Date: April 29, 2024 Mon

Time: 8:08 pm

Results for alternatives to incarceration

288 results found

Author: Mackin, Juliette Title: Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment Court 10-Year Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: The Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment Court (DTC) was implemented with the goal of identifying people with a substance abuse addiction and offer them a program with treatment as an alternative to incarceration. This report provides a 10-year follow-up of a cohort of the DTC participants and compares their outcomes to a group of offenders who had similar criminal histories and demographic backgrounds but who had not participated in any of the Baltimore City adult drug treatment court programs. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009 Source: Submitted to Office of Problem-Solving Courts, Annapolis, MD Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114591 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts

Author: Bennett, David M. Title: Jail Capacity Planning Guide: A Systems Approach Summary: This guide describes key population management strategies that have as their foundation the necessity of holding offenders accountable while making judicious use of detention resources. The guide also makes the case for the importance of identifying offenders who pose higher risks and targeting them for the most intensive correctional resources, making available a full continuum of alternatives to jail, relying on evidence based sanctions and quality treatments, and building in transition and stepdown options from jails. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 81p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117698 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Institutions Jails

Author: Convery, Una Title: Addressing Offending by Women: A Literature Review Summary: This report provides a review of recent published literature relating to women's offending behavior and approaches adopted to address offending by women. The literature is primarily drawn from England and Wales, and Scotland, with some reference to international research, in particular in Canada and draws upon research, albeit limited relating to women who offend in Northern Ireland. The report is broken down into the following chapters: Reducing women's offending; Alternatives to prosecution and custody; Community supervision; Women's centre provision; and Gender-specific approach to custody. Details: Belfast: Statistics and Research Branch, Criminal Justice Directorate, Northern Ireland Office, 2010. Source: NIO Research and Statistical Series: Report No. 21 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118430 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Female Inmates Female Offenders (United Kingdom) Prisoners (Females)

Author: Garside, Richard Title: From Criminal Justice to Social Justice: Rethinking Approaches to Young Adults Subject to Criminal Justice Control Summary: This brief paper argues for increasing the number of interventions with young adults in the U.K. that place social justice, not criminal justice, at their core. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource; Transition to Adulthood, No. 3 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119272 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Justice Policy (U.K.) Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Easton, Helen Title: Conditional Cautions: Evaluation of the Women Specific Condition Pilot Summary: In September 2008 a new condition was developed for dealing with low-level, low-risk women offenders as part of the existing conditional caution scheme. The condition is referred to as the women specific condition (WSC) and is a rehabilitative condition requiring the woman offender to attend a Together Women centre for a needs assessment at a pre-arranged time and date. This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the pilot of the WSC over six months in three pilot areas. The aim of the research was to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the WSC. Evidence was collected on the view of stakeholders and women offenders on the WSC and looked at how the WSC was implemented in different pilot areas. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 66p. Source: Internet Resource; Ministry of Justice Research Series 14/10 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119345 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Female Offenders Rehabilitation

Author: VanNostrand, Marie Title: Alternatives to Pretrial Detention: Southern District of Iowa: A Case Study Summary: The pretrial detention rates for the Southern District of Iowa reached their highest levels between July 2006 and June 2007 with detention rates of 69.5% including immigration cases and 67.3% excluding immigration cases. The detention rates at that time were significantly above the national average of 61.7% and were the highest in the 8th Circuit which averaged 57.2% during the same period. It was the awareness of the increasing detention rates that led U.S. Pretrial Services in the Southern District of Iowa to commence a project with the goal of increasing the utilization of alternatives to detention when appropriate to increase pretrial release rates while assuring court appearance and community safety. The District partnered with Luminosity, Inc. to conduct an objective and research-based assessment of the project progress two years following implementation. This report contains (1) background information related to pretrial release and detention, pretrial services, the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, and the concept of the EBP risk principle and (2) detailed findings of the assessment. The assessment revealed that the Southern District of Iowa was able to substantially increase the utilization of alternatives to detention resulting in a pretrial release rate increase of 15% while assuring court appearance and community safety. In fact, the increased pretrial release rate was accompanied by an increase in court appearance rate by 2.6% and decreases in both new alleged criminal activity rate (1.7% decrease) and revocations due to technical violations (2.8% decrease) for defendants released pending trial. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 119566 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Bail Pretrial Detention (Iowa) Pretrial Justice Pretrial Services Risk Assessment

Author: Shubik-Richards, Claire Title: Philadelphia's Crowded, Costly Jails: The Search for Safe Solutions Summary: Today, the government of the city of Philadelphia spends seven cents out of every tax dollar on holding people in its jails. That is more than it spends on any other function besides police and human services—and as much as it spends on the streets and health departments combined. Its spending on jails is nearly as high as that of Cook County, Illinois, even though Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago, has more than three times as many residents as Philadelphia. Over the last 10 years, the departmental budget has more than doubled, reaching $240 million in the current fiscal year. That figure, however, understates the true cost of prison operations, as it does not include employee benefits. With benefits, the number is about $290 million. This increase in spending has been driven by a rising number of inmates. As of mid-2008, the most recent date for which comparative numbers are available, Philadelphia had the fourth-highest jail population on a per capita basis among the cities and counties with the nation’s 50 largest jail populations. From 1999 through 2008, the Philadelphia Prison System saw its average daily inmate count climb by 45 percent, peaking at 9,787 for the month of January 2009. This was one of the largest such increases in the country, and it came at a time when jail populations in the nation’s two largest jurisdictions, New York City and Los Angeles County, were declining. Since mid-2009, however, the population in the prison system has fallen steadily; the average daily population stood at 8,464 for March 2010, down 13 percent from the peak. These developments in the inmate population—both the long-term rise and short-term fall—generally have not tracked the crime rate; for most of the past decade, as the inmate population numbers were rising, the arrest numbers often were declining. Rather, the shifts in the population are related primarily to changes in procedures, legislation and policies involving the police, the courts and the various elements of the criminal justice system. To a large extent, the evidence in this report indicates that the size of the population of the Philadelphia Prison System is within the power of policy makers to control—without compromising the fight against crime. It suggests that Philadelphia can have fewer people in jail, save money and be no less safe. (Excerpts from the report) Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2010 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphias_Crowded_Costly_Jails_rev.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphias_Crowded_Costly_Jails_rev.pdf Shelf Number: 119651 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Inmates (Philadelphia) Jails (Philadelphia)

Author: Orchowsky, Stan Title: A Review of the Status of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Efforts in Iowa and Virginia Summary: In 2007, the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) began a project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to examine the strategies that have been implemented in Iowa and Virginia to reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the states’ juvenile justice systems. We were especially interested in using these states as case studies of how states and localities are utilizing empirical information to: (1) identify the extent and nature of the DMC problem; and (2) assess the effectiveness of their efforts to reduce DMC. In each state, we sought to examine both state-level efforts, as well as ongoing efforts in two targeted localities (Johnson and Linn counties in Iowa, and the cities of Newport News and Norfolk in Virginia), to address DMC. To accomplish the goal of the project, staff examined all available documents relating to DMC in both states, with a particular focus on those produced in the last five years. We also conducted interviews with state and local stakeholders in both states and attended meetings of local planning groups addressing DMC issues. We sought data from both states and were able to obtain data from Iowa, which were used to illustrate how local DMC initiatives could be assessed. In October of 2008, JRSA released an interim report on our findings to date (Poulin, Iwama & Orchowsky, 2008). The current report summarizes the overall findings, conclusions and recommendations of our effort. It builds on the findings presented in the interim report and further work that has been done since that report was released. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2010. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/pubs/reports/dmc-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 119683 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Discrimination in Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offenders (Tasmania, Australia) Minority Groups Race and Crime

Author: Rice, Linda Title: Conditional Cautions: Lessons Learnt from the Unpaid Reparative Work Pilot Implementation Summary: A pilot testing the implementation of the unpaid reparative work conditional caution (RWC), a type of out-of-court disposal, took place between December 2006 and September 2007. The purpose of the RWC was to enable offenders to make good any damage they had caused by carrying out up to 20 hours of specified work. The report describes the research that was carried out to explore the reasons for the low take-up of the RWC and to identify the lessons learnt from the pilot implementation process. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 5/10: Accessed September 2, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/conditional-cautions-unpaid-reparative-work-pilot.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/conditional-cautions-unpaid-reparative-work-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 119732 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Service Sentencing

Author: Biehal, Nina Title: A Report on the Intensive Fostering Pilot Programme Summary: This intervention is targeted at serious and persistent young offenders for whom the alternative to fostering would be custody or an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. In 2005, the Youth Justice Board commissioned agencies in three parts of England to pilot the evidence-based intervention Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care model which had been developed by the Oregon Social Learning Centre in the USA and which, in the context of the English youth justice system, was to be known as Intensive Fostering. We conducted an evaluation using both qualitative and quantitative data to explore the successes and challenges of IF implementation. The study examines the experiences and outcomes of the first participants in the programme in England and compares them with the outcomes of a comparison group who were sentenced to custody or an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). This study also compares the cost of IF placements with custodial placements and assesses the cost of services used. This study draws on information provided by the IF teams and carers, and the views of young people and their parents. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2010. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/A%20Report%20on%20the%20Intensive%20Fostering%20Pilot%20Programme.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/A%20Report%20on%20the%20Intensive%20Fostering%20Pilot%20Programme.pdf Shelf Number: 119877 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Foster Care Intensive Supervision Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation, Juvenile Offenders

Author: Olotu, Michael Title: Evaluation Report: Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot Summary: This evaluation was initiated in response to a request for an analysis of CSC’s Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot (EMPP) and constituted an implementation evaluation intended to examine the progress of EMPP to date and establish a foundation upon which the design and delivery of EMPP could be realigned. Treasury Board standards for evaluation were used to examine the project’s continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness. On August 11th, 2008, the Minister of Public Safety Canada announced the launch of the pilot to electronically monitor offenders on conditional release in the community. Electronic monitoring was piloted within CSC in order to assess its potential as an additional tool for managing federal offenders in the community, thereby contributing to the safety of Canadians. More specifically, EMPP was intended to provide parole officers with additional offender supervision and monitoring tools in the community, increase offender accountability, encourage positive offender behaviour, and augment staff safety. Furthermore, the specific purposes of EMPP were to: Test CSC’s capacity to manage information received through GPS technology; Ensure that an appropriate policy framework and response protocols were in place; Assess staff readiness to use EM as a tool to assist in monitoring offenders in the community; Identify appropriate response protocols when an EM alert was received; and Identify future needs and requirements in relation to a potential larger scale, national EM program. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector, 2009. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/empp/empp-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119908 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Electronic Monitoring Parole

Author: Victorian Auditor-General Title: Managing Offenders on Community Corrections Orders Summary: Managing offenders in the community provides a range of financial and social benefits. It is a cost-effective alternative to imprisonment. It also enables offenders to maintain connection with their community, by retaining employment, social networks and accommodation. Offenders can also undertake programs designed to address their behaviour and reduce the likelihood of them re-offending. Community Correctional Services (CCS), within Corrections Victoria, is responsible for managing offenders on community orders. Its primary purpose is to enhance community safety primarily through a range of offender management processes and services, including risk and need assessments, program referrals and supervision to ensure offenders are complying with the conditions of their orders. This audit found that CCS has established a robust, evidence-based framework for offender management and for implementing a strong quality assurance process to monitor the application of the framework. However, what is missing is a meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of the program. The current outcome measures are not directly relevant. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20091125_CCO_Full_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20091125_CCO_Full_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 119910 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections

Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: The Specific Deterrent Effect of Custodial Penalties on Juvenile Re-offending Summary: It is widely assumed that placing offenders (juvenile or adult) in custody acts as a deterrent to further offending. The present study was designed to see whether juvenile offenders who receive a detention sentence are less likely to re-offend, controlling for other factors, than juvenile offenders given some other form of sentence. Two groups of offenders (152 given an detention sentence, 243 given a non-custodial sentence) were interviewed at length about their family life, school performance, association with delinquent peers and substance abuse. They were then followed up to determine what proportion in each group was reconvicted of a further offence. Cox regression was used to model time to reconviction. The study found no significant difference between juveniles given a custodial penalty and those given a non-custodial penalty in the likelihood of reconviction, even after controlling for factors that differ between the two groups. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 132: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb132.pdf/$file/cjb132.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb132.pdf/$file/cjb132.pdf Shelf Number: 116635 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Piehl, Anne Morrison Title: Institutional Requirements for Effective Imposition of Fines Summary: A long theoretical literature in economics addresses the heavy reliance of the U.S. criminal justice system on very expensive forms of punishment – prison – when cheaper alternatives – such as fines and other sanctions – are available. This paper analyzes the role of fines as a criminal sanction within the existing institutional structure of criminal justice agencies, modeling heterogeneity in how people respond to various sanctions and threat of sanctions. From research on the application of fines in the U.S., we conclude that fines are economical only in relation to other forms of punishment; for many crimes fines will work well for the majority of offenders but fail miserably for a significant minority; that fines present a number of very significant administrative challenges; and that the political economy of fine imposition and collection is complex. Despite these facts, and with the caveats that jurisdictions vary tremendously and that there are large gaps in our knowledge about them, we build a model showing that it is possible to expand the use of fines as a criminal sanction if institutional structures are developed with these concerns in mind. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16476: Accessed October 18, 2010 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16476.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16476.pdf Shelf Number: 120007 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Fines

Author: New South Wales. Audit Office Title: Home Detention: Corrective Services, NSW Summary: Home detention is a sentencing option that judges and magistrates can impose on less serious offenders instead of sending them to fulltime imprisonment. Detaining offenders in their homes keeps suitable offenders out of prison and away from hardened criminals. It also helps them to maintain family and community links and get treatment for the problems that led to their offending. Home detention was introduced in NSW in 1997 and has been available in the Sydney metropolitan, Newcastle and Wollongong areas. In 2008-09 the daily average number of offenders on home detention was about 175. This report looks at how well home detention is delivered across NSW by Corrective Services NSW, focusing on the critical areas of access, consistency and cost effectiveness. Details: Sydney: Audit Office of New South Wales, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/2010/home_detention/home_detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/2010/home_detention/home_detention.pdf Shelf Number: 119975 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Home Detention

Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (UK) Title: Time for a Fresh Start: The Report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Summary: The Commission’s inquiry was prompted by concern about deep-rooted failings in the response to antisocial behaviour and crime involving children and young people. Large sums of public money are currently wasted across England and Wales because: Investment in proven preventive measures and constructive sanctions is too low; Children and young people who could be turned away from a life of crime are not receiving timely help and support; and Those involved in persistent and serious offending are often treated in ways that do little to prevent reoffending – and may make their criminal behaviour worse. The Commission has concluded that the public can be offered better protection against youth crime and antisocial behaviour by: tackling antisocial behaviour, crime and reoffending through the underlying circumstances and needs in children and young people’s lives (a principle of prevention); ensuring that children and young people responsible for antisocial behaviour and crime face meaningful consequences that hold them accountable for the harm caused to victims and the wider community (a principle of restoration); and seeking to retain children and young people who offend within mainstream society or to reconnect them in ways that enable them to lead law-abiding lives. Details: London: The Police Foundation, 2010. 115 p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf Shelf Number: 120139 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Restorative Justice

Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: A New Era in California Justice Justice: Downsizing the State Youth Corrections System Summary: California created a statewide system of youth corrections facilities in 1941. The newly formed California Youth Authority (CYA) was considered a major progressive step forward in juvenile justice. Part of its focus in its early years was programming designed to keep youth close to their home communities. In its first three decades, the CYA population never exceeded 7,000. Leadership and policy changes in the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, started a long period of increase in the CYA population. By 1996, the number of incarcerated youth in the CYA grew steadily to over 10,000 youth. The rise was driven by several major factors: a fear that a growing California youth population was increasingly dangerous; a decrease in state funding to counties for local programs; and the cost savings to counties of sending youth to the CYA rather than county facilities or group homes. After 1996, the trend of a rising youth inmate population turned around, with fewer and fewer young people being held in the CYA. By the end of 2009, the CYA held 1,499 youth. This decline in the CYA population is the largest drop in youth confinement that has been experienced by any state. The research presented here attempts to examine the many factors that may have contributed to that “decarceration”. We also examine concurrent trends in crime, arrests, and the use of other, non‐CYA forms of custody for these youth. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley; Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/A_New_Era_10-22-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120142 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Offenders

Author: Bales, William Title: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Summary: Research Purposes: The purposes of this research include: (1) determining the effect of electronic monitoring (EM) as a supervision enhancement for offenders in terms of absconding, probation violations, and the commission of new crimes; (2) providing an explanation of the findings; (3) documenting the implementation of EM; (4) identifying and documenting the impact that EM has on offenders' personal relationships, families, employment, and assimilation within the community; and (5) developing evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety and lessen negative consequences for offenders and their families. Research Design and Methodology: Data sources include: (1) administrative data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), which include 5,034 medium- and high-risk offenders on EM and 266,991 offenders not placed on EM over a six year period; and (2) qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews with 105 offenders, 36 supervising officers, and 20 administrators from fourteen counties in Florida. Random assignment of offenders to the experimental (EM) and control (non-EM) groups was not possible; therefore, propensity score matching was employed to establish the two groups. Propensity score matching, as a statistical procedure, is an effective method of selecting subjects for experimental and control groups whereby selection bias is minimized and the groups closely resemble each other across key variables (Rubin, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002). One-hundred-twenty-two covariates were used to predict EM participation, which enhanced the predictive accuracy of the matching procedure. Cox's regression techniques were utilized to analyze time-to-failure for various outcome measures. The qualitative data, which included forced-choice and open-ended questions, were systematically analyzed and include descriptive statistics and illustrative quotes from respondents. Research Results and Conclusions: The quantitative analysis demonstrates that EM reduces offenders' risk of failure by 31 percent and that global positioning system (GPS) monitoring results in 6 percent fewer supervision failures compared to radio frequency (RF). All categories of offenders, regardless of offense type, experienced fewer supervision violations as a result of EM; however, the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all age groups and those on different forms of community supervision benefited from EM. The findings from the qualitative analysis indicates that: (1) administrators reported that EM goals and objectives were being met; (2) officers' and offenders' opinions of EM's impact on reducing undesirable behavior are consistent with the findings from the quantitative assessment; (3) EM status and equipment does have negative consequences for offenders' families, employment opportunities, and adjustment in the community; (4) there is a need to refine the selection of offenders identified as the most appropriate for EM; (5) EM is used as an alternative to prison in approximately one-third of the cases; (6) EM devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous, unnecessary alerts; (7) EM operations may benefit from increasing judges' understanding of the equipment, the most appropriate subjects for EM, and key operational aspects of EM; and (8) the most important, recent enhancement to FDOC's EM program has been the statewide monitoring center that has significantly reduced the number of alerts. This reduction in alerts enables officers to devote more time to essential supervisory responsibilities. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, 2010. 189p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/EM%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20for%20NIJ.pdf Shelf Number: 120159 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Electronic Monitoring Probationers

