for the ordered by the President in 1996, became drug. Thus, relapse prevention frequently fully operational in 1999. Some States subject This finely calibrated use of the scarce re- involves managing the addict’s access to a sex offenders who are on parole or proba- sources of judicial authority and prison ca- stimulating environment and training him to tion to regular polygraph tests to ascertain pacity to achieve demonstrable changes in sever the links between that environment and whether they have experienced the urge to behavior has revolutionary implications for his actions. As Michael E. Smith and Walter J. commit new sex offenses (or have already the current operating philosophies of proba- Dickey argue in another paper in this series, done so). Chemical castration is advocated tion and parole. Is it possible to imagine a the risk posed by an offender in the commu- by some as an appropriate form of punish- system in which success and failure at meet- nity is highly contextual.13 “Risk” is not a ment. The Supreme Court recently ruled (see ing the conditions of postconviction release static attribute of a particular offender; rather, Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S.Ct. 2072) that a are so carefully monitored by a figure having an offender’s environment, including prospec- State may hold sexual predators beyond their the moral authority of a drug court judge, tive guardians and opportunities for reoffend- sentence if they are found “mentally abnormal” with such clearly delineated consequences ing, influences his propensity to make unwise and likely to commit new crimes, and that for failure (and rewards for success), and choices. Just as drug court judges and drug this confinement does not constitute punish- with the sparing use of prison to achieve treatment providers seek to reduce the risk of ment.14 socially desirable results? relapse by focusing on the context of offend- ing, so too reentry managers must account Questions in search of answers. These Deconstructing risk and relapse. Finally, for the context into which returning prisoners remarkable pressures on previously settled on a more conceptual level, the success of are placed. doctrines of jurisprudence and theories of the drug treatment continuum illustrates the punishment are worthy of study on their own applicability of the concept of “relapse” in Applying some of the lessons of the drug terms. They raise a number of questions: the criminal justice context. Standing in stark treatment continuum to the generic reentry Where should sex offenders live—clustered contrast to popular criminal justice notions of phenomenon might prompt us to ask addi- together or scattered so that each community 6 Sentencing & Corrections

has its “share”? Can a person have his name the inside and the outside and could pose of agencies that then enforced those expecta- legitimately removed from a sex offender questions such as the following: How are sex tions when violence resurfaced. registry? (Indeed, what constitutes a “sex offenders prepared for their new status on offender”?) How should communities react release? How are their families and support “Exhibit B” is the Neighborhood Based when notified that a new neighbor is on such systems made part of the equation? How are Supervision (NBS) program of Washington a list? How should sex offenders be treated relapse issues handled, and what is expected State’s Department of Corrections, which when in mental institutions that look like of the offender and his support system when takes community corrections officers out prisons? On what basis will they be deter- relapse becomes a real possibility? How are from behind their desks and places them mined ready for release and with what condi- the police involved in the process? How are directly in neighborhoods. There they join tions? The rapidly changing policies on these mental health providers involved? How are forces with community policing officers to issues are also noteworthy because the re- communities engaged in the parole decision? work with the community in supervising search on sex offenses and offenders is no- What convincing arguments can be made released offenders. With NBS in Spokane, tably weak. Not much is known about sex against the predictable sex-offender version the traditional monitoring role of probation offenders beyond the fact that there are of NIMBY? This inquiry would enable us to and parole has expanded to include that of many types. Adult rapists, child rapists, ped- refocus some of the policy questions inherent information and resource broker, mediator, erasts, pedophiles, child abusers—all are in reentry management broadly defined. adviser, advocate, and counselor, and the quite different from each other. Little is community is brought into the process to known about the trajectory of behavior over The public safety rationale for help hold offenders accountable for their the lifetime of an offender. What triggers the community corrections behavior. behavior? What causes desistence? What Reconsideration of reentry issues is timely treatments work? also because of a new sentiment in the com- “Exhibit C” is the demonstration project now munity corrections profession that can make under way in two Wisconsin counties. The Could a case study offer answers? A community supervision, if redefined, a major premise is that released offenders can be a focused study of sex offender programs would contribution to public safety. resource for reducing crime. Judges, proba- shed light on the way reentry issues are de- tion and parole agents, and prosecutors work fined in the crosscurrents of correctional The approach in practice. “Exhibit A” in together to develop strategies for imposing policy, sentencing policy, and the politics of this line of argument is the Boston experi- and carrying out sentences that reflect a crime in this highly charged atmosphere. ence. A