Author: Dedel, Kelly Title: Validating Multnomah County's Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Reform efforts targeting the detention population focus on two essential processes: 1) limiting the size of the detention population by setting risk-based thresholds to ensure that only those who pose a legitimate threat to public safety are admitted to detention; and 2) developing an array of alternatives to secure detention that offer a range of supervision and programming options. As these two strategies coalesce, jurisdictions committed to reform realize significant reductions in the use of secure detention. Since 1998, Multnomah County has been a national model for jurisdictions interested in enacting detention reform. With support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Multnomah County has implemented nearly all of the key components of a multifaceted reform effort, save for one essential task: validating its detention risk screening instrument to ensure it provides sound guidance in determining who should be admitted to detention. Although its use has led to positive changes and a drastic reduction in the number of youth who are held in secure detention, the County’s Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) has never been validated. In other words, the strength of the relationship between the items and score on the RAI and the youth’s likelihood of failing to appear in court (FTA) or committing a new offense while in the community pending court has not been tested. By testing the relationship between the RAI items and the outcome variables, we learn which items work best, and in which combinations, to identify youth who can be safely released to the community. A validation study may show that the RAI works best as it is; alternately, it could show that the same or better results could be achieved using a constellation of fewer items. This report presents the key findings of the validation study. Details: Portland, OR: One in 37 Research, Inc., 2007. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/documents/juvenile_detention_risk_assessment_instrument.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/documents/juvenile_detention_risk_assessment_instrument.pdf Shelf Number: 120202 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Risk Assessment

Author: Franco, Celinda Title: Drug Courts: Background, Effectiveness, and Policy Issues for Contress Summary: Drug courts are specialized court dockets, or portions of judges’ calendars of cases, that generally target nonviolent offenders with substance-abuse problems. These programs provide offenders with intensive court supervision, mandatory drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, and other social services as an alternative to adjudication or incarceration. In this way, drug courts are designed to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime by changing the behavior of substance-abusing offenders. Participation in these programs is voluntary. Eligible defendants must agree to the program’s requirements and successfully complete the program in exchange for avoiding incarceration, having their criminal charges reduced or dismissed, or having their sentences reduced. Drug courts encourage participants’ compliance and impose sanctions on those who fail to comply with the program’s requirements. Drug courts are widely considered an important strategy for reducing incarceration, providing drug treatment, and reducing drug use and recidivism (reoffending) among nonviolent offenders. Although drug courts are mostly initiated and funded at the state and local level, Congress has supported the development, implementation, and expansion of drug courts through the federal Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, originally authorized under Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). While the federal drug court grant program authorization of appropriations expired in FY2008, the program has continued to receive appropriations: $40 million for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) and $45 million for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117). In the 111th Congress, H.R. 6090 would amend the program and extend the authorization of appropriations for drug court grants from FY2011 through FY2017. Congress could consider reauthorizing the program in its current form or amending the program to reflect issues of concern. Since the first drug court was established in 1989, drug court programs have been quickly adopted by communities and states across the country. As of July 2009, there were 2,361 drug courts in operation across the country. Although there are drug courts in many jurisdictions, it is unclear how many drug-abusing offenders participate in these programs or how well they have fared after successfully completing a drug court program. Some estimates indicate that only a small number of potential participants are actually included in these drug treatment programs. Variations in how drug courts determine eligibility, provide substance-abuse treatment, supervise participants, and enforce compliance reflect the adaptability of the drug court model, but also complicate program evaluations, comparisons, and cost-benefit analyses. Nevertheless, research suggests that drug courts reduce substance abuse and recidivism among participants compared to nonparticipants, and are a viable intervention for reducing drug demand among substance-abusing offenders. This report considers these and other issues related to state drug courts. The report includes an overview of state drug courts and the related federal grant program. The report then discusses some of the related issues that may be of interest to Congress if it considers reauthorizing the drug court grant program or other related legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report for Congress, No. R41448: Accessed November 8, 2010 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41448.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41448.pdf Shelf Number: 120205 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Abuse and Crime Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drug Treatment

Author: Kaye, Robert Title: Fitting the Crime: Reforming Community Sentences: Mending the Weak Link in the Sentencing Chain Summary: Community sentences are the focus of renewed attention from UK politicians faced with unsustainable demand for prison places and the perceived cost and ineffectiveness of short-term prison sentences. Successions of Ministers in recent years have attempted to reform community disposals to make them more effective and to address legitimate public concern that they do not prevent reoffending and are not appropriate punishments. Before the mid 1990s, community sentences in England and Wales were focused on rehabilitation and designed for first time, less serious offenders. They are now a much more common form of disposal and are routinely used in response to serial recidivists. This mission creep has not been accompanied by systemic reform of community sentences to create a clearly defined and credible punishment. Instead, these sentences continue to suffer from a historic handicap that keeps them linked with rehabilitation instead of punishment, undermining them in the eyes of sentencers and the public. Current community sentences fail because they are fundamentally flawed, poorly administered and confused in their purpose. There is no contradiction between being “tough” and being “effective”. To be made better, community sentences first need to be refocused back to their core function of punishment and then radically reformed to improve compliance and reduce reoffending. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2010. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2010 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Fitting_the_Crime_-_Nov__10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Fitting_the_Crime_-_Nov__10.pdf Shelf Number: 120290 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Punishment Sentencing

Author: Bontrager, Stephanie Title: Redirection Services in Florida: One-Year Outcomes Summary: In 2004, the Florida Legislature funded a pilot program to address the growing number of juvenile offenders committed to residential programs for non-law violations of probation. A non-law violation of probation results when a youth fails to adhere to court-ordered probation requirements, such as breaking curfew, skipping school, or engaging in other non-criminal acts prohibited by the terms of probation. The pilot initiative was designed to divert, or redirect, these non-law violators from residential placement to community-based treatments. Under this Redirection Initiative, the following two commitment alternatives are available for youth meeting specified eligibility criteria: Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Prior research suggests that both of these programs are successful in preventing youth violence and delinquency. The purpose of the current evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of Redirection services in reducing recidivism. Recidivism is defined here as a subsequent juvenile adjudication or adult conviction within one year of program release. Additionally adult and juvenile outcomes include felony adjudication or conviction, arrest and felony arrest within one year of service completion. All youth released from and completing MST or FFT services or low, moderate or high-restrictiveness commitment programming between February 2005 and August 31, 2006 are examined in this evaluation. The effectiveness of Redirection was determined by comparing those completing Redirection programs to those in residential facilities. Finally, a cost analysis was prepared to demonstrate the potential financial savings of Redirection as an alternative to residential placement. The results demonstrate that: Youth who complete Redirection programming have better recidivism outcomes when compared to youth released from residential programming; Redirection youth are less likely to have a subsequent conviction or adjudication, and; The odds of felony adjudication or conviction are substantially lower for Redirection completers than residential placements. • Redirection services save the state approximately $27,059 per completion when compared to those completing low, moderate and high-risk residential placements; Diverting just 75 youth from residential to Redirection services has the potential to save the state over two million dollars. Redirection services are consistently linked to lower recidivism and significantly lower felony adjudication or conviction when contrasted with commitment placements. Furthermore, Redirection programming achieves these positive outcomes at considerably lower cost than more restrictive residential services. These outcomes collectively demonstrate that Redirection is a valuable and cost-effective alternative to committing youth to residential facilities. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Evidence-Based Assoicates, 2007. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2010 at: http://www.evidencebasedassociates.com/what_we_do/redirection/2007_jrc_outcome_evaluation.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.evidencebasedassociates.com/what_we_do/redirection/2007_jrc_outcome_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 120487 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Offenders (Florida) Recidivism Rehabilitation

Author: Richards, Patsy Title: Summary Justice Reform: Evaluation of Fiscal Work Order Pilots Summary: Fiscal Work Orders ( FWOs), introduced under Summary Justice Reform ( SJR) are the first community-based (unpaid work) disposals that can be issued by procurators fiscal in Scotland, as an alternative to prosecution in the courts. The disposal was also introduced as an alternative to financial penalties where means to pay was at issue; it was implemented on a pilot basis. This RF sets out findings from the evaluation of the first two years of FWO pilots, in relation to the SJR intended outcome - fewer minor cases going to court unnecessarily and the overarching SJR objective - a summary criminal justice system that is fair, efficient, effiective and quick and simple. This report presents the following findings: 1. In two years the pilots received 608 FWO referrals. The orders were run on an 'opt-in' basis and only two-thirds (422) of those referred attended for assessment. Most (404) who attended assessment were deemed suitable for a FWO, however only 345 people went on to start work placements. The two-thirds attrition rate was mostly due to non-attendance, although 35 people declined to take part. 2. A report for all non-attendance and non-compliance was submitted to fiscals for prosecution, those who declined the offer were also returned and 174 returned cases have been prosecuted to date. Completion rates for those who started an order were very high at 75% (259 orders). Although comparisons are not straightforward completion and non-completion rates compared well to other community-based disposals. 3. The efficiency of the pilots was reduced by low and patchy referral rates. This was attributed to the pilot design where only one fiscal office referred to each pilot; during staff absence or turnover, referrals fell (to zero in one instance before recovering). The target of 100 work orders per pilot per year was not achieved. 4. FWOs were regarded favourably by the majority of professionals and participants. The pilots ran work placements flexibly. Joint working between social work and fiscals was a key outcome. 5. In general FWOs were seen as FAIR, EFFECTIVE, QUICK AND SIMPLE. EFFICIENCY would have been improved had more fiscals been referring to each pilot. In fact as they operated on a fixed funding basis and all pilots said they could have handled more referrals unit costs could have been halved had the target of 100 orders per year been met. Notwithstanding, unit costs were still only half that of (longer and higher tariff) Community Service Orders. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2011. 61p.,; Summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 120633 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Prosecution, Alternatives Unpaid Work Orders

Author: Daly, Reagan Title: Capital Change: A Process Evaluation of Washington, DC's Secure Juvenile Placement Reform Summary: A growing body of research has persuaded most experts and many practitioners that punitive responses to juvenile offenders —particularly those placed in secure facilities — yield poor results for the youth involved and for public safety. Informed by this consensus, in 2005 officials in Washington, DC’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) began planning a comprehensive reform of the agency’s responses to youth in secure placement. This report presents findings from a year-long process evaluation of the reforms, in which Vera researchers explored both the strategy the agency used and factors that affected the implementation process. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3191/Capital-Change-process-evaluation-DC-FINAL2.pdf Shelf Number: 120663 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC)

Author: Kramer, John H. Title: Evaluation of RIP D&A Treatment Summary: From 1980 to 2005 Pennsylvania state prison population grew by 400%. Although is not possible to assess the extent to which drug addiction was the driving force for this tremendous increase but we do know that offenders incarcerated in state prison for drug offenses increased 2354% during this time frame and drug offenders accounted for 23.9% of the growth. Offenders convicted of drug offenses are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the role of drug abuse and crime. Support of drug abuse increases theft offenses, burglaries, robberies and other offenses as well. Beyond driving our investment in prison expansion, addiction exerts tremendous costs in terms of lost human resources, and increased health care costs. The growth in prison populations reflect public policy initiatives in the 1980's and 1999's such as the passage of mandatory minimums as our primary focus in stemming the drug abuse problem. Despite significant attempts to deter drug use though harsh penalties and attempts to limit the flow of drugs, drug use seems to have been minimally effected. A1s one Pennsylvania judge reflected to one of the authors, "Drug use is a supply and demand problem, and the more I attempt to change this with tough sentences the more convinced I am that we the way to deal with the drug problem is to reduce the demand through prevention and treatment." This comment joins with a growing refrain from criminal justice experts who see drug abuse as generally impermeable to sanctions and promising results through prevention and treatment. Pennsylvania recognized the need for community based treatment and drug treatment in 1990 by passing legislation expanding sentencing authority for judges to include Intermediate Punishment (IP) (Act 193 of 1990) and building into IP sanctions a strong drug treatment component. Importantly, Pennsylvania supported this with funding to counties for drug and alcohol treatment. The research reported here studies whether these important policy steps were effective at reducing recidivism among drug dependent offenders. Details: State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2006. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2011 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/evaluation-of-restrictive-intermediate-punishment-drug-and-alcohol-treatment-2006/SpecRptRIPDA2006.pdf#navpanes=0 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/evaluation-of-restrictive-intermediate-punishment-drug-and-alcohol-treatment-2006/SpecRptRIPDA2006.pdf#navpanes=0 Shelf Number: 120715 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Abuse Treatment Drug Offenders Intermediate Punishments (Pennsylvania) Rehabilitation Sentencing

Author: Kempinen, Cynthia A. Title: Pennsylvania's Motivational Boot Camp Program: The Impact of Program Completion on Offender Recidivism. 2009 Report to the Legislature Summary: Act 215 of 1990, which created Pennsylvania's Motivational Boot Camp Program, also mandated the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to evaluate the program and to provide a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The 2009 Legislative Report addresses the following questions: 1) What type of offender goes to Boot Camp?; 2) What self-reported attitudinal and behavioral changes occur among Boot Camp graduates?; 3) What are the predictors of program completion?; and 4) What is the impact of program completion on recidivism? The major findings are as follows: Since the opening of the Boot Camp in 1992 through 2007, there have been 6,114 offenders admitted to the Boot Camp Program. The typical offender entering Boot Camp was young, non-white, male, convicted of a drug offense, and from an urban area. Upon admission to Boot Camp, the majority of offenders reported having a high school diploma, being employed, being single, and having at least one child. Most offenders reported having family members and friends who had previously been incarcerated. The vast majority of offenders also had committed prior offenses, consisting primarily of drug dealing, drug use, and DUI. A sizeable number of offenders were arrested as juveniles, though the average age at first arrest was 18 years. Most offenders had used drugs the day of their offense. The average age of onset for drug use was 15 years of age, and marijuana and cocaine were the predominant drugs of choice. The vast majority of offenders were proud that they were accepted into Boot Camp, and felt that it was a positive experience. Upon graduating from Boot Camp, offenders indicated some positive changes including being less impulsive, acquiring better decision-making skills, and experiencing fewer problems with drugs. Additionally, all of these changes endured after offenders were on parole for six months. After Boot Camp, offenders reported that they were more likely to be employed full-time, less likely to use drugs or alcohol, and less likely to associate with their old friends. The Boot Camp has a high graduation rate, with about 93% of the offenders in our study graduating from the program. Offenders were less likely to complete Boot Camp if they were female, young, had a greater number of prior arrests, had lower expectations for personal change, had difficulty controlling their temper, or found complicated tasks to be more challenging. Overall, about 52% of Boot Camp graduates in our study recidivated within two years, with 20% being recommitted for a technical violation and 32% arrested for a new crime. While offenders who completed Boot Camp were less likely to recidivate, this finding was not significant at the multivariate level. Offenders were significantly more likely to recidivate if they were: male, young, non-white, unemployed, less educated, property offenders, incarcerated as juveniles, or repeat offenders. Additionally, those who indicated they have difficulty controlling their temper, were in need of substance abuse treatment, or came from a less close-knit family were more likely to recidivate. Details: State College, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 2009. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2011 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-motivational-boot-camp-program/ResRptBC2009.pdf#navpanes=0 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-motivational-boot-camp-program/ResRptBC2009.pdf#navpanes=0 Shelf Number: 120713 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Boot Camp (Pennsylvania) Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Denning-Cotter, Gabrielle Title: Bail Support in Australia Summary: In Australia the prison population has been increasing at a rate of 5% per year since 1984, and recent figures indicate that Indigenous people comprise 24% of the prison population in Australia (ABS, 2007). In 2007 the proportion of prisoners on remand was 22% of the entire prison population (ABS, 2007). Because of the increase in the numbers of people on remand, there has been an increased interest in bail support programs for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as a viable alternative to remand. Bail support is defined as the provision of services, intervention or support, designed to assist a person to successfully complete their bail period. These programs may be undertaken on a voluntary basis or mandated as a condition of bail. These programs usually aim to: Reduce re-offending while on bail; Increase court appearance rate; and Provide magistrates and police with a viable alternative to remand or incarceration. In the first section, this paper examines Australian and international literature to present principles of best practice; in the second section current bail support programs in Australia are identified. Indigenous-specific support programs are also discussed. Details: Canberra: Indegenous Justice Clearinghouse, 2008. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief 2: Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Shelf Number: 12 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Bail Indigenous Peoples Pretrial Release

Author: Przybylski, Roger K. Title: Correctional and Sentencing Reform for Drug Offenders: Research Findings on Selected Key Issues Summary: In Colorado and across the nation, offenders convicted of a drug crime make up a sizeable proportion of the prison population. A far larger number of imprisoned offenders are drug-involved or addicted to alcohol or illicit substances. Given the impact that substance abuse and addiction have on prison populations and government spending overall, it is reasonable to explore whether there are safe and cost-effective ways of dealing with drug offenders other than imprisonment. Research has clearly shown, for example, that substance abuse treatment is both effective and cost-beneficial, while incarcerating drug offenders is not a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, there is an emerging consensus in some states that sentences for drug offenses, particularly those involving simple possession, should be reassessed and that community-based treatment may be a more cost-effective sanction than incarceration for drug offenders. Indeed, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy at Roosevelt University’s Institute for Metropolitan Studies recently reported that at least 22 states enacted sentencing reform for drug offenders between 2004 and 2006 alone. This report was developed by RKC Group to support informed discourse on criminal justice policy regarding drug-involved offenders. The report addresses nine specific questions or issues. Findings presented on each are based on a comprehensive review of the criminology and criminal justice literature. Information was obtained by reviewing research, evaluation and other reports with a focus on providing policy makers with objective, accurate, and up-to-date information that can be used to develop safe and more cost-effective approaches for dealing with drug law violators and other substance abusing offenders. Key findings are presented. Details: Lakewood, CO: RKC Group, 2009. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/Correctional_and_Sentencing_Reform_for_Drug_Offenders.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/Correctional_and_Sentencing_Reform_for_Drug_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 120862 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Abuse Treatment Drug Offenders Sentencing Reform

Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2010: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: Today, 7.2 million men and women are under correctional supervision. Of this total, five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole and 2.3 million are incarcerated in prisons or jails. As a result the nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 743 per 100,000 population. The scale of the correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. In recent years, lawmakers have struggled to find the resources to maintain state correctional systems; 46 states are facing budget deficits in the current fiscal year, a situation that is likely to continue, according to the National Governors Association. Many states are looking closely at ways to reduce correctional costs as they seek to address limited resources. States like Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have successfully reduced their prison populations in recent years in an effort to control costs and effectively manage prison capacity. Overall, prison populations declined in 24 states during 2009, by 48,000 persons, or 0.7 percent. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Highlights include: South Carolina equalized penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses as part of a sentencing reform package that garnered bipartisan support. New Jersey modified its mandatory sentencing law that applies to convictions in “drug free school zones,” and now authorizes judges to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases. Prior to the reform, more than 3,600 defendants a year were convicted under the statute, 96% of whom were African American or Latino. During 2010, state legislatures in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia adopted 35 criminal justice policies that may contribute to reductions in the prison population and eliminate barriers to reentry while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, drug policy, the prison census count, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/Final%20State%20of%20the%20Sentencing%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 120882 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Corrections Criminal Justice Policy Inmates Parole Prisoners Probation Sentencing

Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Diversion Programs for Indigenous Women Summary: This paper presents a brief overview of the key diversion programs for Indigenous women currently in operation in Australia, with reference to relevant developments in New Zealand and Canada. It was prepared against the background of recent research on Indigenous women’s offending patterns and their over-representation in the criminal justice system, which included the following key findings: • analysis of data from New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia indicated that Indigenous women are between nine and 16 times more likely to offend than their non-Indigenous counterparts; this is a much greater over-representation than for men (8–10 times more likely); • Indigenous women generally serve shorter sentences than their non-Indigenous counterparts, which suggests that Indigenous women are being imprisoned for more minor offences, especially public order offences; and • Indigenous women are more likely than non-Indigenous women to be on remand. According to the most recent data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2010), there were, on average, 663 full-time adult female Indigenous prisoners in Australia in the June 2010 quarter, comprising 30 percent of the full-time adult female prison population. By way of comparison, there were 6,984 adult male Indigenous prisoners, comprising 26 percent of the adult male prison population. Although the numbers of Indigenous women in prison are clearly much smaller than for their male counterparts, they are over-represented to a greater extent. The imprisonment rate for adult Indigenous women was 394 per 100,000, having risen by 14 percent from 346 in 2006, compared with 25 for the general adult female population. The rates for the Indigenous male and general male populations in the June 2010 quarter were 4,337 and 321 respectively (ABS 2010). Indigenous women are therefore 16 times more likely to be imprisoned than the general adult female population, compared with 14 times for Indigenous men. It appears that very little has been written—and indeed done — on diversion in relation to Indigenous status and women; most of the literature focuses on one aspect or the other. For example, an examination published by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) on the impact of pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory on juvenile offending provided a breakdown by gender and Indigenous status, but no breakdown on the basis of both. In addition, where such programs exist, there is little evidence of their effectiveness and a lack of comprehensive independent evaluation. More must be done, therefore, to disseminate information about the programs currently in place and wherever possible, to evaluate such programs. Notwithstanding the dearth of evaluative evidence demonstrating the efficacy of the diversion programs, the emerging evidence base, coupled with the overwhelming — and steadily rising —over-representation of Indigenous women in the prison population indicates there is a need for further development and funding of programs that can assist in diverting more Indigenous women from the prison system specifically and the criminal justice system more generally. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Research in Practice Report, No. 13: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/E/C/7/%7BEC7ECE38-209C-4FAA-876A-246D2F6A5DCF%7Drip13.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/E/C/7/%7BEC7ECE38-209C-4FAA-876A-246D2F6A5DCF%7Drip13.pdf Shelf Number: 121003 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Female Offenders (Australia) Female Prisoners Indigenous Peoples

Author: Yanez-Correa, Ana Title: Costly Confinement and Sensible Solutions: Jail Overcrowding in Texas Summary: This report provides a snapshot of county jails in Texas. Part 1 details the demographics, funding sources, and budgetary expenditures for local jails. Part 2 specifies the financial, public safety, and public health ramifications of jail overcrowding. Part 3 provides the major contributors to jail overcrowding in Texas, as well as comprehensive information on strategies that can assist system stakeholders in reducing the flow of individuals into county jails. Part 4 summarizes the various recommendations for each system stakeholder, and offers additional suggestions that fall outside the scope of the major contributors outlined in Part 3. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2010. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2011 at: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011051632088-32/TCJC+Jail+Overcrowding+Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011051632088-32/TCJC+Jail+Overcrowding+Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121106 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Jail Overcrowding Jails (Texas)

Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Kiosk Supervision for the District of Columbia Summary: The majority of people involved with the criminal justice system are under community supervision. In 2009, 5 million of the 7.2 million individuals under some form of criminal justice system control were supervised in the community (Glaze 2010). Although all individuals under supervision are required to report regularly to their supervising officer, the intensity and structure of supervision varies considerably according to the risk of reoffense. Managing this population to facilitate their success in becoming law-abiding citizens is a huge challenge for community supervision agencies across the country as they struggle to distribute scarce resources across their supervised population without diluting interventions and monitoring to the point of ineffectiveness. Providing the appropriate level of supervision and intensity of treatment based on an individual’s assessed risk and need is the key to meeting that challenge. One supervision method that states and localities across the nation have adopted to supervise low-risk offenders and pretrial defendants efficiently is kiosk supervision. Kiosk systems can replace in-person reporting requirements, are convenient for both supervisees and supervision agencies, and help shift resources to moderate- and high-risk probationers and parolees who need more intensive interventions and monitoring. With supervision budgets under increasing stress and caseloads rising, these aspects of kiosk supervision systems are highly attractive. In 2008, the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) set out to implement a kiosk reporting pilot program for the probationers and parolees the agency supervises. CSOSA engaged the Urban Institute to conduct an outcome evaluation of the pilot. Due to software integration problems, implementation was delayed, and the Urban Institute instead conducted a simulated analysis. The simulation was designed to identify, if possible, low-risk offenders who posed the same risk whether supervised passively (i.e., with a minimal compliance reporting requirement or Kiosk reporting) or actively (i.e., in-person reporting to community supervision officers). After the simulation analysis was complete, the Urban Institute co-sponsored (with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia) a symposium titled The Risk Principle in Action: Right-Sizing Supervision Monitoring for High- and Low-Risk Offenders. The symposium presented an overview of research on kiosk supervision for low-risk supervisees and global positioning system (GPS) monitoring for higher-risk offenders as examples of different technology-based approaches used to allocate supervision resources according to offender risk level. Local criminal justice leaders joined the symposium to address issues raised and discuss implications for the future direction of practice in the District. This brief draws upon and summarizes findings from both the simulation and the symposium. It discusses the capabilities of kiosk supervision technology, how kiosk supervision fits within a broader risk reduction supervision strategy, challenges of kiosk implementation, and empirical evidence regarding kiosk supervision impacts. It concludes with recommendations for implementation of a kiosk supervision system in the District of Columbia. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412314-Kiosk-Supervision-DC.pdf Shelf Number: 121149 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Low-Risk Offenders Offender Supervision (Washington, D.C.) Parolees Pretrial Defendants Probationers

Author: Greene, Judith Title: Turning the Corner: Opportunities for Effective Sentencing and Correctional Practices in Arizona Summary: With a state corrections budget of $1 billion dollars threatening cuts to education and other important human services, Turning the Corner points Arizonians to important reforms in other states that have reduced prison populations while maintaining public safety. The trend in state prison population reductions that began in 2005 included 24 states by 2009. However, Arizona's prison incarceration rate went from 1 in every 749 persons in 1980 to 1 in every 170 by the end of June 2008. Its average annual prison-population growth rate between 2000 and 2008 was 5.1 percent, compared to a national average of 1.5 percent, giving Arizona the third highest incarceration rate of all states and the highest in the West. Turning the Corner highlights the practices of four states – Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York – that have recently reduced prison populations by 5, 12, 19 and 19 percent, respectively, while seeing falling property and violent crime rates. The report also spotlights three other traditionally conservative states – North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi – that have revisited their sentencing practices, as well as the work of Maryland's Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) program that introduced evidence-based community supervision practices that produced a 42 percent lower rate of re-arrest for new crimes for program participants compared to traditional probation and parole methods. The work of these other states in improving sentencing and corrections practices can help Arizona introduce cost-effective alternatives that can help preserve the public purse and its safety. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies, 2011. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/AZ%20Turning%20the%20Corner%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/AZ%20Turning%20the%20Corner%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121259 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Corrections (Arizona) Sentencing

Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Alternatives to Imprisonment: Community Views in Victoria Summary: Public and political debate about the use of imprisonment is vigorous. Over the past three decades Victoria’s prison population has steadily increased from 1,573 prisoners in 1977 to 2,467 prisoners in 1995 to 4,537 in 2010. Taking into account the growth of the general population, the imprisonment rate has increased by 50.9% over the last twenty years, from 69.9 prisoners per 100,000 adults in 1990 to 105.5 in 2010. In the last decade alone the imprisonment rate has grown by 22.1%. Over this same period the community corrections rate has increased by 19.5%. The increase in imprisonment rate may reflect changes in patterns of offending, in police practices or in the characteristics of people coming before the courts. However, it may also indicate that both parliament and the courts have been responding to perceived community concerns and debates about tougher sentencing. Such debates are not uncommon, with an increasing imprisonment rate being seen as a response that aims to reduce crime, deter would-be criminals and punish offenders both appropriately and in line with ‘community expectations’. Yet there is very little published scientific evidence in Victoria that identifies ‘community expectations’ – that reveals community attitudes to imprisonment and its alternatives. This report attempts to redress this dearth of published evidence on community views by examining the results of a survey of public attitudes to imprisonment and the use of alternatives to imprisonment. The evidence shows that community views are more complex and nuanced than is often characterised: Victorians are willing to accept alternatives to imprisonment as useful sentencing options. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 121271 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Incarceration Rates Public Opinion Sentencing (Australia)

Author: Lecuona, Guillermo Zepeda: Open Society Institute Title: Costly Confinement: The Direct and Indirect Costs of Pretrial Detention in Mexico (English-language Summary) Summary: All governments have limited resources, and all policy decisions have costs. Every dollar or peso a government spends on incarceration is a dollar or peso that cannot be spent on healthcare or policing or education. As the Open Society Justice Initiative report Costly Confinement demonstrates, the costs of pretrial detention in Mexico are painfully high—for the state and its citizens in general, and for detainees and their families in particular. Moreover, the true cost of pretrial detention is often hidden, because the state counts only the direct costs of housing and feeding pretrial detainees and overlooks indirect costs such as the lost productivity and reduced tax payments of pretrial detainees who could have continued working if they were released before trial. Assessing the true costs of pretrial detention requires considering the social programs that could be funded with money that is currently being spent in locking up large numbers of people who pose little threat to society and who by law must be considered innocent. When the full costs of pretrial detention in Mexico are calculated, it becomes clear that alternatives are needed. Details: New York: Open Society Institute, 2009. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/costly-confinement-20100201 Year: 2009 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/costly-confinement-20100201 Shelf Number: 121404 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Pretrial Detention (Mexico)

Author: Oklahoma. Department of Corrections Title: Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring and GPS Summary: After over two decades of use and evolution, electronic monitoring (EM) and, increasingly, global positioning satellite systems (GPS) have achieved acceptance within the correctional community and other areas of criminal justice. Evidence indicates that the public will approve of that use when informed and that the sanction has legitimacy with offenders as well. The research literature has not found that EM or GPS has had a positive impact on crime reduction, but their use has not resulted in demonstrably higher crime rates or more recidivism than incarceration or other less-intensive community supervision. Moreover, EM and GPS appear to be cost-effective when not used for “net-widening” and may have beneficial secondary effects beyond crime or recidivism reduction. Studies indicate that this remains true even when specific offense and offender types are considered. Details: Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: DOC White Paper: Accessed April 27, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/adminservices/ea/GPS%20White%20Paper.doc Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/adminservices/ea/GPS%20White%20Paper.doc Shelf Number: 121513 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Electronic Monitoring Global Positioning Satellite Systems (GPS)

Author: Alexander, Elizabeth Title: Michigan Breaks the Political Logjam: A New Model for Reducing Prison Populations Summary: The United States has adopted a set of criminal justice policies that has produced a tidal wave of imprisonment in this country. Between 1970 and 2005, the number of men, women, and children locked up in this country has grown by an historically unprecedented 700%. As a result, the United States locks up almost a quarter of the prisoners in the entire world. In fact, if all our prisoners were confined in one city, that city would be the fourth largest in the country. This tidal wave of mass incarceration has a devastating effect on those communities, mostly poor and minority, whose residents so disproportionately end up in our prisons. Of course, it is critical to prevent crime, but we need to ask if mass incarceration is really necessary to protect our public safety. Michigan’s experience offers a persuasive answer to that question. Between March 2007 and November 2009, Michigan did something remarkable. It reduced its prison population by roughly 8% during an era in which our incarcerated population continues its unprecedented growth nationally. Perhaps equally remarkable, Michigan accomplished this feat of “breaking the political logjam,” as the Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections phrased it, without provoking a backlash that public officials have been insufficiently “tough on crime.” Because these changed policies will also result in increased public safety, Michigan for the first time provides a possible model for other states seeking a smarter and more affordable criminal justice policy. This report examines the measures that Michigan took to bring about that turn-around. Most significantly, these changes did not require the legislature to change the statutory penalties for criminal offenses. Michigan’s successful reforms primarily involve the parole process, based on research that has identified practices and techniques that increase the accuracy of predicting which offenders can be safely released. The changes involve, however, far more than simply encouraging the parole board to increase its rate of approval of discretionary parole. The new policies are designed to provide offenders with individualized programing in prison, and re-entry services upon release, that are most likely to assure success on parole, based on evidence of what works to reduce crime and save money. Because Michigan’s reforms are designed to fit into the specific structure of its system, they cannot simply be replicated in states lacking discretionary parole. The Michigan reforms are nonetheless important, because the nation’s current level of incarceration is morally wrong and bad public policy, and because we can no longer afford to incarcerate 2.3 million people. Our nation’s criminal justice policy requires fundamental change, and Michigan provides one example of how that change can work. Details: New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2009-12-18-MichiganReport.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2009-12-18-MichiganReport.pdf Shelf Number: 121567 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Incarceration (Michigan) Parole Prisoner Reentry Prisons Risk Assessment

Author: Marie, Olivier Title: The Effect of Early Release of Prisoners on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) on Recidivism Summary: This report presents evidence that suggests offenders who receive Home Detention Curfew (HDC) under the current provision, are no more likely to engage in criminal behaviour when released from prison, when compared to offenders with similar characteristics, who are not eligible for HDC. The evidence also points towards the importance of certain factors taken into account when selecting prisoners for HDC. This study used centrally held data on 499,279 discharges from prison between January 2000 and March 2006, with 63,384 discharged receiving HDC. Offender criminal histories and reoffending information were extracted from the Police National Computer to evaluate the effectiveness of HDC in terms of reducing reoffending. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 1/11: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/effect-early-release-hdc-recidivism.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/effect-early-release-hdc-recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 121661 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Early Release Home Detention Prisoners (U.K.) Recidivism

Author: Levin, Marc Title: Texas Criminal Justice Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Cost Summary: In recent years, Texas has strengthened alternatives to incarceration for adults and juveniles, achieving significant reductions in crime while avoiding more than $2 billion in taxpayer costs that would have been incurred had Texas simply constructed more than 17,000 prison beds that a 2007 projection indicated would be needed. Similarly, juvenile crime has markedly declined at the same time Texas has reduced the number of youths in state institutions by 52.9 percent. By building on these successes in a challenging budget environment, policymakers can continue delivering improved results for public safety and taxpayers. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 17, 2011 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-01-PP04-justicereinvestment-ml.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-01-PP04-justicereinvestment-ml.pdf Shelf Number: 121734 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Crime (Texas) Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy

Author: Orihuela, Michael M. Title: City of St. Louis Jail Diversion Project: Final Evaluation Report Summary: The St. Louis City Jail Diversion Project was developed through a collaborative planning process among criminal justice and community treatment agencies. Through the project, individuals with mental health problems were diverted from the criminal justice system into mental health treatment services. The project was funded through a Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grant from May 2006 to April 2010. Community Alternatives and BJC Behavioral Health, St. Louis City behavioral healthcare providers, provided integrated treatment services combined with best practice approaches for clients involved in the criminal justice system. The Center for Trauma Recovery of the University of Missouri St. Louis provided trauma therapy. Program participants were enrolled in services and asked to participate voluntarily in a longitudinal evaluation of services. The evaluation operated from August 2007 through April 2010. Key highlights of the evaluation report include the following: • Screenings were conducted for 477 individuals. Of these, 167 were screened in and diverted from jail to community mental health treatment. Among those screened out were 129 that met initial screening criteria but for various reasons did not complete the planning process for presentation to the courts; 89 that did not meet legal criteria; and 92 that either did not meet psychiatric criteria, were referred elsewhere, or were released from custody. • The majority (57 percent) of clients in jail diversion programs had severe and persistent mental illness. • A large majority (78 percent) of participants were also identified as having alcohol or drug abuse issues at the time of enrollment. • Of those successfully diverted, 69 percent completed a minimum of 24 weeks of supervision and community-based outpatient treatment services which utilized evidence-based integrated treatment services. • Overall improvement was observed among participants on measures of mental health symptoms (frequency and severity) and daily functioning outcomes at six months and twelve months after entering the program. • Substance use, as reported by participants, declined from 43 percent at baseline to seven percent at six months and 10 percent at twelve months, including similar patterns of improved outcomes for those reporting any alcohol use and alcohol use to intoxication. • Based on initial measures of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 60 percent of participants were determined to have probable PTSD at the time of enrollment. A minority (13 percent) received treatment specifically directed at trauma recovery, yet a reduction in PTSD symptoms was observed among the entire population from 60 percent at entry to 39 percent at six months and 28 percent after one year. • Clients in jail diversion program moved to more independent and desirable living situations. Among those interviewed at six months, stable housing had increased from 27 percent to 40 percent, while homelessness had decreased from 24 percent to 3 percent. • Diversion program participants who successfully completed the jail diversion program were significantly less likely to return to the criminal justice system during the 12 months following diversion. In addition, program graduates had better outcomes in other areas including stable housing, enrollment in school and engagement in mental health treatment. Details: St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2011 at: http://www.iarstl.org/papers/StLouisJailDiversionReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.iarstl.org/papers/StLouisJailDiversionReport.pdf Shelf Number: 121738 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Treatment Jail Diversion (St. Louis, MO) Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Disability Rights Texas Title: Thinking Outside the Cell: Alternatives to Incarceration for Youth with Mental Illness Summary: Youth with mental illness can suffer devastating consequences from commitment to juvenile justice facilities, where specialized treatment and supports are often insufficient to meet their rehabilitative needs. Given the prevalence of youth with mental health needs in the Texas juvenile justice system, there is a pressing need for the state to develop appropriate and costeffective alternatives to incarceration for this population. Texas has already started to shift its focus and funding in the right direction — toward community-based supports and services. During the 2009 legislative session, state leadership showed visionary support for community-based programming by reducing funding for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) by $100 million and providing $45.7 million in new funding to juvenile probation departments for Commitment Reduction Programs intended to divert youth from TYC facilities. Many probation departments across the state used these funds to develop mental health resources, and preliminary data show an excellent return on investment. THINKING OUTSIDE THE CELL: ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION FOR YOUTH WITH MENTAL ILLNESS features three case studies of youth placed in the Corsicana Residential Treatment Center, the TYC facility designated for youth with serious mental illness or emotional disturbance. Their stories highlight the significant challenges youth with mental health needs face before and after commitment to TYC. They also demonstrate that access to appropriate and effective community-based mental health services is key to addressing the underlying sources of many youths’ offenses, reducing recidivism, and preventing deeper penetration into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This report also features numerous effective community-based intervention strategies currently being implemented in Texas and other jurisdictions to reduce the incidence of youth with mental health needs in the juvenile justice system. As Texas continues to transform its juvenile justice system, such model programs will help ensure better outcomes for youth, families and communities. Finally, the report provides policy recommendations concerning youth with mental illness involved in the juvenile justice system. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/NCYL-thinking-outside-the-cell-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/NCYL-thinking-outside-the-cell-report.pdf Shelf Number: 121822 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Juvenile Offenders (Texas) Juvenile Probation Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders, Juveniles Rehabilitation