coalition of criminal justice entities contextual assessment of an offender’s risk Ohio’s experience suggests the possibilities. spanning the range of Federal and State agen- to the community. In this pilot project, the Almost 20 percent of the State’s corrections cies, from enforcement to probation, system- concept of risk is redefined to reflect the day- population consists of inmates classified as atically set out to reduce gun violence among to-day realities of the offender’s life in his sex offenders.15 The Sex Offender Risk youth gang members. The results have been community. This movement from a strict “just Reduction Center, established in 1995 by breathtaking. In the 2 years following imple- deserts” mode of sentencing to a risk-based Reginald Wilkinson, Director of Ohio’s mentation in 1996, homicide victimization model also provides the foundation for new Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, among young people in Boston (those under sentencing legislation in Washington State. offers an integrated approach involving outpa- 24) fell more than 70 percent—to levels tient and residential programs directed by below even those of the years preceding the What these programs have in common is the mental health professionals and the require- youth violence epidemic.16 A critical compo- idea that offenders under community supervi- ment that all sex offenders continue and nent of the experiment was the probation sion are a valuable asset. Stated differently, the complete programming after release. The department, which notably did not act alone research finding that offenders under proba- extensive psychological programming and but, rather, in close concert with the police. tion and parole supervision commit a dispro- the links to community-based programs are In “Operation Night Light,” as the probation- portionate amount of crime presents a rare impressive and suggest intriguing compar- police component of the program is called, opportunity to produce a commodity— isons with the drug treatment continuum the courts agreed to set and enforce condi- safety—that is highly valued. Set against discussed earlier. tions of probation tailored to chronic youth- the low expectation of probation and parole ful offenders. These new expectations were agencies being able to deliver this commodity, A focused, pragmatic inquiry would examine communicated expressly and clearly to the such a view of community corrections be- the relationship between what is available on targeted youth population by a broad array comes imbued with the enthusiasm usually Sentencing & Corrections 7

seen in high-risk business ventures and too the activism of community justice teams. about behavior and its consequences? With rarely seen in criminal justice reform efforts. Deskbound, 9-to-5 casework is replaced these insights in hand, we could ask how a with enforcing curfews by camping outside seamless system of reentry could reinforce New goals and roles. This approach turns the probationer’s door at 10 p.m. to make these messages. traditional notions of offender-community sure he is home. The organizational bound- relationships upside down. Dennis Maloney aries and cultural incompatibility that kept Restorative justice has spearheaded the reinvention of communi- police and probation apart are replaced by Finally, the reentry discussion is timely be- ty corrections in Oregon’s Deschutes County common purpose. Offenders are seen as cause of innovations on the restorative justice under the banner of the community justice assets to be managed rather than merely frontier. Although this is a grassroots move- movement, a change in organizational cul- liabilities to be supervised. The organizing ment, much of the innovation is taking place ture suggested in the agency’s new name: principle of community corrections work is within the structure of the criminal justice the Department of Community Justice. He no longer a caseload organized by level of system. Thus, some is court based, with rallies his troops (the probationers) as risk determined by a scoring instrument, by the formal hearing giving way to an alterna- though they were being sent to work in type of offender, or randomly. In the new tive dispute resolution process involving the Civilian Conservation Corps camps during model, the work of community corrections victim, offender, lawyers, and community the Depression, assigning them to highly can be organized by the neighborhood where residents, in addition to the judge, in deci- visible public works projects as their repara- the offender lives, the location of the crime sionmaking.18 Some is police based, with tion for the harm they have caused. Michael problem to be addressed, or the place where officers facilitating family group conferences E. Smith and Walter J. Dickey, in Wisconsin, the community justice project is located. that involve victims, family members, and envision a street corner drug market where Finally, the role of the community corrections the offender.19 Some is corrections based, paroled offenders, parole officers, police officer is radically different. It is that of part- as exemplified by the Reparative Citizen officers, and young people likely to enter the ner with the police in enforcement (as in Boards, designed by Vermont Department drug market develop and implement strate- Boston), community outreach worker (as in of Corrections head John Gorcyzk, on which gies to reduce the level of violence and drug Spokane), and jobs and service broker (as in community members interact with offenders selling taking place there. Former Washington Deschutes County). to draw up a contract stipulating probation Corrections Administrator Chase Riveland, conditions.20 Some is prosecution based, as in his work with Neighborhood Based Finding the links to reentry. What still exemplified by the Neighborhood Conference Supervision in Spokane, put parole officers