Author: Aebi, Marcelo F. Title: SPACE II: Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures Served in 2009 Summary: SPACE II collects information on persons serving non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. Such sanctions and measures are frequently referred to as alternatives to imprisonment. The survey is not designed to cover all the existing non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. The ones included are basically those suggested by the Council of Europe in Rule 15 of Recommendation No R (99)22 on prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, in Recommendation No R (2000)22 on improving the implementation of the European rules on community sanctions and measures, and in Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules. Most –but not all– of them are community sanctions and measures (CSM) as defined by the Council of Europe. According to Recommendation No R (92)16 and Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, CSM are to be understood as "sanctions and measures which maintain offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment". Persons serving a CSM are usually referred to as persons on probation, and are normally placed under the supervision of a probation agency. In accordance with Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, the term probation “relates to the implementation in the community of sanctions and measures, defined by law and imposed on an offender. It includes a range of activities and interventions, which involve supervision, guidance and assistance aiming at the social inclusion of an offender, as well as at contributing to community safety”. Also according to the same Recommendation, probation agency “means any body designated by law to implement the above tasks and responsibilities. Depending on the national system, the work of a probation agency may also include providing information and advice to judicial and other deciding authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions; providing guidance and support to offenders while in custody in order to prepare their release and resettlement; monitoring and assistance to persons subject to early release; restorative justice interventions; and offering assistance to victims of crime.” SPACE II covers the number of persons who have been under a community sanction or measure. This information is divided in two sections: figures of stock (the number of persons under CSM on 31 December 2009), and figures of flow (the number of persons having started the execution of CSM during 2009). SPACE II does not cover post-prison supervisory or probation measures applied to offenders after they have served their sentence. SPACE II does not cover sanctions and measures imposed by the juvenile criminal law or applicable only to juveniles. The goal of the survey is to gather and compare, in a reliable way, the information provided by Member States of the Council of Europe. In order to allow comparisons at the European level, States were asked to adapt their national categories to the categories proposed by SPACE II. Moreover, in order to improve the validity of such comparisons, the questionnaire used for the survey included questions on the particularities of the sanctions and measures used in each country and had enough room for comments. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Shelf Number: 121959 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections (Europe) Community Sanctions Community Service Probation

Author: Korber, Dorothy Title: ‘ A Courtroom Unlike Any Other’ Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court is a Case Study in Reducing Prison Recidivism Summary: The judge ran through his afternoon calendar at a sprinter’s pace. More than 50 cases cycled through the court in three hours – all of them parolees with a violation. Dirty drug tests. Missed appointments. New crimes. Such lapses normally would have sent them straight back to state prison. But today, instead of a prison cell, they are in Judge Stephen Manley’s crowded, bustling San Jose courtroom. This is Santa Clara County’s Parolee Reentry Court, where high-risk offenders get a second chance at redemption. If it works, everybody wins: the parolee rebuilds his life, his community is safer, and taxpayers save the thousands of dollars it would cost to return him to prison. If it fails, he is one more statistic in California’s dismal recidivism rate. California has the worst record in the nation for re-incarcerating parolees, with nearly 70 percent returning to prison within three years of release. To address this problem, in 2009 the Legislature passed Senate Bill x3 18, which created a pilot program testing whether a drug-court model can reduce recidivism. Santa Clara is one of six counties participating in the pilot. The aim of these Parolee Reentry Courts is to stop the swinging prison door. Details: Sacramento: California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/document.doc?id=39 Shelf Number: 122054 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Courts Parole Parole Supervision Parolees (California) Recidivism Reentry

Author: Armstrong, Sarah Title: Evaluation of the Use of Home Detention Curfew and the Open Prison Estate in Scotland Summary: Home Detention Curfew (HDC) came into use in Scotland in 2006 and allows prisoners, mainly on shorter sentences, to serve up to a quarter of their sentence (for a maximum of six months and a minimum of two weeks) on licence in the community, while wearing an electronic tag. Open prisons have been in existence much longer, and are facilities without the secure perimeter fences of traditional, ‘closed’ prisons, and allow prisoners to gradually take on the responsibility of freedom through home leaves and other activities. The research evaluates the effectiveness of HDC and the prison system’s Open Estate in terms of their ability to ‘improve the management of offenders’ and facilitate their ‘reintegration into the community’, specifically by: (1) Investigating the implementation process and associated costs and benefits of the HDC scheme and open prison, and, (2) Developing an in-depth understanding of factors which may impact on effectiveness of the schemes. The research focused on the period when people were on an HDC licence or in open prison, and does not include analysis of the period after a person returns to full liberty. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2011. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/353769/0119214.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/353769/0119214.pdf Shelf Number: 122058 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Electronic Monitoring Home Detention (U.K.)

Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: Organizational Assessment of Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) -- Facing the Challenges to Successfully Implement the Travis Community Impact Supervision (TCIS) Model Summary: On July 1, 2005 the Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) accepted a proposal by The JFA Institute to conduct an operational assessment of the department. The proposal was in response to interest from the new director of the Travis CSCD, Dr. Geraldine Nagy, to assess the department’s strengths and weaknesses and to assist her in designing management strategies for the department. Particularly, the goal is to identify the organizational challenges of implementing an Evidence Based Practices (EBP) organization and supervision model. The main goal of EBP is to operate the agency as a “learning organization” that uses strategies proven to be effective to manage the probation population. The model moves supervision strategies from a primary emphasis on enforcement to one that focuses on providing the offenders the resources and motivation to effect change by addressing their criminogenic traits using methods that have been proven to work. TCIS is a model directed at increasing the effectiveness of probation. Effective assessment practices, differentiated supervision strategies, and organizational assessments to maintain model fidelity are the critical elements of TCIS. The assessments are used to classify the population to receive different supervision strategies that have been proven to be the most effective with their particular population risks and needs. To support this model, the probation department has to be retooled to conduct more effective assessments and routinely monitor program and supervision outcomes. Personnel training and personnel evaluations need to be directed at supporting and encouraging the new supervision strategies. The information systems of the organization also have to be effectively tapped to provide data for management and policy analysis to assist in the management and policy oversight of the practices. The expected outcomes of TCIS are: (a) the more effective diversion of low risk offenders from the criminal justice system; (b) reduction in the recidivism of “social problem” offenders (offenders who are mainly pro-social people that have gotten in trouble with the law because of a substance abuse or mental health problem); and (c) the more effective surveillance and control of high risk offenders. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2005. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/ppope/Travis83105Final.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/ppope/Travis83105Final.pdf Shelf Number: 122086 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections (Texas) Probation Probation Officers Probationers Risk Assessment

Author: Cadora, Eric Title: Travis Community Impact Supervision. Thinking About Location: Orienting Probation to Neighborhood Based Supervision Summary: The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) in Austin, Texas (the county’s adult probation department) has teamed up with The JFA Institute in a two-year effort to reengineer the operations of the department to support more effective supervision strategies. The goal is to strengthen probation by using an evidence-based practices (EBP) model. The Travis County CSCD, the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Open Society Institute have provided funds to support the reengineering effort and use the department as an “incubator” site to develop, test and document organization-wide changes directed at improving assessment, supervision, sanctioning, personnel training and quality control policies. The Travis County CSCD is the fifth largest probation system in the state and, as such, has tremendous impact on the state probation system. The total number of offenders under some form of probation supervision in Travis County in FY 2005 was 22,827. This report presents an analysis of the geographical location of the Travis County probation population using mapping technology. The analysis was conducted by Eric Cadora and his team at the JFA Mapping Center in New York City. A great number of the persons entering and exiting the Texas prison system and persons on probation tend to concentrate in specific neighborhoods in our large metropolitan areas. Mapping analysis identifies these concentrations in specific geographical locations. The goal is to provide a visual depiction of the geographical distribution of the probation population to identify high density neighborhoods that can be targeted for a neighborhood based supervision approach. The neighborhood based approach consolidates caseloads with fewer officers specifically assigned to supervising probationers in those locations. This can be done in Travis County in at least three neighborhoods. The research also shows that neighborhoods receiving the most offenders released from prison are also neighborhoods with a high concentration of probationers. Present supervision practices between the probation and parole agencies in these neighborhoods are not coordinated. Collaboration between these agencies may lead to more effective supervision that leverages resources between the agencies and between the agencies and neighborhood partners. The visualization of concentrated parole and probation populations in what we call “high stakes” communities is critical for more effective policy. The notion is that, although we need policies that address the overall issue of criminality and the supervision of justice populations regardless of where persons are committing crimes or where they live, we also need to consider the location of concentrated justice populations. Details: Washington, DC: JFA Institute, 2006. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://caction.org/research_reports/reports/TravisCommunityImpactSupervision2006.pdf Shelf Number: 122085 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Geographic Studies Mapping Neighborhoods Parolees Probation (Texas) Probationers

Author: Lemke, Albert J. Title: Evaluation of the Pretrial Release Pilot Program in the Mesa Municipal Court Summary: Pretrial release is a common practice in many courts throughout the country. Electronic monitoring of defendants is also becoming more common. Usually these occur in courts dealing with felony crimes. This report reviews a pretrial release pilot project incorporating the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to bond for misdemeanor cases in a limited jurisdiction court. The first project of its kind in the State of Arizona, the Mesa Municipal Court utilized Global Positioning System (GPS) enabled ankle bracelets to monitor pretrial released defendants. This report reviews the first four and a half months (August 11, 2008 through December 31, 2008) this pilot project was in place. In custody defendants who met the following guidelines were eligible for the program: • Case is at pre-adjudication status • Defendant does not pose a potential threat to others • Defendant does not have a request to be held from another jurisdiction • Defendant has the ability to charge the device for two hours each day. Existing court staff was used to manage the pretrial release program. Monitoring was performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the day shift consisted of staff from the In-Custody Unit, the evening, night, weekend and holiday shift consisted of a Deputy Court Administrator. Equipment and technology issues were greater and more time consuming than anticipated. Thirty-eight percent of the devices experienced a technical or mechanical breakdown, which required replacement of the device. Satellite and cellular coverage also caused numerous issues that weren’t expected. The use of electronic monitoring eliminated the time a defendant had to spend in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) jail awaiting their next court hearing. It also reduced the time a defendant being held on bond had to stay in the MCSO jail waiting for their next court hearing from an average of two weeks to as little as two days. This saved the city $73.46 for every day a defendant did not have to be housed in jail. A total of 151 defendants were place on electronic monitoring for a combined total of 3,598 days and a monitoring cost of $25,186. Utilizing monitoring costs only, the use of electronic monitoring saved an estimated $144,000 during the four and a half month pilot. Defendants received a reminder call the day before their next court date, reducing the Failure to Appear (FTA) rate from a court average of 29% to five percent. A survey was completed by the seven judges of the Mesa Municipal Court to assess their views and opinions regarding the program. There was overwhelming support of the program and the benefit it provided. The pretrial release program established that electronic monitoring is a viable alternative to bond in pretrial misdemeanor cases. While additional resources would be needed for proper electronic supervision, the cost savings and benefits to the court, city and defendants make this a worthwhile program. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Managment, 2009. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/files/pdf/education%20and%20careers/cedp%20papers/2009/lemke_evalpretrialreleaseprog.ashx Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/files/pdf/education%20and%20careers/cedp%20papers/2009/lemke_evalpretrialreleaseprog.ashx Shelf Number: 122111 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Pretrial Release (Arizona)

Author: DeMichele, Matthew Title: Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A Community Corrections Resource, Second Edition Summary: Electronic supervision of offenders evokes many images. Some see it as punitive, whereas others see it as lenient. Some view it as a means to improve supervision, whereas others view it as a way of saving correctional dollars by alleviating jail crowding. Some feel it is best used for offender accountability, although others believe it is better used for treatment compliance and adding structure to offenders’ lives. Some are intrigued by such technological tools, others are baffled by them, and still others question such devices as being one part of an emerging surveillance society. Regardless of these perspectives, there are many misperceptions of what electronic supervision technologies can do, how they work, and what it takes to use them. The most well-known types of electronic supervision technologies are radio-frequency devices used to monitor home confinement orders and global positioning systems (GPS). Although these are the most prevalent types in use, electronic supervision technologies include an assortment of devices such as kiosk reporting, remote alcohol detection, biometric analysis, and eye scanning. This book is intended to provide direction to community corrections agencies regarding electronic supervision in a broad sense, but it is specifically intended to provide direction given the recent push for electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders, especially sex offenders, with GPS. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2009. 243p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/OSET_2.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/OSET_2.pdf Shelf Number: 122115 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Supervision Electronic Monitoring Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Home Detention

Author: Mills, Helen Title: Community Sentences: A Solution to Penal Excess? Summary: This paper examines the use of community sentences as a mechanism for reducing reliance on custody in England and Wales since the late 1990s. It is an up-to-date assessment of successive attempts to manage prison demands by reforming community sentences over the past two decades and an assessment of the implications and challenges for penal reformers going forward. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/rssasolutiontopenalexcess.html Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/rssasolutiontopenalexcess.html Shelf Number: 122245 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections (U.K.) Sentencing

Author: Lanning, Tess Title: Redesigning Justice: Reducing Crime Through Justice Reinvestment Summary: The Coalition government has initiated what it describes as a ‘rehabilitation revolution’, aimed at ‘breaking the cycle’ of offenders leaving prison, only to go back into the community and reoffend. ‘Justice reinvestment’ is one important way of achieving this goal of more effectively rehabilitating offenders. It is a process through which resources currently spent on incarcerating offenders in prison can be redirected into community-based alternatives that tackle the causes of crime at source. This report demonstrates how a process of justice reinvestment could be made to work in the context of England and Wales. The report comes in three parts: 1. The costs of prison Using the London Borough of Lewisham as a case study, chapter 1 examines who goes to prison, how effective it is and how much it costs the taxpayer, focusing on convicted adult offenders. We demonstrate both the cost of prison and, by implication, the sort of budgets that could be made available to local areas through justice reinvestment. We find that a total of 518 adult offenders were released into Lewisham over the course of 2009/10 having served less than 12 months. Using the figure of £45,000 a year, we calculate that their combined prison sentences cost the state £2.8 million in 2009/10, or an average of £5,386 per sentence. At odds, perhaps, with public perception, the majority of the crimes committed by these offenders were non-violent offences. It cost the taxpayer £2.5 million in 2009/10 to send non-violent and non-sexual offenders from Lewisham to prison for periods of less than a year. The funds that could be made available to local agencies to prevent reoffending through a process of justice reinvestment are therefore considerable. 2. Local alternatives to prison Chapter 2 explores how some of these offenders could be diverted from prison and managed locally in Lewisham. We describe reparative options in the borough and draw on wider evidence to explore effective alternatives to custody. We argue that the government should change the sentencing guidelines to enshrine a presumption against the use of short-term prison sentences, with community-based punishments used instead. We map existing rehabilitative services in Lewisham and examine their capacity to absorb more offenders. We find that local services are confident about their ability to manage offenders locally, but that widespread cuts to local agencies risk weakening the supportive infrastructure that effective rehabilitation requires. We argue that local alternatives are cheaper and more effective than custody, but that they must be properly resourced and better coordinated to deal effectively with offenders. 3. Making justice reinvestment work Chapter 3 outlines a commissioning structure to bring justice reinvestment into practice. Good local policymaking requires strong, democratically accountable local institutions to coordinate policy and practice on the ground. We argue that local authorities should be given a key role in the criminal justice system because they are best-placed to coordinate and manage correctional services in the community. Details: London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2011/07/redesigning-justice-reinvestment_July2011_7786.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2011/07/redesigning-justice-reinvestment_July2011_7786.pdf Shelf Number: 122248 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform (U.K.) Rehabilitation

Author: Crime and Justice Institute Title: Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd Edition Summary: Building an evidence-based community corrections system requires more than just the research on "what works." It requires a commitment to fundamentally changing the way organizations do business, and the way they work together. In 2002, the Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ partnered with the National Institute of Corrections to develop the Integrated Model, which approached implementation with an equal focus on Evidence-Based Policies and Practices (EBP), Organizational Development, and Collaboration. The Model provides guidance not just on what practices to implement, but also on how to create long-term commitment to measurable reductions in recidivism. Original publications on the Integrated Model were disseminated widely, and the Model was put into practice throughout the country. This updated version incorporates the foundational information on EBP, Organizational Development, and Collaboration that was presented in the original 2004 publications, along with the latest research. It is essential reading for community corrections leaders and managers looking to implement EBP. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://cjinstitute.org/files/Community_Corrections_BoxSet_Oct09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://cjinstitute.org/files/Community_Corrections_BoxSet_Oct09.pdf Shelf Number: 122321 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Collaboration Community-Based Corrections (U.S.)

Author: Steadman, Steven R. Title: Mesa County Work Release and Jail Detention Programming Study Summary: This report presents the findings of a study undertaken by Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) of the Mesa County criminal justice system. The study had three main purposes: (1) identify methods in the criminal justice system to reduce present and future jail usage; (2) enhance the use of alternatives to incarceration; and (3) develop an implementation plan for changes in the processes and policies of the courts and various criminal justice agencies to achieve the first two goals. Mesa County will be approaching these issues from a position of strength. PSI staff have seldom been in a county where the levels of innovation, cooperation, and collaboration have been so strong. The strength and vitality of the branches of government and the individuals that serve within them is far and away the greatest asset that the county can have as it faces difficult decisions about the direction of the justice system in Mesa County. During two site visits and numerous interviews PSI staff learned that: 􀁹 There is a very high degree of justice system collaboration among the courts and probation, law enforcement, the district attorney, public defender, and other agencies; 􀁹 There is a very high degree of cooperation between county government and the justice system; 􀁹 There are numerous long established well run jail alternative programs already in operation; and 􀁹 The jail is well-designed and expertly operated by capable managers and motivated and dedicated staff. We recognize, however, that these goals can only be met as long as the community believes that it is being adequately protected from crime. In particular, all aspects of the methamphetamine drug abuse problem were cited as a major cause of jail overcrowding and a challenge to the combined resources of the county and justice system. Any solutions to jail overcrowding must enable the county to deal with the methamphetamine problem and its ramifications. The most difficult issue that Mesa County decision makers need to make is what combination of increased jail capacity and jail alternative programming will keep the citizens of the county safe and most rationally expend resources. The decisions that will eventually be reached will involve finding an acceptable level of shared risk (it is probably inevitable that some individuals will fail in the programs to which they are assigned) and cost effectiveness (Mesa County cannot build itself out of its present circumstances). In order to understand the costs and benefits of incarceration as opposed to alternatives, it is important to understand the following: • Most individuals who are in jail will eventually return to society, so the primary issue is not who will get out but what kind of people they will be when they get out; • For many offenders, public safety is better served by placing them in treatment programs rather than jail; • There are people who may actually consider a small amount of jail time as less punitive than home detention or having to work; and • Part of the cost of incarceration is the potential cost to the county if the offender is rendered unable to support his or her family during incarceration. This study and the recommendations generated by it are based on the following principles of jail usage for pre-trial detention and convicted offenders, as reflected in nationally accepted criminal justice best practices. Details: Denver, CO: Policy Studies Inc., 2005. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.centerforpublicpolicy.org/index.php?s=16415 Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.centerforpublicpolicy.org/index.php?s=16415 Shelf Number: 122348 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Offenders Jail Overcrowding Jails Work Release

Author: Taylor, Emily Title: Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation: Final Report Summary: In the past 18 years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the implementation of drug courts across the country. The first drug court was established in Florida in 1989. There are now well over 1,500 drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. The purpose of drug courts is to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that reduces drug dependence and improves the quality of life for offenders and their families. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. Addiction treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. The Michigan Community Corrections Act was enacted in 1988 to investigate and develop alternatives to incarceration. Four years later, in June 1992, the first female drug treatment court in the nation was established in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Since then, Michigan has implemented 75 drug courts, including expanding into further specialized courts (also called “problem solving courts”) for adults, juveniles, family dependency, and DUI offenders. In FY2004, 12 courts in Michigan identified as DUI courts. Of these, 10 were operational and 2 courts were in the early planning phase. SCAO assisted in funding 9 of these courts. At the time this study was proposed, comprehensive outcome evaluation with comparison groups and longitudinal analyses had not been conducted for Michigan DUI courts. Consequently, little was known about the relative effectiveness of these courts in reducing drunk driving or the characteristics that affect client outcomes. SCAO proposed to conduct an outcome evaluation of DUI courts. The evaluation was designed as a longitudinal study that included tracking and collecting data on DUI court participants for a minimum of one year following either program completion or termination from DUI Court and a comparison group of offenders who were eligible for DUI court in the year prior to DUI court implementation. Data were abstracted from several sources including site visits, the Criminal History Records (CHR) database maintained by the Michigan State Police and the Michigan Judicial Warehouse (JDW). All of these data were entered into a database created in Microsoft Access. In 2007, SCAO contracted with NPC Research to perform the data analysis and report writing for three of the DUI courts that participated in this study, Ottawa and Bay County and Clarkston DUI courts. The evaluation was guided by five research questions which were answered by a careful analysis of the data by NPC Research. These questions were: 1. What is the impact of participation in a DUI court on recidivism (re-arrests) compared to traditional court processing? 2. Does participation in DUI court reduce levels of alcohol and other substance abuse? 3. How successful is the program in bringing program participants to completion and graduation within the expected time frame? 4. What participant characteristics predict successful outcomes (program completion, decreased recidivism)? 5. How does the use of resources differ between DUI treatment court versus traditional probation? Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court; Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2011 at: http://council.legislature.mi.gov/files/sdtcac/mi_dui_outcome_eval_final_report_0308.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://council.legislature.mi.gov/files/sdtcac/mi_dui_outcome_eval_final_report_0308.pdf Shelf Number: 122371 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Driving While Intoxicated Drug Courts Drunk Driving Courts Problem-Solving Courts (Michigan) Recidivism

Author: Cunningham, Alison Title: One Step Forward: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Canada Summary: Five years ago, a committed and energetic group of people in four southern Ontario communities embarked upon a process that brought a promising intervention for serious young offenders to Canada. Multisystemic Therapy (MST) had attracted attention in the United States where two randomized studies showed dramatic success in reducing arrests and incarceration. Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services supported the MST project because it promised to be a cost-efficient way of reducing youth crime. Reductions in offending would, in turn, reduce both losses to crime victims and costs associated with criminal justice processing. The National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) supported the evaluation to learn if MST could work in Canada as well as it had in the United States. The follow-up will end in 2004, and few research questions will be left unanswered. There are two parts to this document. The first is a background of the MST project including interim research results on 407 youth. The second is a discussion of “lessons learned” and the related recommendations for policy makers, funding bodies, and researchers. This discussion begins with a description of 10 different ways the wrong conclusion could have been made about the effectiveness of MST in Canada, had a less rigorous methodology been used. Various observations and recommendations flow from the lessons learned. The biggest lesson is clear: the time and effort spent on rigorous research pays off in information that informs the search for effective interventions. Conversely, research that falls short of accepted standards of scientific rigour – unfortunately the norm in Canada – could be justifying the status quo when better interventions should be sought. It might even be pushing practice in the wrong direction. We can look to the United States for examples of how randomized field studies are contributing to the crime prevention knowledge base. While “evidence-based practice” has become a common buzz word, there is little Canadian evidence that can reliably inform our choices of program models. This study suggests caution in assuming American results will replicate in Canada. Even in the United States, crime prevention is driven more by rhetoric than reality because current research results should really be viewed with no more than cautious optimism.[1] Some may be tempted to label this study a failure because we are not able to recommend the adoption of MST in Canada. Quite the opposite. We learn a great deal from finding out what does not work. MST is probably not the answer for this client group, but the current interventions did not fare well either. It would be a mistake to take these results as proof that existing practice is effective. This study puts us one step forward in the journey to find effective interventions for serious young offenders. It is a worth-while trip because the goal is community safety. Details: London, ONT: Centre for Chidlren and Families in the Justice System, London Family Court Clinic, 2002. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2011 at: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/One_Step_Forward.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Canada URL: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/One_Step_Forward.pdf Shelf Number: 122467 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Treatment Costs of Criminal Justice Juvenile Offenders (Canada) Multisystemic Therapy

Author: Adams, Sharyn Title: Examining Illinois Probationer Characteristics and Outcomes Summary: While most adults convicted of crimes in Illinois are sentenced to probation, little is known about the characteristics of these offenders, the conditions imposed as part of their probation terms, or their recidivism rates. In this report, researchers examined characteristics of adult probationers sentenced to probation in 2006 to develop a detailed snapshot of probationers in Illinois. This research can help guide probation departments’ policy and programming decisions. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Examining_IL_probationer_characteristics_and_outcomes_092011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Examining_IL_probationer_characteristics_and_outcomes_092011.pdf Shelf Number: 122888 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Probation (U.S.) Probationers

Author: Boyle, Douglas J. Title: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program – Day Reporting Centers – For Parolees Summary: The present study is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program, often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), versus an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I). DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area for supervision, services, and programming, and requires them to spend significant amounts of time together on a daily basis. Alternatively, Phase I is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and with additional conditions imposed. Participants were randomly assigned to either DRC (n = 198) or Phase I (n = 204), and data were collected for 18 months post 90 day study period. Overall, during the 90 day study period, DRC participants were more likely to be arrested for a new offense, whereas Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment than were DRC participants. During the 6 month period immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be re-convicted of a new offense. Furthermore, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during this period. Over the 12 and 18 month post completion periods, there was only one difference between the study groups, with Phase I participants more likely to obtain employment at 18 month follow-up. Results of the current investigation showed that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group, and during some time periods treatment effects were significantly worse. The pattern of outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more noteworthy given the relative costs of the two programs, since Phase I is significantly less expensive than DRC programming. These findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns regarding the rationale for using the DRC model to supervise medium- and high-risk parolees. However, this should not be construed as saying that individual supervision alone is sufficient, since Phase I parolees were assigned additional conditions at the discretion of their parole officers which could include outpatient drug treatment, mental health treatment, educational training and others. The implications of the present research for policy and practice are significant. The overall finding is that medium- and high-risk parolees can be managed as effectively in the community at far less cost using a Phase-based individual system. Details: Newark, NJ: Violence Institute of New Jersey at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Shelf Number: 123067 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Day Reporting Centers Parole Parolees

Author: Great Britain. Home Office Inspectorate of Probation Title: Thematic Inspection Report: Equal but different? An inspection of the use of alternatives to custody for women offenders Summary: There is a great deal of information about women offenders in England and Wales. Generally, it tells us that offending is less common amongst girls and women than amongst boys and men and that women offenders often have complex multiple needs, linked to drug and substance misuse and poor mental health. A significant proportion of women in prison are the mothers and sole carers of dependent children. The increase in the female prison population between 1997 and 2000 caused such concern that it triggered a review of the existing initiatives for working with women. The subsequent report signalled the introduction of the Women’s Offending Reduction Programme which aimed to link strategic initiatives across government departments to address women’s offending and pursue alternatives to custody. In 2005, the Together Women Programme was launched and funding set aside for projects to divert from custody women who seemed likely to offend. This work was given further impetus by the review undertaken by Baroness Corston following the self-inflicted deaths of six women within a 13 month period at Styal Prison. Her subsequent report set the agenda for working with women offenders. The government accepted 40 of the 43 recommendations made by Baroness Corston and created a cross-departmental Criminal Justice Women’s Strategy Team to manage and coordinate their response to her report; it also placed further time-limited funding into the diversion programme. These measures appeared to have had an impact. The number of first receptions of women sentenced to immediate custody fell by 9% between 2008 and 2009. The overall number of women in prison in England and Wales also decreased slightly between 2008 and 2009. Most women sentenced to custody in 2009 received relatively short sentences, generally under 12 months, and were consequently not subject to any form of statutory supervision on release. One of the most striking features on considering the profile of the female prison population was the high proportion of women offenders imprisoned for breaching a court order, often imposed for offences which might not, of themselves, have attracted a custodial sentence. In 2009, this group represented 13% of all women received into prison on an immediate custodial sentence. This inspection focused on women who had either been sentenced to a community order or released from prison on licence. Its purpose was: to consider the extent to which non custodial options are being put forward and taken up in respect of women offenders. We therefore looked primarily at community orders and considered their credibility, as demonstrated by the courts in imposing such orders and by the women offenders themselves in complying with their requirements. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2011. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/womens-thematic-alternatives-to-custody-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/womens-thematic-alternatives-to-custody-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123070 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Female Inmates Female Offenders (U.K.) Probation, Female Offenders

Author: Froundigoun, Liz Title: Evaluation of the Turnaround Service Summary: This research was commissioned to evaluate Turnaround, a new criminal justice service, which provides a community intervention service as an alternative to short term prison sentences for young men, aged 16-30, who are persistent low tariff offenders with drug and/or alcohol addictions and other issues, and have failed or are failing in other community-based alternatives. Turnaround is a partnership service, managed by Turning Point Scotland and delivered with Apex and the Venture Trust, which aims to provide a holistic approach to tackling the complex needs of this service group through a range of interventions to stabilise their addictions, reduce their offending, and through a range of programmes to increase their social and employability skills. It operates from four community bases in Irvine, Kilmarnock, Greenock and Dumbarton and since July, 2009, a 10 bed residential unit in Gleniffer Braes, Paisley. Methodology There were three stages to the research. Stage one involved a review of the existing academic and Turnaround literature, and introductory visits to the service to establish context and background. Stage two involved interviews with all staff in each of the four community day centres, all staff who were available to be interviewed at the residential unit and a sample of service users. All members of the advisory group were invited to participate in a telephone interview to clarify and expand on issues that arose either from our meeting with them or in the evaluation process. In stage three an analysis of statistical data provided by Turnaround from their data base was undertaken. This report documents and analyses the experience and views of the development of the service from the perspective of those strategically involved in its delivery through to frontline staff and service users. It is based on data obtained from interviews carried out in each of the five locations: Greenock, Dumbarton, Irvine, Kilmarnock, and the residential unit in Gleniffer Braes. Of particular interest to this study are the young men’s experiences and perceptions of the service. The research was conducted in line with the ethical guidelines of the British Sociological Association, The British Society of Criminology and Glasgow Caledonian University. Summary Findings 1. The service provided by Turnaround is much needed to support this service user group in desisting from offending and addiction behaviour. 2. All staff were well trained and committed in their belief of community-based person-centred interventions as an effective approach in dealing with these service users. 3. Service users are particularly enthusiastic in their appraisal of the service. In total 1306 referrals have been made to the service with 474 (36%) actively engaging in the programme through the community bases (see Table 2). This includes some service users who have had more than one period of engagement with the service. 4. The person-centred approach, they report, enables them to make effective transitions to recovery from a life of crime and addiction by addressing their most pressing needs. 5. All service users interviewed reported improvements in their quality of life: reduced offending, stabilisation of their addictions, improved family relationships including re-establishing contact with their children, access to training and skill building in readiness for employment. 6 Turnaround, where it is used as an alternative to short-term custodial sentences, is likely to produce significant financial savings and, as stated above, more likely to impact positively on the lifestyle, addiction and offending behaviours of their clients. Good Practice 7. Turnaround should be commended in five main areas:  Partnership working with APEX and the Venture Trust in service delivery has allowed for a more holistic service to be provided.  The person-centred approach to service delivery is unique in that its flexibility allows for clients to individualise their recovery programme.  Flexibility and an open door policy were stressed by service users as invaluable.  Staff training and induction are comprehensive and undertaken prior to working in either the community bases or residential unit.  Turnaround’s data base is centrally maintained and contains extensive clients’ records; however, it has limited applicability for monitoring their progress. Lessons Learned 8 Delivering such a service is a lengthy process from identifying and defining the concept through to locating suitable premises, furnishing offices, training staff and opening the doors to service users. 9 Filling staff vacancies quickly is central to maintaining staff morale and ensuring the continued development of the service. 10 Time-limited funding is an issue for the development of new services and would appear to have been a contributing factor to staff moving on from Turnaround in the last year. 11 Meeting the requirement imposed by funders should be reviewed, as their expectations of ‘hard’ evidence cannot always be realised. 12 Developing links with referring agencies such as the Courts, Reliance and CJSW needs to be pro-active in order to establish an identity and awareness of Turnaround’s services. Areas for Development 13 A clear protocol for sharing of information across agencies is essential to ensure the smooth transition of service users between Turnaround and other service providers. 14 Opportunities to develop peer support should be considered. 15 Service users would like to see more support or a staged programme to exit using all drugs and/or alcohol rather than being on a stabilisation programme of methadone. 16 Service users would also like to see more day activities – swimming walking, canoeing, and abseiling - provided by Venture Trust rather than the 3-day or week long programmes that they have been able to access thus far. Outcomes 17 Where Turnaround is used as an alternative to the traditional, costly short-term custodial sentences so characteristic of the service users’ history, this is likely to provide significant financial savings. 18 The programme is impacting positively on the lives of its service users’ and on their offending behaviours and addiction issues, and in supporting them into stable lifestyle patterns, as well as improving social and employability skills. 19 The community bases are well established and despite the geographical difficulties of the Irvine base it is running well. All were found to be very effective and supportive from the service users’ point of view. 20 The service is not always running at its capacity especially at the residential unit; however there was little evidence to suggest that this was impacting on the quality of the service and as it develops the perception is that service user participation will increase. 21 While the service is delivered by highly qualified and committed staff some of the services delivered were compromised due to staffing shortages. 22 The majority of service users have been referred to Turnaround from the Courts, Reliance and CJSW. However, referrals from the Courts and Reliance show a lower uptake of Turnaround’s services than those referred from CJSW. Recommendations 1 Funding should be secured for another 3, preferably 5, year period, to allow the service to develop its potential without struggling with a constant turnover of staff. 2 Funding streams should be re-examined to see if there is any way of negotiating a staged or staggered approach to extending the funding period with the Scottish Government and the various charitable organisations currently supporting this project. 3 Referral routes and processes should be re-examined especially in relation to the Courts, Reliance and CJSW. The provision of clearer guidelines or criteria for selection of young offenders for referral to Turnaround may help to reduce the lower up-take of referrals from the Courts and Reliance. 4 The role of APEX workers should be reviewed. Currently they are working as support or project workers but as the service develops it is important that their role as Employment Development Advisors is retained. 5 The role of the Venture Trust should be re-examined. It is felt, amongst service users and staff, that there is considerable scope to develop their involvement to the benefit of the service and enhance the service users’ experience and skills. 6 There is the desire for more physical activities amongst the service users, for example, swimming, canoeing, abseiling, walking, football, and in the residential unit for supervised access to the gym. Consideration should be given as to the best way to provide these activities in ways which allow service users to develop and build on their inter-personal, communication and team-work skills. 7 Consideration should be given to extending the age range to 16-40 and also to including girls and young women in service provision. While this may be problematic, staff experiences suggest that there is an unmet demand from girls and women and from older men whom they currently cannot accommodate. Suggestions proffered by staff included splitting the service delivery into two categories - a young person service 16-25, with another to focus on the older group 25-40. 8 Communication strategies should also be reviewed. In relation to staffing, morale and identity of the service, a clear communications strategy and more all-staff meetings are needed to encourage a homogenised service and the exchange of good practice between the various community bases and the residential unit. 9 Exit procedures should also be reviewed and protocols set in place with partnership agencies to ensure a smooth transition between support services for service users. 10 Peer support opportunities should be considered to widen the service range. Some service users report that contact with ex-service users is helpful and indeed some of the current service users feel they could offer peer support to those who have just come to Turnaround. Details: Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University, 2011. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: www.turningpointscotland.com/documents/6618 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 123312 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections (Scotland) Community Service Community-based Corrections

Author: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning,Statistical Analysis Center Title: Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Iowa First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services Dual Diagnosis Offender Program (DDOP) Summary: This study consists of a process and outcome evaluation of the First Judicial District’s Dual Diagnosis Offender Program (DDOP). The study was supported by Byrne funds through the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy, which provided partial support for DDOP operation. The purposes of the study were to: explain the context of the program, its history and funding sources; depict the program staff; describe the program and activities; portray the beneficiaries of the program and describe who completes it; describe changes to the program; and assess participants and a comparison group on measures such as recidivism, substance abuse relapse, and justice system costs. Program The Dual Diagnosis Offender Program (DDOP) is delivered by the First District Department of Correctional Services. The residential portion is housed at the Waterloo Residential Correctional Facility and consists of a 16–bed unit for male offenders. The program began in 1998 and was created to fill a void in services for criminally-involved dual-diagnosed individuals. The goal of DDOP is to divert clients from incarceration and crime and enhance coordination of criminal justice and mental health services for the target population. The program provides integrated substance abuse and mental health group and individual treatment, which empirical research has identified as being an effective treatment model. The program also incorporates other elements that have been identified in the literature as being effective for dually-diagnosed offenders. Staff DDOP staff had varying educational and professional backgrounds and years of experience, a reflection of a program with a multidisciplinary team. Most staff had at least a Bachelor’s degree and professional background in human services or counseling with roughly half being with DDOP for up to five years. Program Clients Between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2007, 236 males were admitted to the DDOP. Offenders were court ordered into the program for a minimum of six months and a maximum of one year. Participants spent an average of about five months in the residential program, with about 60% completing the residential program. The average participant at entry was 32 years old, white (71.6%), unmarried (86.0%) and had a GED or high school diploma (61.4%). Most had a prior prison admission (56.8%) and were under supervision for a felony (73.3%). Over one-third reported poly-drug usage (35.2%). Among the 73.3% of participants for whom data on chronic mental illnesses were available, 78% had a serious mental illness. The average score on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) was 37.3, in the moderate/high risk category, with relatively high average sub-scores on alcohol/drugs (6.0 out of 9) and emotional/personal (4.5 out of 5) indicators. DDOP Study Group The DDOP study group included all offenders who started the program after January 1, 2001 and were discharged by September 30, 2005 (n= 144). The matched “comparison group” was comprised of individuals who entered community supervision between January 1, 2001 and December 30, 2005 (n=106). While there were some differences in characteristics between the study and comparison groups, they were sufficiently similar to permit valid comparisons. Outcomes The DDOP study group and comparison group were tracked for the three years following their entry to DDOP or community supervision. Outcome measures included recidivism and substance abuse relapse. Justice system costs were also tracked for a three year time period for the groups. Generally, on recidivism measures, the DDOP study group completers had outcomes similar to the comparison group, while non-completers fared worse. 70.9% of the completers and 73.6% of the comparison group had a new conviction compared to 86.2% of the non-completers. 19.8% of the completers and 17.9% of the comparison group had a new felony compared to 37.9% of the non-completers. 48.8% of the completers and 42.5% of the comparison group returned to prison compared to 98.3% of the non-completers. On relapse measures, the DDOP study group completers and non-completers showed similar outcomes, while the comparison group fared worse. Half of the completers and 41.1% of the non-completers had a positive drug test, compared to 64.7% of the comparison group. 18.6% of the completers and 17.2% of the non-completers had a new drug conviction, compared to 25.5% of the comparison group. 62.8% of the completers and 55.2% of the non-completers had a positive drug test or a new drug or alcohol conviction, compared to 71.7% of the comparison group. In terms of justice systems costs, DDOP non-completers had the highest three-year supervision costs, followed by DDOP completers. Longer-term study is necessary to determine the true financial impact of the program. Race Outcomes suggested that white and non-white DDOP participants benefitted equally from the program. This is noteworthy because non-whites tend to have higher rates of failure than whites in most correctional programming. There were considerable differences in outcome measures between non-white DDOP clients and their comparison group counterparts. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, 2011. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/DualDiagnosisOffenderProgram.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/DualDiagnosisOffenderProgram.pdf Shelf Number: 123536 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Programs Drug Offenders (Iowa) Mentally Ill Offenders Offender Treatment Recidivism