needs to be considered are the implications Committees developed under Travis County, and police officers in the same room, told of these initiatives for reentry—just how the Texas, District Attorney Ronald Earle, where them to go talk with community residents offender is released into this new world of panels of citizens meet with juvenile offenders about the offenders living in their midst, and supervision. A study of Boston’s experience and, separately, with their parents and togeth- was pleased when a parole officer told him would illustrate how judges, police officers, er draw up a contract spelling out the condi- the new team goal is to see increased home and probation officers explained to young tions of diversion from court.21 The range of ownership because that will mean the com- offenders on probation just what the new these restorative innovations and the energy munity is safer. In his work in Boston, terms of probation really mean. A study of behind them are truly exciting. Harvard’s David Kennedy highlights the im- Washington’s Neighborhood Based Supervi- portance of bringing all gang members to- sion would reveal what the parole and police Reintegration the goal. For purposes of this gether to meet with the U.S. attorney and officers working in Spokane have learned exploration of reentry, there is great power in every other relevant law enforcement official about setting community norms for offenders’ the notion, implicit in restorative justice initia- to hear the message that violence will no behavior following reentry. A study of tives, that an important purpose of the crimi- longer be tolerated and then enforcing that Deschutes County would demonstrate whether nal sanction is reintegrating the offender into message with action when necessary.17 the organizational transformation to a com- the community following his acceptance of munity justice department has translated into personal responsibility for the harm done to These initiatives are a far cry from traditional new expectations among prisoners awaiting victim and community and his “payment” of social work approaches to parole and proba- release. Do inmates know, for example, that appropriate penance. Of all the attention paid tion. Anonymity is replaced with in-your-face the parole they are about to receive is unlike to various “shaming” programs, little focuses contact. The prohibition against consorting any other they have experienced? How has the on the implications of the term “reintegra- with known criminals is replaced with language of the street conveyed new messages tive,” which, according to the literature, is 8 Sentencing & Corrections

the key modifier. Shaming without a reinte- by researchers to be most effective at reduc- keep up your end of the bargain, I will further grative purpose, the literature suggests, is ing crime23—are explicitly and formally given restrict your liberty, although only in amounts at best wasted effort and at worst counter- new tasks to accomplish in managing the proportionate to your failure. If you commit a productive.22 reintegration of the offender. crime again after your release, all bets are off. If you do keep up your end of the bargain, it Victims and the community. The second ■ ■ ■ is within my power to accelerate the comple- dimension of restorative justice philosophy tion of your sentence, to return privileges that relates to the victim and the community A provocative proposal might be lost (such as your right to hold cer- wronged by the crime. Victims cannot be et’s imagine a world unconstrained by tain kinds of jobs or your right to vote), and restored to the status quo ante, nor can Lbudgetary realities, legal conventions, or to welcome you back to the community.” offenders be expected to repair all financial implementation considerations. In that world, harm they caused their victims. Yet the social let’s consider a model of reentry that draws At the time of sentencing, the judge would and psychological “restoration” of victims is, on and applies the lessons learned from the also convene the stakeholders who would be in my view, a major societal purpose that can innovations described here. We make two responsible for the offender’s reentry. They be accomplished in the administration of assumptions: that people are still sent to would be asked to focus on that day, perhaps justice. Our current approach frustrates this prison, and that they are released back into years in the future, when John returns home. purpose, however. Progress is piecemeal. the community with some portion of their How can he be best prepared for that day and Meaningful participation of victims in court sentence still to be served. for a successful reentry? What does his sup- proceedings is a good beginning; it is accom- port network commit to doing to ensure that plished to a larger degree in restorative Judges as reentry managers success? A “community justice officer” (who programs. Restitution can be enhanced by If a new vision were written on a clean slate, could be a police officer, probation officer, or the involvement of victims. Respect for the the role of reentry management would best be parole officer) would also be involved, since processes of government can be enhanced. assigned, in my view, to the sentencing judge, there might be special conditions, geared to Fear of offenders can be reduced. Unfortunately, whose duties would be expanded to create a the neighborhood, that the offender would however, victim involvement, now increasingly “reentry court.” At the time of sentencing, the have to meet. required by statutes and constitutional amend- judge would say to the offender, “John Smith, ments, is often seen by the agencies of justice you are being sentenced to X years, Y months The judge-centered model described here as a burden rather than an opportunity to of which will be served in the community obviously borrows heavily from the drug