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts Summary: A drug court is a specialized court that targets criminal offenders who have drug addiction and dependency problems. These programs provide offenders with intensive court supervision, mandatory drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, and other social services as an alternative to adjudication or incarceration. As of June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug courts operating nationwide, of which about 1,400 target adult offenders. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to develop and implement adult drug-court programs. DOJ requires grantees that receive funding to provide data that measure their performance. In response to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) data DOJ collected on the performance of federally funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ used these data in making grant-related decisions, and (2) what is known about the effectiveness of drug courts. GAO assessed performance data DOJ collected in fiscal year 2010 and reviewed evaluations of 32 drug- court programs and 11 cost-benefit studies issued from February 2004 through March 2011. GAO recommends that BJA document key methods used to guide future revisions of its performance measures for the adult drug-court program. DOJ concurred with GAO’s recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-53: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Shelf Number: 123545 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Jolliffe, Darrick Title: Re-offending Analysis of Women Offenders Referred to Together Women (TW) and the Scope to Divert from Custody Summary: Together Women was a community-based holistic intervention aimed at socially excluded women who were ‘offenders’ (with a recent or past criminal conviction) or ‘at risk’ of offending, although neither category was prescriptively defined. Issues about data monitoring, the definitions of needs and outcomes which were highlighted in previous reports continued to hamper a robust evaluation of TW meaning only a limited quantitative assessment of the impact of TW could be undertaken. The results suggested that there was no difference in the prevalence or frequency of proven re-offending among women referred to TW and comparable women who were supported by the Probation Service. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of TW service users identified (as a proportion of those referred), the limited number of TW service users recorded as having received support from TW, and the reliance on criminal records data to equate the TW and comparison group. Interviews with sentencers, particularly magistrates, suggested that while most considered TW to be a useful supplement to the range of non-custodial options, its availability rarely influenced the decision to divert from custody. There was some evidence that this could change if TW was used as a specified activity on a community order. However, some sentencers thought this would undermine the essential TW ethos of empowering women to take control of their lives. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 11/11: Accessed January 18, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/women-offenders-referred-together-women.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/women-offenders-referred-together-women.pdf Shelf Number: 123655 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Diversion Female Offenders (U.K.) Recidivism Rehabilitation

Author: Labriola, Melissa M. Title: The Drug Court Model and Chronic Misdemeanants: Impact Evaluation of the Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court Summary: In January 2002, the Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court (QMTC) opened in Queens County, New York to provide an alternative to incarceration for drug-addicted, chronic misdemeanor offenders. QMTC was established through the cooperative efforts of the New York State Unified Court System, the Queens District Attorney’s Office, the Queens defense bar, the New York City Department of Probation, and Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), a nationwide case management agency. An earlier report provided a process evaluation of the QMTC model, documenting the Court’s policies, key implementation challenges, participant characteristics, and compliance outcomes (Labriola 2006). The current report evaluates the impact of the QMTC on recidivism, case processing efficiency and sentencing outcomes. Outcomes were compared between 335 QMTC participants and a matched sample of 335 similar defendants arrested in Queens County, New York in the two years before the Court opened. The comparison group was rigorously matched to participants to ensure comparability in their current charges, prior criminal history, and key demographic characteristics (age, sex, and race/ethnicity). Details: New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation, 2009. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Queens_Impact_Evaluation.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Queens_Impact_Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 123697 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts (New York) Drug Offenders Recidivism Repeat Offenders

Author: Marchand, Gwen Title: Kalamazoo County Adult Drug Treatment Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation (Final Report) Summary: In the past fifteen years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the spread of drug courts across the country. In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles including addiction treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. “The emergence of these new courts reflects the growing recognition on the part of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel that the traditional criminal justice methods of incarceration, probation, or supervised parole have not stemmed the tide of drug use among criminals and drug-related crimes in America.” (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999, p. 9). In the drug treatment court movement, Michigan has been a pioneering force. The Michigan Community Corrections Act was enacted in 1988 to investigate and develop alternatives to incarceration. Four years later, in June 1992, the first women’s drug treatment court in the nation was established in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In 1997, a program for male offenders was added to the Drug Treatment Court Program through an expansion grant from the U.S. Department of Justice1. In 2005, NPC Research was hired to perform outcome and cost evaluations of two Michigan adult drug courts; the Kalamazoo Adult Drug Treatment Court and the Barry County Adult Drug Court. This document describes the evaluation and results for the Kalamazoo County Adult Drug Treatment Court (KADTC). There are three key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, researchers and policymakers that this evaluation was designed to answer. 1. Do drug treatment court programs reduce substance abuse? 2. Do drug treatment court programs reduce recidivism? 3. Do drug treatment court programs produce cost savings (in terms of avoided costs)? Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2006. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Kalamazoo%20Final%20Report_1006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Kalamazoo%20Final%20Report_1006.pdf Shelf Number: 123703 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Drug Courts (Michigan) Drug Offenders Recidivism Repeat Offenders

Author: Wyse, Jessica J.B. Title: Rehabilitating Criminal Selves: Gendered Strategies in Community Corrections Summary: Despite sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, scholars have documented that the formation of criminal subjects remains deeply gendered. While women’s criminality is explained as emanating out of psychological disorder and a fractured self, men’s is understood as a rational choice made by a whole self. Drawing upon observational, interview and case note data collected within the probation/parole system of a Northwestern State, I both concur with and challenge this standard narrative. I present a unified concept of the gendered selves that underlie contemporary notions of men and women as criminal subjects and link the particular rehabilitative strategies officers employ to these gendered beliefs. I suggest that officers are critical of the criminal selves of both men and women, positing the male self as flawed or underdeveloped and the female as permeable and amorphous. Responsive to these beliefs, officers attempt to rehabilitate men via encouraging “non-criminal” thought processes and behaviors and modeling a conventional, officious interactional style. For women, offices attempt to solidify women’s boundaries, discourage relationship formation, model a healthy relationship and contain women’s emotions. I focus particularly upon interactions within supervision meetings, as I will argue that it is within this space that officers, facing substantial resource constraints, are able to work towards rehabilitative goals. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Population Studies Center Research Report 12-751: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr12-751.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr12-751.pdf Shelf Number: 123770 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Offender Rehabilitation

Author: Youth Justice Board. Center for Court Innovation. Title: Strong Families, Safe Communities - Recommendations to Improve New York City's Alternative to Detention Programs Summary: In 2006, New York City introduced a new initiative to decrease the number of youth who are placed in detention while their cases are being heard in family court. The initiative includes the creation of Alternative to Detention (ATD) programs in each borough. These programs allow some young people who have been arrested to remain at home before their disposition hearings in family court while they receive relevant services and curfew monitoring. At the core of ATD programs is the concept of giving young people a chance—that is, giving them opportunities to succeed outside the confines of detention. The Youth Justice Board believes that communitybased ATD programs are critical to improving outcomes for young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Over five months, the Youth Justice Board conducted interviews with over 30 stakeholders involved in the ATD initiative. The Board visited four ATD programs and conducted three focus groups with young people involved in the juvenile justice system to learn about the experiences and perspectives of youth. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Shelf Number: 122752 Keywords: Administrative Detention, Juveniles Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders

Author: Males, Mike Title: Jail Needs Assessment for San Mateo County: A preliminary analysis Summary: On April 5, 2011, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) codifying, one of history’s most sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system. This landmark legislation comes 35 years after then Governor Brown signed the Determinant Sentencing Law (DSL) of 1976, ushering in an era of unprecedented prison population expansion. Under the DSL, rehabilitation was eliminated as a goal of sentencing in California in favor of more punitive practices that emphasized incarceration. With the shift to more punitive policies, incarceration rates soared resulting in inevitable overcrowding and a deterioration of conditions within the state’s prisons and jails. As result present day criminal justice stakeholders in each of California’s 58 counties are addressing the challenge of how to serve an increased number of individuals under their supervision. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) produced this report at the request of San Mateo County’s Controller’s Office. The intention of the analysis is to explore San Mateo County’s current and historic criminal justice system trends and determine the future necessity of additional county jail construction. This report provides San Mateo County criminal justice stakeholders with a data-driven analysis that explores targeted areas to apply model interventions that reduce unnecessary incarceration while promoting public safety. San Mateo County is one of the most affluent counties in California, with 2010 median household incomes ($82,750) well above the state average ($57,700). Additionally, the percentage of residents with incomes below poverty thresholds (6.8%) is well below the state as a whole (15.8%). For every race and age level, San Mateo County residents have poverty levels less than half the state average. The county’s population has stabilized, with current and projected growth levels (1% to 1.5% per decade) that are much slower than California as a state (10%) (Demographic Research Unit, 2010). The county thus has (with a few exceptions) generally lower crime rates and social problems, as well as more resources available to apply to reducing them. However, within these apparently stabilizing factors lies great change. Like other major counties, San Mateo County has undergone a dramatic population shift in recent decades, with a significant increase in minority populations. Thirty years ago, three-fourths of the county’s adults age 18-69 was White, of European origin.1 After declines of 30% and 40% in the white and black populations respectively, a 260% rise in the Latino population, and a quadrupling in the Asian population, today there are 80,000 more San Mateo County adults than in 1980, 6 in 10 of whom are Asian, Hispanic, African-American, and other nonwhites. The state Demographic Research Unit (2011) projects continued slow population growth, with declining white populations offset by continued increases in Asians and Latinos. Details: San Francisco, California: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 15p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Shelf Number: 124171 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Corrections (California) Jails Prison Population

Author: Villettaz, Patrice Title: The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge Summary: As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasiexperimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non-custodial sanctions on reoffending. For this purpose, we examined more than 3,000 abstracts, and finally 23 studies that met the minimal conditions of the Campbell Review, with only 5 studies based on a controlled or a natural experimental design. These studies allowed, all in all, 27 comparisons. Relatively few studies compare recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to jail or prison with those of offenders given some alternative to incarceration (typically probation). According to the findings, the rate of re-offending after a non-custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in 11 out of 13 significant comparisons. However, in 14 out of 27 comparisons, no significant difference on re-offending between both sanctions is noted. Two out of 27 comparisons are in favour of custodial sanctions. Finally, experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non-custodial sanctions, than are quasi-experimental studies using softer designs. This is confirmed by the meta-analysis including four controlled and one natural experiment. According to the results, non-custodial sanctions are not beneficial in terms of lower rates of re-offending beyond random effects. Contradictory results reported in the literature are likely due to insufficient control of pre-intervention differences between prisoners and those serving “alternative” sanctions. Details: Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration, 2006. 73p. Source: Campbell Systematic Reviews 2006:13: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at Year: 2006 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 124420 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Crime Prevention Custodial Sentences Re-Offending Recidivism

Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Title: Juvenile Detention in Cook County: Future Directions Summary: Cook County has a long and proud tradition of progressive practice in juvenile justice - not only with the advent of the first juvenile court but as a national leader through the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. The last two decades, however, have brought intense scrutiny in the area of juvenile detention culminating in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging a range of violations including overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and regular exposure to violence and abuse. With the intervention of federal courts, substantial progress has been made to date and additional improvements are planned or underway. Nonetheless, substantial concern continues that such reforms cannot fully resolve the challenges presented by the existing facility. In the belief that it is time for Cook County to once again set a new standard - this time for youth detention - the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation (JAJCF), on behalf of the Chief Judge of Cook County, has commissioned the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct this study of youth detention in Cook County. This study looks beyond the challenges of the current facility to examine more fundamentally the detention needs of the county and its youth. The ultimate goal of the study is to guide discussion regarding a new vision for detention in Cook County - a vision that holds to the ideals that informed the creation of the court in 1899 while recognizing the current circumstances in which the court operates. After careful assessment and discussion with experts within the County, it is the opinion of NCCD that, even after appropriate reforms are implemented, the current Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC) will have at best limited capacity to meet the complex needs of youth being detained in Cook County. Working with JAJCF, NCCD instead offers the following vision for detention in Cook County, one that rests on the conviction that secure detention must be one element of a cohesive juvenile justice system that includes efficient case processing, a range of alternatives to avoid unneccessary confinement, and equity for children of all races and ethnicities. Cook County shoud maximize community safety and the health and well-being of its youth and families by: reserving secure detention for only those youth who present a real threat to the safety of the community; providing youth who must be detained with meaningful assessment, case management, and programming; detaining youth in small, safe, community-based facilities consistent with best practice; and ensuring that decision making is guided by timely, accurate information about the youth and all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Details: Madison, Wisconsin: National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/dnld/JuvenileDetentioninCookCounty.pdf Shelf Number: 124609 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: New Jersey Courts Title: A Model for Success: A Report on New Jersey's Adult Drug Courts Summary: The New Jersey Adult Drug Court Program is an alternative to incarceration for drug dependent offenders. Instead of imprisoning offenders, the Drug Court offers a voluntary, therapeutic program designed to break the cycle of addiction and crime by addressing the underlying cause of repeated criminal behavior. In New Jersey, the Drug Court process begins with a legal review of the offender’s current and prior offenses and a clinical assessment of his or her substance abuse history. Offenders who meet eligibility criteria and are found to be drug and/or alcohol dependent are placed in the Drug Court program and referred to a treatment level of care that meets their clinical need. Over several years, the individual receives substance abuse treatment, intensive probation supervision, frequent and random drug testing and may be referred to a variety of ancillary service providers. A unique element of the Drug Court program is that offenders must appear in court regularly, even weekly and report to the Drug Court judge on their compliance with program requirements. The personal intervention of the judge in the offenders’ lives is a major factor in the success of Drug Courts. This report tells the of the accomplishments of Adult Drug Courts in the State of New Jersey over the past ten years. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Courts, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124940 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts (New Jersey) Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Senior, Jane Title: Alternatives to Custody for People with Mental Health Problems Summary: Current government policy is working toward the reduction of short term custodial sentencing where suitable community alternatives exist which both suitably and appropriately punish offenders and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The Offender Health Research Network was commissioned by Offender Health at the Department of Health to examine the impact of a potential change in sentencing practices in terms of health and criminal justice services‟ responses to people with mental health problems who are in contact with the criminal justice system, making recommendations for improving current service provision. We conclude that the Mental Health Treatment Requirement, available as part of the Community Order, has not been fully adopted by sentencers or mental health and criminal justice service professionals as a mechanism through which to better engage mentally ordered offenders with treatment services. The reasons for this are discussed and we suggest a number of adaptations to the current legislation and associated working practices which are designed to increase the uptake of, and benefits from, the Requirement. Details: Manchester, UK: Offender Health Research Network, Centre for Mental Health and Risk, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/health-and-criminal-justice-liaison-and-diversion/documents/OHRN%20-%20Alternatives%20to%20Custody%20Report%20-%20Dec%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/health-and-criminal-justice-liaison-and-diversion/documents/OHRN%20-%20Alternatives%20to%20Custody%20Report%20-%20Dec%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 125130 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Ringland, Clare Title: Intensive Correction Orders vs other Penalties: Offender Profiles Summary: Aim: To examine the profile of offenders given intensive correction orders in New South Wales and to compare these offenders with those who received other penalties. Method: Details of offenders’ demographic and offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties were examined. Logistic regression models were developed to compare those who received intensive correction orders with those who received other penalties. Results: Between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2011, 488 offenders in NSW were given an intensive correction order. The majority of offenders were male (89%); on average, they were 32.7 years of age, with 5.3 prior proven court appearances, and most commonly they were convicted of traffic and vehicle regulatory offences (40%). When compared with offenders receiving periodic detention, a suspended sentence with supervision, a community service order or a sentence of imprisonment, those who received intensive correction orders were most similar to those who received periodic detention in the preceding year. However, they were more likely to be female, have a prior prison sentence and live in a major city than those who had received periodic detention. Conclusion: The profile of offenders receiving intensive correction orders was very similar to the profile of those who previously received periodic detention. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 163: Accessed July 11, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB163.pdf/$file/CJB163.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB163.pdf/$file/CJB163.pdf Shelf Number: 125543 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Offenders (Australia) Sentencing

Author: Mahoney, Barry Title: The Seattle Community Court: Start-up, Initial Implementation, and Recommendations Concerning Future Development Summary: In June 2006, a group of urban court administrators and presiding judges from large urban trial courts in the United States met in Seattle, Washington, hosted by the Seattle Municipal Court. The program for the meeting, which was organized by The Justice Management Institute (JMI) as part of its Urban Court Managers Network project, included opportunity to observe a session of the Seattle Community Court. Following the court session, participants at the meeting had an opportunity to speak informally with three justice system leaders—Presiding Judge Fred Bonner, City Attorney Tom Carr, and Dave Chapman, Director of Associated Counsel for the Accused, the lead indigent defense agency serving the Municipal Court—who had participated actively in the session. During the informal discussion following the session, everyone present learned about the origins of the Community Court and the remarkable commitment to innovation and system improvement that these three leaders had forged. All of the court administrators and presiding judges present at the meeting recognized the difficulty of the challenge that the Community Court leaders had taken on. Every community of any size faces problems of the sort that Seattle has faced with a population of individuals charged repeatedly with minor “quality of life” offenses. It has become increasingly clear that traditional criminal sanctions—such as jail, probation, or fines—rarely have any deterrent effect on these individuals. It has also become apparent that the roots of their behavior lie much deeper. The individuals who repeatedly commit these offenses are very likely to have a host of other problems: substance abuse or addiction, mental illness, lack of employment or stable housing, and physical disabilities of varying severity. In addition to cycling repeatedly through the criminal justice system, they also turn up repeatedly at hospital emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and other publicly supported facilities. Few jurisdictions have developed effective ways of handling the problems they pose. The Seattle approach struck most everyone at the meeting as innovative and promising. It involved the use of the authority of the court to impose a short sentence of community service rather than a jail term, coupled with requirements that the defendant make at least initial linkages with social services and treatment agencies. The Seattle justice system leaders were candid in acknowledging that their objectives for the program were modest: they hoped to begin to turn around the lives of some of the participants, but they had no illusions of 100% success. Simply getting as many as 30 percent of the defendants to complete their sentence obligations could be regarded as a major accomplishment. However, even modest success would be better than continued adherence to traditional practices that were demonstrably ineffective in changing behaviors, though expensive in the use of jail space.The main objectives of this report are to describe how and why the Seattle Community Court program got started, summarize the experience of the first two years of the program, and provide recommendations for further expansion of the Community Court. Details: Denver, CO: Justice Management Institute, 2007. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/the-seattle-community-court-start-up-and-implementation Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/the-seattle-community-court-start-up-and-implementation Shelf Number: 125700 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Courts (Seattle) Community Sentences Community Service

Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource Outlining Probation & Parole Challenges, Effective Strategies and Model Programs Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association and the Century Council convened a group of community supervision and corrections experts to develop the “Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource for Outlining Supervision Challenges, Effective Strategies, and Model Programs.” This guide combines the latest in evidenced-based supervision practices with treatment strategies known to work with alcohol involved and DUI/DWI offenders. The advisory group assembled to develop this guide began by identifying what would educate and benefit the community corrections field. To that end, the group identified supervision challenges, and where applicable possible solutions to those challenges, promising practices working in their jurisdictions, and an array of resources for community corrections practitioners and administrators to turn to for additional information and guidance. What is meant by saying that someone is supervised in the community? It means that probation and/or parole officers using a combined approach involving surveillance, treatment, and accountability, enforce the court ordered rules and sentencing meted out to the offenders. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association; Arlington, VA: Century Council, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Shelf Number: 125799 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community-based Corrections Driving Under the Influence (U.S.) Drunk Driving Parole Probation

Author: Adams, Christine M. Shea Title: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Evaluation of the Colorado Short Term Intensive Residential Remediation Treatment (STIRRT) Programs Summary: The Short Term Intensive Residential (STIRRT) program is intended to provide 14 days of residential substance abuse treatment designed to stabilize an individual and then provide outpatient, community-based services for six to nine months following discharge from the residential component. The program is offered at one of four Colorado locations: Arapahoe House (Denver), Crossroads Turning Point (Pueblo), Mesa County Community Corrections (Grand Junction), and Larimer County Community Corrections (Fort Collins). The program is considered a “last chance” for offenders who would otherwise go to prison. Those eligible include those referred by probation, parole, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC), Denver Drug Court, and community corrections. This evaluation includes 1,324 individuals who participated in the STIRRT program between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. FINDINGS • Most participants (91%) successfully completed the 14-day residential component of STIRRT. • Less than half (42.3%) of successful STIRRT discharges participated in the continuing care component of the program. • Recidivism, measured as new county or district court filing within 12 months of discharge from residential treatment, was approximately 25% regardless of participation in continuing care. This analysis included 296 individuals who participated in continuing care and were at risk of recidivating for 12 months. o In comparison, in FY 2008, 63.7% of community corrections clients (diversion and transition combine) successfully completed the program and 14.6% recidivated within 12 months. Details: Denver, CO: Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 4, 2012 at: http://cospl.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/co:8588/ps722r312010internet.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cospl.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/co:8588/ps722r312010internet.pdf Shelf Number: 126232 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Residential Treatment Programs Substance Abuse (Colorado) Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Meadows, Linda Title: Evaluation of the South Yorkshire Restorative Justice Programme Summary: This is the final report of the evaluation of South Yorkshire Restorative Justice Programme (SYRJP), undertaken by the Hallam Centre for Community Justice at Sheffield Hallam University. The SYRJP was developed in partnership between South Yorkshire Police and the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) with the aim of implementing a county wide model of Restorative Justice (RJ) for use in neighbourhood policing and other community applications. It is aimed at tackling low level crime and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods and gives police officers the discretion to use Youth and Adult Restorative disposals as an alternative to prosecution for low level offending behaviour where offenders have no previous convictions, make an admission of guilt and where both offender and victim consent to the RJ process. The first phase of implementation involved training 1700 front line police officers in the use of RJ disposals and the second phase delivered enhanced training in Restorative conferencing to 160 officers. The third phase is ongoing and has extended RJ into Hate Crime and Integrated Offender Management. Since the inception of the Programme in March 2010 until February 2012 a total of 3,357 RJ interventions have been undertaken across the County. The evaluation was primarily qualitative and involved: interviews with eight magistrates, 34 victims and 29 offenders and 10 police officers; observation/focus group activities in five community meetings; a survey of police staff, a community survey and two victim surveys. A quantitative element was added during the course of the evaluation and involved analysing the reconviction rates for a cohort of offenders who had received an RJ disposal and a comparator cohort. Findings from these activities are organised around three key themes: The RJ Model; the RJ Process and the Impact of RJ. The RJ Model currently in operation has changed from the model originally envisaged at the outset of the program. What has emerged is a continuum of approaches which incorporates Street/Instant RJ and RJ conferencing but also includes hybrid approaches which fall somewhere between the two. While there may be advantages to a more flexible and wider application of RJ, this is not without risk, including consistency and clarity of understanding amongst police officers. Overall, the concept of RJ is well embedded across the force and there were high levels of satisfaction with the relevance of the training and the level of skills it provided. Police officers were generally confident in the use of RJ and the empowering opportunity it provided for professional discretion. Senior level support was strong though issues were raised about levels of understanding amongst custody sergeants/inspectors who are involved in the decisions to use RJ. Use of conferencing is less well embedded and police officers identified a range of structural and cultural barriers which had impeded its use. Victims are positive about the processes surrounding RJ which were seen as straightforward. Victims felt that communication prior to becoming involved was clear and effective and they were positive about the support they received both during and after the event. Occasions were identified where the RJ process broke down which provide potential pointers for the future development of the programme.Victims were generally satisfied with the outcome of their involvement with RJ. They reported feeling empowered by their experience of RJ and indicated that it gave them a greater sense of control. Many also indicated that RJ had increased their confidence in the police force and that they felt that RJ had had a positive effect on the offender. There were some encouraging indications that offenders who had received an RJ disposal were less likely to be reconvicted than offenders who had received an alternative disposal. Though the results of the reconviction analysis were not statistically significant, they were close to the 0.1 level that is traditionally used as a guide. The qualitative fieldwork also supported these findings and indicated that RJ had had a significant impact on many of the offenders involved. The following key recommendations were indicated by the findings of the evaluation: - Communicating and embedding changes in the model to ensure greater consistency in the application of RJ- Additional training for inspectors/custody sergeants who make decisions about whether or not to proceed with RJ- Clarifying and potentially extending the role of PCSOs- for example in the administration of RJ processes, especially relating to RJ conferencing - Clarifying the role of RJ conferencing and addressing the structural and cultural inhibitors to its use - Developing a community communications strategy to increase awareness - Ensuring victims and offender understanding of the RJ process and effective communication throughout. - Developing guidance for police officers on appropriate compensation for victims - Clarifying processes relating to follow up and non-compliance. Redesigning guidance/processes/ paperwork to support the use of RJ with non-crimes - Refreshing guidance for police officers on the status of RJ disposals in enhanced CRB checks. - Conducting further reconviction analysis - Conducting further research into the costs/time taken for restorative conferencing. Details: Sheffield, UK: Hallam Centre for Community Justice, Sheffield Hallam University, 2012 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/ngo/evaluation-of-the-south-yorkshire-restorative-justice-programme-17-08-2012/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/ngo/evaluation-of-the-south-yorkshire-restorative-justice-programme-17-08-2012/ Shelf Number: 126302 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Antisocial Behavior At-risk Youth Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation Restorative Justice (U.K.)

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Facing Up To Offending: Use of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System. A joint thematic inspection by HMIC, HMI Probation, HMI Prisons and the HMCPSI Summary: Much of the research on Restorative Justice (RJ) has found that such an approach can have a positive effect on victim satisfaction and re-offending rates. This has led to a renewed focus on RJ (which has been used in the criminal justice system since the 1980s). As a result, it features as a priority in current plans to reform sentencing. RJ can be used at each stage of the criminal justice system: from informal resolutions on the street, when the police decide to resolve low-level crime and antisocial behaviour in a common-sense manner without resorting to judicial process, to RJ conferences, when a victim meets the offender face to face (sometimes in prison after the offender has been convicted). Although RJ outcomes are not recorded nationally, our inspection showed that informal resolutions administered by the police have shown a marked increase in number. More formal RJ approaches involving a meeting or conference between he offender and victim are much smaller in number by comparison, whether utilised before or after conviction and remain in development. It is the impact of RJ conferences on reoffending behaviour and victim satisfaction that most academic research has been focussed. Conferencing aims to help victims recover from the impact of the crime; to ensure the offender understands the implication of his or her actions; and to provide an opportunity for the offender to make amends. Less is known about the impact of informal resolutions on the street. 5 This flexibility in how and where it can be used is a benefit; but in the absence of a clear strategy, it also introduces the risk that RJ approaches will be applied inconsistently. This could mean that people are being treated differently depending on where they live or what criminal justice agency they are involved with; and this could lead to the perception of unfairness. The criminal justice joint inspectorates therefore committed to reviewing practices across the system, to ensure the benefits RJ offers are being fully exploited, and the risks minimised. The aim of this review was to identify the benefits of restorative justice practices across the criminal justice system. It was a joint inspection, carried out by Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), Her Majesty‟s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) and Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP). Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/VWEX/RJ_CJJI_rpt_Sept12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/VWEX/RJ_CJJI_rpt_Sept12.pdf Shelf Number: 126401 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Restorative Justice (U.K.) Victim-Offender Mediation

Author: Victim Support Title: Out in the Open: What Victims Really Think About Community Sentencing Summary: Confidence in the criminal justice system among victims remains far too low. The rule of law rightly demands that victims do not dictate justice or sentencing, but the engagement and confidence of victims in it is nevertheless vital. Victims and witnesses have been historically marginalised in the field of sentencing. While this has begun to change and the need to consider victims’ perspectives is acknowledged more widely, the views of victims continue to be misrepresented and misunderstood. These issues are of particular importance at a time when significant changes are underway in sentencing and the wider criminal justice system. Sentencing policy has been singled out by the coalition Government as a priority for reform. A key aspect of this is reduction in the use of short – term prison sentences for lower level offences and the increased use of community sentences as an alternative. Reforms of community sentences are proposed in order to make them more effective and to gain the confidence of victims and wider society. If this process is to be successful it must take account of victims’ views and concerns. Against this background Victim Support and Make Justice Work decided to investigate the attitudes of victims of crime towards community sentencing. Our report shows that victims are more open to the use of alternatives to custody, more than is widely supposed, but that they also have serious misgivings about their effectiveness. This report poses a challenge to policy makers – to demonstrate to victims of crime that community sentences are robust and credible and to ensure their voices are heard. We believe the conclusions and recommendations made in light of these findings reveal how effective changes can be made. Details: London: Victim Support, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2012 at: http://www.victimsupport.org/About-us/News/2012/09/~/media/Files/Publications/ResearchReports/MJW%20and%20VS%20report%20-%20FINAL Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.victimsupport.org/About-us/News/2012/09/~/media/Files/Publications/ResearchReports/MJW%20and%20VS%20report%20-%20FINAL Shelf Number: 126445 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Sentencing Victims of Crime (U.K.)

Author: Watson, Greg Title: From Wild Living to Living Wild: The Use of wilderness as part of an overall intervention strategy in programmes for young offenders in Scotland Summary: This study set out to investigate the use of wilderness as part of an alternative intervention programme for young offenders aged 16-24. The Venture Trust had recently adjusted their course from a residential base to a wilderness-based expedition journey called Living Wild. My rationale for this study was to answer the primary research question of whether the wilderness “works” and, or if has an effect on participants. A secondary purpose was to ask those who referred participants and those who worked with those participants how important they felt wilderness was in relation to the overall intervention programme. The author‟s full time work with the Venture Trust offered an opportunity to observe at first hand the effect of the wilderness environment upon participants. Over ten courses were used during a research study period between October 2008 and October 2009. Diary observations were made in the wilderness and narrative vignettes were written for each course. In addition over ten interviews were undertaken with representatives across the organisation as well as with key funders and referrers; including the Scottish Minister for Justice, sheriffs, probation officers and social workers. The main recurrent themes that appeared from the data collection supported the idea of wilderness as “working” were “offering a different perspective”, “involving real choices and consequences” and finally wilderness as “a catalyst” or “stressor”. This third and final theme was the hardest to quantify and yet it was the most pertinent and central to my rationale for the research the notion that the wilderness itself could have an effect on participants. Whilst other factors, such as facilitated personal and social development were acknowledged as been part of the overall intervention programme, the importance placed on wilderness was varied; there was consensus that the wilderness “offered a different perspective”, but it was less than conclusive on whether or not wilderness “involved real choices and consequences”. In relation to idea that wilderness could be “a catalyst”, the difference was a very subtle one of emphasis between those who saw the wilderness as a mere stage or “setting” and others who saw wilderness as more central to the process. There have been some concerns that wilderness based programmes can fail to address the social problems that they set out to solve. The results of this research suggests that the wilderness does at least offer a different perspective to people that are willing to begin the process of change and in some cases it may even be the catalyst for that change. Details: Edinburgh: Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, 2011. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/outdoored/research/dissertation_watson.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/outdoored/research/dissertation_watson.pdf Shelf Number: 126457 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Offenders Rehabilitation Programs Wilderness Programs (Scotland) Youth Adult Offenders

Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Windsor County Sparrow Project: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Sparrow Project was initiated in the spring of 2009 when it was awarded an H.859 Justice Reinvestment Pilot Project grant from the Vermont Court Administrator’s office (CAO). The grant application was submitted by Health Care and Rehabilitation Services of Southeastern Vermont (HCRS) in collaboration with the Windsor District Court, the Windsor County State’s Attorneys Office, a group of Windsor County public defenders, Probation & Parole for the Springfield and Hartford Districts, and the Field Service Division of the Agency of Human Services for the Springfield and Hartford districts. Bill H.859 was passed during the 2007/2008 Legislative session. The Sparrow Project was designed to address a critical need in the community to meet the challenges facing defendants with substance abuse and/or mental health issues. The Sparrow Project offers effective alternatives to incarceration through a viable community-based treatment plan. Through clinical case management services, the Sparrow Project is focused on increasing the availability of therapeutic services to defendants and veterans in Windsor County charged with non-violent property felonies, drug felonies, and other charges. The Sparrow Project is designed to help improve the quality of life for these individuals by decreasing recidivism, helping them develop the skills they need to make healthy decisions, and moving them towards recovery, in order to become successful participants in our community. During the study period 58% of Sparrow Project participants (56 of 97) completed the Project. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of the Sparrow Project the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which participation in the Sparrow Project reduced recidivism among program participants. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program or, in the case of this study, while they are in the program or after they are dis-enrolled from the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 103 subjects who were referred to and accepted into the Sparrow Project from March 30, 2009 to October 28, 2011 was conducted using the Vermont criminal history record of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center at the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont District Court that were available as of January 23, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain Federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1. The Sparrow Project appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among Project participants who completed the Project. Participants who successfully completed the Project had a reconviction rate of 17.9% which is substantially less than the 29.3% recidivism rate for those participants who were dis-enrolled from the Project. 2. Participants who successfully completed the Sparrow Project recidivated at the same pace as did participants who were dis-enrolled from the Project. For the recidivists who successfully completed the Sparrow Project, 100% of those reconvictions for any new crime occurred in less than one year. For the recidivists who were unsuccessful in completing the Project, 91.7% (11 of 12) of reconvictions for any new crime occurred in less than one year, and only one occurred during the first year after being dis-enrolled from the Project. Further analysis indicated that though the vast majority of recidivism occurs within the first year, it is unlikely that recidivism will increase substantially as post-Project elapsed time continues to increase for participants. 3. The Sparrow Project appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number of post-Project reconvictions for participants who completed the Project. The reconviction rate for those participants who completed the Project was 39 reconvictions per 100 participants versus 66 reconvictions per 100 participants for the dis-enrolled group. There were no felony reconvictions for participants who successfully completed the Project, whereas there were four felony reconvictions for the dis-enrolled group. For both groups approximately 85% of their reconvictions involved (listed in order of frequency) motor vehicle charges violations of conditions of release, drug crimes, theft, false information to a law enforcement officer, and violation of probation. There was only one reconviction for a violent crime (Domestic Assault); it involved a participant from the “successful completion” group. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2012. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/sparrowreport_files/SparrowRpt_6-20-12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/sparrowreport_files/SparrowRpt_6-20-12.pdf Shelf Number: 126748 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Abuse and Addiction (Vermont) Drug Abuse and Crime Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Mental Health Services Recidivism

Author: Bewley, Helen Title: The Effectiveness of Different Community Order Requirements for Offenders Who Received an OASys Assessment Summary: The study used propensity score matching to explore the impact of different community order requirements on the re-offending rate and frequency of re-offending within two years of the initial offence. The analysis used data from the Offender Assessment System, probation and re-offending records and administrative data on employment and benefit receipt. The study found no evidence to suggest that increasing the punitive element of community orders would have a detrimental effect on re-offending, for the combinations of requirements considered. However, combining other types of requirement, such as supervision, with a punitive element, can increase the effectiveness of the community order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 17/12: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126796 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentencing Community Supervision Offenders (U.K.) Probationers Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Skinnider, Eileen Title: Canada’s Approach to Minor Offences, Behavioural Problems and Administrative Detention Summary: In the past few years, the Government of China has been reviewing and revising various forms of administrative detention that continue to be used in parallel to the criminal justice system. The “Re-education Through Labor” (laodong jiaoyang) permits the detention for up to four years of people who are not formally regarded as “criminals”. This form of administrative detention applies to people who are accused of minor offences which are not considered to amount to “crime” in China. For example, this can include people who are deemed to disturb public order, such as prostitutes and people who engage in fights and petty theft. Detention for these groups of people is usually decided by the public security alone, without much judicial supervision or review, without charge or trial, with no right to counsel and no opportunity to defend themselves. The re-education through labour process does not proceed under the Chinese criminal justice system, however people receiving such a term can be detained for one to three years, which can be further extended by one year. With the signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, China is preparing to change the Re-education Through Labour system to ensure the compatibility of the Chinese legal system with the provisions in the Covenant. This paper is meant to assist our Chinese partners in such a review by providing some information on the Canadian approach to minor crime and problem behaviour as well as the use of detention outside the criminal justice system. In Canada, a crime involves socially proscribed wrongdoing that have been “agreed” by society as conduct that goes against not only the victim but also the community. Even “minor offences” are dealt with in the criminal justice system, whether this is through the traditional or community based approach. The traditional criminal model puts the State in charge; the case is investigated by the police, the charge is brought by the prosecution and it is up to the State as to how far it will proceed. With the recent concern of the overburden in and cost of the justice system5, as well as the shifting emphasis on restorative justice principles, many countries including Canada, are introducing various measures or alternatives to deal with minor offences. Such alternatives may be based on the restorative justice model which creates greater opportunities for involvement by the victims and more substantial connection between victim and offender. Our criminal justice system focuses on specific acts defined as crimes in the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course these specific acts may be manifestations of underlying behavioural issues. Our system does not criminalise “behavior” per se, nor do we generally detain people who are seen as exhibiting problem behaviour that does not amount to a specific criminal act. There are other State mechanisms that address social ills, such as drug addiction, poverty, child neglect, but these do not generally include detention. However, administrative detention, or the use of forcible confinement for non-criminal matters, is used in a number of situations such as immigration and refugee claims, mental health issues and youth protection. Part II of this paper serves as a review of the Canadian criminal justice system and the international norms pertaining to restorative justice and administrative detention. The importance of ensuring adequate safeguards, fairness and due process in administrative detention proceedings provided by international law is reflected in the Canadian laws on administrative detention. In addressing detention within the criminal justice system, Canada has played a significant role in promoting the importance of restorative justice around the world. The recent United Nations recommendations reflect the growing tendency by countries to seek alternatives to the traditional punishment discourse. Part III examines the history and evolution of the various forms of punishment and incarceration in Canada particularly dealing with minor offences and problem behaviour. Part IV provides an overview of non-custodial measures currently in place in Canada to deal with minor offences. Underlying many of these measures are the principles of restorative justice, providing the victims and the community the opportunity to have a voice while holding the offender accountable for his or her actions. Part V looks specifically at how the Canadian system deals with vagrancy, prostitution, drug addiction, and child abuse or neglect. Part VI examines the procedural fairness that applies to administrative detention situations in Canada. Lastly, Part VII introduces some interesting alternatives to incarceration being undertaken by other countries. While each of these topics could easily be the subject of lengthy discussion, the modest purpose of this paper is to provide an introductory exploration of the legal framework relating to each. Details: Vancouver, BC, Canada: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2005. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2012 at: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/reports/china_re-education_through_labor.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Canada URL: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/reports/china_re-education_through_labor.pdf Shelf Number: 126875 Keywords: Administrative Detention Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Justice Systems (Canada) Minor Offenses Misdemeanors