advance the interests of justice. Restorative under my supervision. Our goal is to admit court experience. Both feature an ongoing, justice initiatives break new conceptual you back into our community after you pay central role for the judge, a “contract” drawn ground for the possibilities of substantive your debt for this offense and demonstrate up between court and offender, discretion on victim participation. your ability to live by our rules. Starting today, the judge’s part to impose graduated sanc- we will develop, with your involvement, a plan tions for various levels of failure to meet the Restorative justice initiatives also represent, to achieve that goal. The plan will require conditions imposed, the promise of the end without stating it in so many words, significant some hard work of you, beginning in prison of supervision as an occasion for ceremonial new processes for defining the terms of reen- and continuing—and getting harder—after recognition. try. The negotiation of relationships among you return to the community. It will also the parties affected by the crime results in a require that your family, friends, neighbors, Incarceration as a prelude new contract—with reentry of the offender and any other people interested in your wel- to reentry understood in terms of that contract. The fare commit to the goal of your successful If John goes to prison, a significant purpose victim, the family, the offender, and other return. I will oversee your entire sentence to of his activities behind bars would be prepa- interested parties have a direct role in negoti- make sure the goal is achieved, including ration for reentry. What does that mean? It ating the contract and consequently an inter- monitoring your participation in prison pro- depends on the type of offender and the est in its enforcement. “Supervision” is grams that prepare you for release. Many offense, and could include sex offender treat- privatized by allowing the forces of informal other criminal justice agencies—police, ment, job readiness, education and/or train- control—family, neighbors, police officers, corrections, parole, probation, drug treat- ing, a residential drug treatment program, victims—to be part of the supervisory ment, and others—will be part of a team and anger management. These activities process. These networks—the forces thought committed to achieving the goal. If you do not would also involve people, support systems, Sentencing & Corrections 9

and social service and other programs based from committing crime. He would be re- important, by focusing on the inexorable fact in John’s neighborhood. Drug treatment in quired to appear in court every month to that the prison sentence will one day be com- prison should be linked to drug treatment in demonstrate how well the plan was working. pleted and the offender will come back to the community, job training should be linked live in the community, the approach directs to work outside, and so forth. In other words, Making the contract work private and public energies and resources mirror support systems should be established The judge presiding over a reentry court toward the goal of successful reintegration. so that John can move from one to the other would be responsible for making sure that seamlessly upon release. John held up his end of the bargain and that ■ ■ ■ the government agencies and the support Even while in prison, John would continue to system were doing their parts. As in drug Conclusion pay restitution to his victim or to the commu- courts, the court appearances need not be o be sure, the reentry model outlined nity he has harmed—tangible, measurable long, drawn-out affairs; the purpose of invok- There would not find easy acceptance. restitution. A lot of time would be spent with ing the authority of the court would be to Even if it were embraced in principle, too John’s family, to keep family ties strong and impress on John that he has important work much may be invested in the current system to talk about what John will be like when to do and to mobilize the support network. to consider undertaking such a major over- he returns home. As the release date ap- The power of the court would be invoked haul. Then there are the multiple logistical proached, the circle would widen, as the sparingly when John failed to make progress. challenges, with workload considerations— support system was brought into the prison The court would view relapse in its broadest particularly those of judges and community to discuss how to keep the offender on the sense and would use the powers at its dispos- corrections officers—paramount. The main straight and narrow after release. Buddy al (to impose prison sentences, greater challenge would be to build the interagency systems would be established and training in restrictions on liberty, fines, and similar relationships essential to making the model the early warning signs of relapse provided. sanctions) to ensure that John toes the line. work. That would involve, among other Again, the community justice officer could His family and other members of his support things, creating a link on the conceptual level broker this process. All the while, the judge system would be encouraged to attend these between incarceration on the one hand and would be kept apprised of progress. court hearings. The community justice officer probation and parole on the other. would keep the court apprised of neighbor- Setting the terms of release hood developments involving the offender. To Perhaps the rationales for revisiting reentry When released, John would be brought back the extent John became involved in programs outlined here—among them current sentenc- to court, perhaps the same courtroom where that made his community safer, there would ing policies that mean more returning he was sentenced. A public recognition cere- be occasion for special commendation. The offenders, the issue of relapse, the eclipse mony would be held, before an audience of judge would be empowered by statute to of traditional parole—are not convincing on family and other members of the support accelerate the end of the period of supervi- their own. But add to them the array of inno- team, and the judge would announce that sion, to remove such legal restrictions as the vations under way on such fronts as drug John has completed a milestone in repaying ban on voting, and to oversee John’s “gradua- courts, the pretrial phase of justice process- his debt to society. Now, the judge would tion” from the program—his successful ing, and restorative justice, as well as in proj- declare, the success of the next step depends reentry into the community. ects nationwide that are marshaling the forces on John, his support system, and the agencies of corrections in the service of public safety, of government represented by the community This approach would have several benefits. It and the times seem to offer that rare mix of justice officer. cuts across organizational boundaries, mak- policy challenge and opportunity for new ways ing it more likely that offenders are both held of doing business. The terms of the next phase would be clearly accountable and supported in fulfilling their articulated. If John’s case were typical, he part of the reentry bargain. By involving family Notes would have to remain drug free, make restitu- members, friends, and other interested par- 1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, unpublished data tion to his victim and reparation to his com- ties in the reentry plan, it expands the reach for 1998; Prisoners in State and Federal munity, work to make his community safer, of positive influences upon the offender. By Institutions on December 31, 1980, National participate in programs that began in prison creating a supervisory role for judges, the Prisoner Statistics Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. (work, education, and the like), avoid situa- approach gives them far greater capacity to Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, tions that could trigger relapse, and refrain achieve the purposes of sentencing. Most March 1982: 2, 7, NCJ 80520; Correctional Populations in the United States, 1996, 10 Sentencing & Corrections

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 10. Inciardi, James A., A Corrections-Based Jeremy Travis, former Director of the National Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1999: 86, Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treat- Institute of Justice, is a Senior Fellow with The NCJ 170013. ment, Research Preview, Washington, DC: U.S. Urban Institute. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2. Ditton, Paula M., and Doris James Wilson, June 1996, NCJ 152692; and Martin, Stan, et al., Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons, Special This study was supported by cooperative agreement “Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 97–MUMU–K006 between the National Institute of Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999: Justice and the University of Minnesota. From Prison to Work Release to Aftercare,” Prison 3, NCJ 170032. Journal 79 (3) (September 1999): 294–320. Findings and conclusions of the research reported 3. The latest figure, for 1997, indicates that 18.6 11. See Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts, here are those of the author and do not necessarily percent of prisoners released from State prison Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. leave without correctional supervision (Ditton Project, American University, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. and Wilson, Truth in Sentencing, 10). Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, The National Institute of Justice is a component 4. Ibid., 2. Drug Courts Program Office, June 1998: 4, NCJ of the Office of Justice Programs, which also 171140. 5. Glaser, Daniel, The Effectiveness of a Prison includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the and Parole System, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- 12. Rawson, Richard A., Treatment for Stimul- Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Merrill, 1969; Martinson, Robert, “What Works? ant Use Disorders (Treatment Improvement Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the —Questions and Answers About Prison Reform,” Protocol [TIP] Series, 33), DHHS Publication No. Office for Victims of Crime. Public Interest 35 (2) (1974): 22–54; Sechrest, SMA 99–3296, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Lee, Susan White, and Elizabeth Brown, The Health and Human Services, Center for Substance This and other NIJ publications can be found Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems Abuse Treatment, 1999. at and downloaded from the NIJ Web site and Prospects, Washington, DC: National Academy (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij). 13. Reforming Sentencing and Corrections for of Sciences, 1979; DiIulio, John, “Reinventing Just Punishment and Public Safety, Research in NCJ 181413 Parole and Probation,” Brookings Review 15 (2) Brief, Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the (1997): 40–42; Citizens’ Inquiry on Parole and 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Criminal Justice, Report on New York Parole, New Justice, National Institute of Justice and Corrections 19. An example is the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, York: Citizens’ Inquiry, 1974; Petersilia, Joan, and Program Office, September 1999, NCJ 175724. Police Family Group Conferencing program. Susan Turner, “Intensive Probation and Parole,” in The report of the NIJ-sponsored evaluation is Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 14. 521 U.S. 346, 1997. “Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem 17, ed. Michael Tonry, Chicago: University of 15. Information from the Bureau of Research, Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Chicago Press, 1993: 281–335. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Project,” by Paul McCold and Benjamin Wachtel, 6. The rhetorical point is not the literal fact. A Figure is as of 1999. final report submitted to NIJ, May 1998 (grant no. certain proportion of prisoners do not return 95–IJ–CX–0042). 16. Boston Police Department, “Operation Cease to the community. Of the 1.2 million prisoners, Fire,” unpublished document, no date (abstract 20. Vermont Reparative Probation, “Program a small number (about 3,300 per year) die in page). Overview,” n.p., 1999; and Vermont Reparative prison as a result of illness or other natural Probation, “Fact Sheet,” n.p., 1999. causes, suicide, execution, or for another reason. 17. Kennedy, David, “Pulling Levers: Getting Correctional Populations in the United States, Deterrence Right,” National Institute of Justice 21. The procedure followed by the Neighborhood 1996, 95. Journal 236 (July 1998): 2–8. Conference Committees is described in Travis County Neighborhood Conference Committees 7. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional 18. Stuart, Barry, “Circle Sentencing in Canada: Training Manual, Version VI, n.p., June 1999. Populations in the United States, 1996, iii, 9; A Partnership of the Community and the Criminal Snell, Tracy L., Correctional Populations in Justice System,” International Journal of 22. Braithwaite, J., Crime, Shame and the United States, 1993, Washington, DC: U.S. Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 20 Reintegration, New York: Cambridge University Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2) (Fall 1996): 291–309; Bazemore, Gordon, Press, 1994: 55, 81, 102; and Braithwaite, J., October 1995: 12, NCJ 156241. “Conferences, Circles, Boards, and Mediations: “Reintegrative Shaming, Republicanism, and The ‘New Wave’ of Community Justice Decision- Policy,” Crime and Public Policy, ed. Hugh D. 8. Figure for 1991 calculated from Correctional making,” Federal Probation 61 (2) (June 1997): Barlow, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995: 193–194. Populations in the United States, 1996; figure 25–37; and Stuart, Barry, “Circle Sentencing: for 1998 figure is from unpublished Bureau of 23. See Neighborhood Collective Efficacy—Does Turning Swords Into Ploughshares,” in Justice Statistics data. It Help Reduce Violence? by Robert J. Sampson, Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls, Research 9. Petersilia, Joan, “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in ed. Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson, Monsey, NY: Preview, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, the United States,” in Prisons, ed. Michael Tonry Criminal Justice Press, 1996: 193–206. National Institute of Justice, April 1998, FS 000203. and Joan Petersilia (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 26), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 513. Sentencing & Corrections 11

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

Neal Bryant Susan M. Hunter Michael Quinlan Senator Chief, Prisons Division Former Director Oregon State Senate National Institute of Corrections Federal Bureau of Prisons U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Harold Clarke Director Leena Kurki Chase Riveland Department of Correctional Services Research Associate Principal State of Nevada Law School Riveland Associates University of Minnesota Cheryl Crawford Project Associate Thomas W. Ross Deputy Director, Office of Executive Sessions on Sentencing Superior Court Judge, Development and Communications and Corrections 18th Judicial District National Institute of Justice Chair, North Carolina Sentencing U.S. Department of Justice John J. Larivee and Policy Advisory Commission Chief Executive Officer Barbara Damchik-Dykes Community Resources for Justice Dora Schriro Project Coordinator Director Executive Sessions on Sentencing Joe Lehman Department of Corrections and Corrections Secretary State of Missouri Department of Corrections Walter Dickey State of Washington Michael Smith Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law Professor of Law University of Wisconsin Dennis Maloney University of Wisconsin Director Ronald Earle Deschutes County (Oregon) Morris Thigpen District Attorney Department of Community Justice Director Austin, Texas National Institute of Corrections Larry Meachum U.S. Department of Justice Tony Fabelo Director Director Corrections Program Office Michael Tonry Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council Office of Justice Programs Director U.S. Department of Justice Institute of Criminology Richard S. Gebelein University of Cambridge Superior Court Judge Mark H. Moore Sonosky Professor of Wilmington, Delaware Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Law and Public Policy Policy and Management University of Minnesota John Gorczyk John F. Kennedy School of Government Project Director Commissioner Harvard University Executive Sessions on Sentencing Department of Corrections and Corrections State of Vermont Norval Morris Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminology Jeremy Travis Kathleen Hawk Sawyer University of Chicago Senior Fellow Director The Urban Institute Federal Bureau of Prisons Joan Petersilia Former Director U.S. Department of Justice Professor of Criminology, National Institute of Justice Law and Society U.S. Department of Justice Sally T. Hillsman School of Social Ecology Deputy Director University of California, Irvine Reginald A. Wilkinson National Institute of Justice Director U.S. Department of Justice Kay Pranis Department of Rehabilitation Restorative Justice Planner and Correction Martin Horn Department of Corrections State of Ohio Secretary State of Minnesota Department of Corrections Commonwealth of Pennsylvania