Author: Henry, Kelli Title: Community Courts: The Research Literature A Review of Findings Summary: The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 community court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement between citizens and the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for lowlevel, “quality-of-life” offenders, speedier and more meaningful case resolutions, and cost savings. In advancing these goals, community courts generally make greater use of community-based sanctions than traditional courts (Hakuta, Soroushian, and Kralstein, 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff et al., 2000; Weidner and Davis, 2000). Among a sample of 25 community courts surveyed in 2007, 92 percent routinely use community service mandates, and 84 percent routinely use social services mandates (Karafin, 2008). This paper reviews the research literature to date about community courts. Community court studies have employed a number of different research methods, reflecting the variation in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Shelf Number: 126917 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Courts Community Sentences Community Service Meta-Analysis

Author: Yamatani, Hide Title: The Program For Offenders: Comprehensive Evaluation and Cost/Benefit Analysis of a Community Corrections Facility Summary: Overall evaluation findings show that a community corrections facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania called The Program For Offenders (TPFO) is shown to be creating an environment of encouragement and accountability that has provided numerous offenders the opportunity to understand how to rebuild their lives and to become self-empowered and reintegrated members of the community. As a result, TPFO is providing the local region with preferable options as an alternative to prison or jail, and succeeding in achieving the mission of public safety and inmate reintegration. Following list of major findings attest to the fact that TPFO is a cost- efficient and highly effective organization. A. High utility of programs offered by TPFO Nearly all of the in-house programs offered by TPFO were appraised as better appreciated at 6-month post release period than initial ratings at the 30-day period. This positive change (from an average of 75% to 83.1% across 11 major program ratings) is more than likely due to their increased opportunity to incorporate what they gained or learned through the TPFO programs 6-months post release compared to the first 30-days post release period. The programs rated as significantly helpful by 80% or more of the former inmates 6 months post release include: (1) Substance abuse rehabilitation; (2) Parenting skills; (3) GED/Adult basic education; (4) Life skills; (5) HIV/AIDS education; (6) Employment search; and (7) Computer literacy. B. Helpfulness of information and guidance A very similar pattern was also found in the evaluative ratings of various information and guidance they received from TPFO during their stay. The overall average positive rating increased from 73.2% to 81.1% between the 30-day and 6-month post-release periods. The programs rated as significantly helpful by 80% or more of the former inmates at 6 months post release include: (1) Drug or alcohol treatment; (2) Building/maintaining relationship with my child; (3) Accessing physical health care; (4) Counseling for emotional/mental health; (5) Finding means of transportation; (6) Finding legal assistance; and (7) Working on personal relationships. C. Successful community integration The living arrangement at 6 months post release from TPFO is encouraging: -- Six out of ten former inmates were residing in own house or apartment, -- Paying rent or mortgage (78.0%); and -- A majority had resided only in one location (67.1%). An employment related profile of the former inmates at 6-months post release from TPFO were also positive: -- A majority (72.1%) of released inmates secure employment at some point after their release; 2 -- The average work hours per week and wage rate are 34.9 hours and $8.80 per hour, respectively; -- Unemployment rate at the 6-month point in time (not entire 6-month period) was 13.6%; and -- Nearly one out of six inmates enrolled in job- training program (16.3% during some time since release). C. Reduced D&A use A majority (66.3%) of the former inmates indicated that they remained clean and sober since leaving TPFO (down from 82.1% at post-30-days). During the previous 30 days of the 6 months after release, the distribution of individuals remaining abstinent across various drug and alcohol abuse is noticeably high. Most stayed away from drugs at the post-6-month period, except for alcohol use to intoxication, and use of cocaine/crack, and marijuana/hashish. It is a positive sign that some time during the post 6-month period, a majority of the inmates (73%) attended AA or NA programs, and none of the former inmates have reported that they have injected drugs during the previous 30 days of the post-6-month period (improvement from 7.1% at the post 30-day assessment period). D. Positive Health Status Overall health status is rated as good to excellent by a high majority of the former inmates at the 6-month post release period (82.7%). Relatively few were using the inpatient, outpatient, or emergency room treatments for physical health complaints, mental or emotional difficulties or for alcohol or substance abuse (less than 9%). This is an improvement over the data from the post-30-day period in which the usage was higher-- outpatient treatment for mental or emotional difficulties (13.8%) and alcohol or substance abuse (17.8%). E: Accessing community-based services The top three types of services received by the former inmates at the time of 6-month survey mirrors the report at post 30-days, which includes AA or NA (54.3%) and family support (45.7%). There was a noticeable decline in other services, including mental health services (17.3% vs. 25.7% at post-30-days), drug/alcohol treatment programs (17.4% vs. 24.3% at post- 30-days), and faith-based programs/services (17.4% vs. 20.4% at post-30-days). Such a positive pattern indicates that the inmates are successfully becoming self-sufficient. F. Successful Recidivism Reduction The estimated annual recidivism rate achieved by TPFO is a noticeably low 14.5% based on the surveys and DOC based searches of the released inmates. Following five factors are suggested by the former inmates as the most important factors in keeping them out of jail: (1) not using drugs; (2) personal commitment to crime free behavior; (3) seeing and being with children; (4) avoiding certain people/situation; and (5) having a job. 3 G. Total Annual Benefits Generated by TPFO exceeds $6.9 million In reference to the total annual benefits generated by TPFO (cost savings, value added cost by TPFO, and aggregate wage) exceed $6.9 million. The cost-benefit ratio is four fold (4.09) -- for every dollar spent on contracting TPFO service, the average return is approximately $4.09. H. Need to raise the County reimbursement rate The inmate reimbursement rate should be set at $70.77 per day per inmate. This rate includes current county reimbursement rate plus additional costs covered by TPFO, including expenditure of providing social and human services. Based on ACJ's most recent data, the estimated cost per inmate per day is $77.75 (without value added costs of social/human services through ACJ Collaborative) compared to $70.77 per day for TPFO, including the value added costs of social/human services. In conclusion, the former inmates are highly convinced that the TPFO is accomplishing its seven major goals: (1) criminal behavior rehabilitation-- positive attitude about crime free behavior; (2) recidivism rate reduction-- avoiding going back to jail; (3) personal growth/development-- life and social skills development; (4) family relationship enhancement-- family support, parenting skills, reunification, reduction of CYF involvement; (5) economic empowerment-- taking job-training opportunities, actively seeking or keeping employment; (6) self-sufficiency-- minimizing dependence on others’ generosity, self-driven initiatives, willingness to help others; and (7) transition back to the community. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: Excellence Research, Inc., 2012. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2012 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026637.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026637.pdf Shelf Number: 127029 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections (U.S.) Cost-Benefit Analysis

Author: Stageberg, Paul Title: Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts Study Summary: On April 12, 2012 Governor Branstad signed Senate File 2312, an Act Relating to Persons with Mental Health Illnesses and Substance Related Disorders. Section 18. Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts –Study. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning of the Department of Human Rights shall conduct a study regarding the possible establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program including:  The establishment of mental health courts, for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness.  The division shall solicit input from the Department of Human Services, the Department of Corrections, and other members of the criminal justice system including but not limited to judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel, and mental health treatment providers and consumers.  The division shall establish the duties, scope, and membership of the study commission and shall also consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court.  The division shall submit a report on the study and make recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 2012. This study draws primarily from existing reports and research findings of other programs. Included here are a review of the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice (CJ) system, the system’s response to the problem, findings of participant outcomes, reported costs, special considerations regarding mental health courts, the status of jail diversion programs and mental health courts in Iowa, and recommendations. One of the requirements of the legislation was to consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court in Iowa. This directive was not examined because Iowa currently has two mental health courts in operation and one under consideration. Woodbury County has operated a mental health court since 2001 and Black Hawk County since 2009. Polk County has recently received funds from the Council of State Governments, Justice Center to review a mental health court curriculum for developing mental health courts. Recommendations for the establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program, including the establishment of mental health courts for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness, are limited to operational issues gleaned from existing reports and interviews. Due to limited staff resources and a lack of funding, no assessment of cost or delineation of funding responsibilities (state, local), or estimation of potential implementation timelines was undertaken. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2013 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Shelf Number: 127399 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Treatment Jail Diversion (Iowa) Mental Health Courts Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Nicholles, Natalie Title: Women's Community Services: A Wise Commission Summary: By helping women to make positive changes their lives, women’s community services can help reduce demands on state services including police, courts and offender management, prisons and social services, primary and emergency healthcare, and housing. They can also improve the long-term outcomes for the children of their clients. This report aims to support local commissioners and decision-makers in meeting the needs of vulnerable women efficiently and effectively. Its findings are the outcome of a year-long research collaboration between nef consulting and five women’s community services, which was funded by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Corston Independent Funders Coalition (CIFC) through the Women’s Diversionary Fund (WDF). It presents the views of clients and staff on the ways in which the services facilitate change by undertaking activities that improve women’s well-being. It offers primary evidence on the demonstrable impact services have on well-being and explores secondary evidence about how these impacts may contribute to reduced reoffending, improved health, and better outcomes for children. Details: London: New Economics Foundation, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2013 at: http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/A_Wise_Commission_webReady.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/A_Wise_Commission_webReady.pdf Shelf Number: 127409 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Female Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Kretschmar, Jeff M. Title: An Evaluation of the Behavioral Health/Juvenile Justice (BHJJ) Initiative: 2006-2011 Summary: Juvenile justice-involved youth with serious behavioral health issues often have inadequate and limited access to care to address their complex and multiple needs. Ohio’s Behavioral Health/Juvenile Justice (BHJJ) initiative was intended to transform and expand the local systems’ options to better serve these youth. Recent emphasis was placed on decreasing the population of ODYS facilities while providing alternatives to incarceration. To assist with this aim, four of the previously existing BHJJ counties (Cuyahoga, Franklin, Montgomery, and Hamilton) as well as two new counties (Lucas and Summit) were funded by a partnership between the Ohio Departments of Youth Services (ODYS) and Mental Health (ODMH). The Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education at Case Western Reserve University provided research and evaluation services for the program. The BHJJ program diverts youth from local and state detention centers into more comprehensive, community-based mental and behavioral health treatment. The BHJJ program enrolled juvenile justice-involved youth between 10-18 years of age who met several of the following criteria: a DSM IV Axis I diagnosis, substantial mental status impairment, a co-occurring substance use/abuse problem, a pattern of violent or criminal behavior, and a history of multi-system involvement. Demographics and Youth Characteristics  1758 youth have been enrolled in BHJJ (55% males). In the two years since BHJJ has operated only in the large urban counties, more non-whites (60%) than whites (40%) have been enrolled.  Youth averaged 2.5 Axis I diagnoses. Females were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with Depressive Disorders, Alcohol-related Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Males were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Conduct Disorder.  Of youth enrolled since July 2009, 41% of females and 43% of males were diagnosed with both a mental health and substance use diagnosis.  Caregivers reported that 30% of the females had a history of sexual abuse, nearly 50% talked about suicide, and over 22% had attempted suicide. Over half the males (59%) and females (67%) had family members who were diagnosed with or showed signs of depression.  According to the OYAS, 76% of the youth served in BHJJ were moderate or high risk.  In the current BHJJ counties, 34% of youth had felony charges in the 12 months prior to enrollment, ranging from 20% in Montgomery County to 94% in Summit County.  In the current BHJJ counties, 34% of youth had felony charges in the 12 months prior to enrollment, ranging from 20% in Montgomery County to 94% in Summit County. Details: Cleveland, OH: Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 2012. 232p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://mentalhealth.ohio.gov/assets/children-youth-families/system-of-care/bhjj-2011-evaluation-final-6-9-12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://mentalhealth.ohio.gov/assets/children-youth-families/system-of-care/bhjj-2011-evaluation-final-6-9-12.pdf Shelf Number: 127458 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Offenders (Ohio, U.S.) Mental Health Services, Juvenile Offenders Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Trotter, Chris Title: Effective Community-Based Supervision of Young Offenders Summary: An increasing body of research suggests that some interventions with offenders can reduce reoffending. While little of this research has focused on the impact of routine supervision of offenders on probation, parole or other community-based orders, a few studies have found that when supervisors make use of a number of specific practice skills, there is a reduced rate of recidivism for those under their supervision. Having first described the effective practice skills, the extent to which these are applied to a population of young offenders is assessed, along with the resultant effect on recidivism. The study involved the direct observation of 117 worker/client interviews conducted by juvenile justice workers in New South Wales. It was found, as with earlier studies generally done with adults, that when workers used particular practice skills, the young people under their supervision had lower reoffending rates. It also found that workers who provided a counselling role made more use of the effective practice skills than workers who did not. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 448: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Shelf Number: 127548 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Interventions Juvenile Offenders (Australia) Offender Supervision

Author: Hough, Mike Title: Intelligent Justice Balancing the Effects of Community Sentences and Custody Summary: The debate over whether ‘prison works’ seems interminable. The Howard League for Penal Reform has well established views on this topic, but political realities make revisiting this question, and perhaps deconstructing assumptions on both sides of the argument, both timely and valuable. The prison population in England and Wales has more than doubled since the mid 1990s. While the latest projections over the coming six years suggest that this growth may be slowing, there is no suggestion that the number of men, women and children incarcerated on any one day will drop below 80,000. Statisticians’ most optimistic assessment suggests numbers could at most drop to the level first reached in 2007 – an increase of 86 per cent compared to the prison population in 1991. At the same time, the realities of running a justice system during an age of austerity are becoming ever clearer. The Ministry of Justice must achieve £2bn annual savings by March 2015 and the failure to deliver sentencing reforms originally proposed by Kenneth Clarke has meant that around £130m of potential savings have been lost. A recent report by the National Audit Office found that the agency in charge of prisons and probation is now projected to overspend by £32m in 2012-13 alone. If that is the difficult context for policymakers, then this paper provides a framework for new thinking that might provide an escape from the current prisons crisis. The Ministry of Justice does not have the funds to build its way out of the overcrowding in the system, and there is little scope for further efficiency savings without endangering key principles of security and giving up on any pretence of a ‘rehabilitation revolution’. As the Chief Inspector of Prisons wrote in his most recent annual report, “if a rehabilitation revolution is to be delivered, there is a clear choice for politicians and policy makers – reduce prison populations or increase prison budgets.” This paper begins by examining the perennial arguments around the efficacy of community sentencing over short spells in custody. An even-handed analysis concedes that the picture is not a simple one, and that indeed it is the very complexity of the problem that necessitates a value-based approach to penal policy. It suggests that any cost-benefit analysis must take into account the long term impact of dramatic increases in imprisonment, which bring with them increases in a number of social problems that themselves sow the seeds for future crime: be it family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction or poor physical and mental health. In the United States for example, this has seen the creation of a system “that feeds upon itself” and which has left many individual states near bankruptcy. 4 The authors conclude by asking for a new emphasis on not simply the prevention of reoffending through deterrence or incapacitation, but on constructing a penal system which seeks to encourage compliance with the law. This idea that people respond best when buying into behaviour such as abiding by the law, rather than being constantly compelled or cajoled into doing so, has powerful implications for future policymaking. It suggests, for example, that a narrow focus on paying providers by their results using the limited picture of reconviction rates may not be the best way to structure prisons and probation. It also suggests that an overweening focus on containing risk, essentially basing a system on a fear of failure, precludes redemptive narratives that promise more success in changing lives and reducing crime. Is the penal system to be based on unaffordable expansion and a fear of failure, or shall it live within its means and celebrate success? This is a question that must be answered sooner rather than later. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2012. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Intelligent_Justice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Intelligent_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 127550 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice (U.K.)

Author: Deloitte Access Economics Title: An Economic Analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Offenders. Prison vs Residential Treatment Summary: Deloitte Access Economics was appointed by NIDAC to: • examine the patterns and prevalence of Indigenous people in the prison system • outline the impact and implications of incarceration of Indigenous people, and • analyse the costs and benefits of addressing Indigenous problematic alcohol and drug use with treatment, particularly residential rehabilitation, as compared to prison. Indigenous Australians are over-represented in Australian prisons. At 30 June 2011, there were 29 106 prisoners in Australian prisons, of which 7656 (26%) were Indigenous (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). By comparison, 2.5 per cent of the total population was Indigenous in 2011 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b). In 2010–11, the imprisonment rate for Indigenous adults (aged 18 years or over) was 1746.51 per 100 000 compared with a corresponding rate of 125.4 for non-Indigenous people — a ratio of Indigenous to non- Indigenous imprisonment rates of 13.9 (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012). In 2011, 70 per cent of Indigenous prisoners convicted of a violent offence had been previously convicted, and 81 per cent of Indigenous prisoners convicted of a non-violent offence (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). Indigenous prisoners were more likely to have been convicted of a prior offence than non-Indigenous prisoners. The majority of prisoners whose primary conviction was non-violent faced sentences (or expected to serve time) of less than five years, with more than three-quarters expected to serve less than two years. Overall, the proportion of Indigenous prisoners with an expected serving time of less than two years was 31 per cent. Around 68 per cent of Indigenous (and 65 per cent of non-Indigenous) prison entrants selfreported having used illicit drugs during the preceding 12 months (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011a). Of all Indigenous prison entrants, those aged 18–24 years old were most likely to have used illicit drugs (76%). Based on data from a New South Wales survey, Indigenous prisoners are also significantly more likely to be dependent on alcohol than non-Indigenous prisoners, and Indigenous men were significantly more likely to report that they were intoxicated at the time of the offence for which they were incarcerated (Indiget al. 2010). Over the course of 2011, approximately 2476 Indigenous men and 400 Indigenous women entered2 prisons in Australia (based on analysis of data from Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a). For the purposes of this study, Indigenous people who experience problematic drug or alcohol use and who are in prison for non-violent offences were seen as potentially benefiting from diversion from prison into a residential treatment program. Approximately half of Indigenous prisoners linked their offending to drug and alcohol use — suggesting approximately 3827 Indigenous prisoners in 2011 (see section 2.2). Excluding those who stated that their most serious offence was a violent offence leaves approximately 1607 Indigenous prisoners in 2011 who committed a non-violent offence which they attributed to drug and alcohol use. There are many factors that influence the choice of treatment, and the appropriateness of diversion, so the estimates here should be interpreted as broad approximations. Nevertheless, the potential quantum of the offender population who could be considered for diversion into residential rehabilitation treatment is around 1600 in 2011. Details: Canberra: National Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Committee, Australian National Council on Drugs, 2012. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: ANCD Research Paper; 24: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: https://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au/uploads/File/NIDAC_Deloitte%20Access%20Economics%20Report(1).pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au/uploads/File/NIDAC_Deloitte%20Access%20Economics%20Report(1).pdf Shelf Number: 127551 Keywords: Aboriginals Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Indigenous Offenders Indigenous Peoples (Australia) Prisons

Author: Adler, Robin Title: Vermont Department of Corrections Work Camp Outcome Evaluation Summary: In Act 41, this body tasked the Vermont Center for Justice Research (VCJR) with evaluating the recidivism rates of defendants assigned to the Northeast and Southeast Work Camps as compared to defendants sentenced to prison/jail without the benefit of work camp. The principal findings of the evaluation include: • The overall recidivism rate for work camp participants was 35%, compared to a 46% recidivism rate for those who went to prison. • Work camp participants with an LSI risk assessment score of “Medium” had a 35% recidivism rate compared to a 53% recidivism rate for prison inmates with an LSI score of “Medium.” • The work camp that a defendant is assigned to is significant in reducing recidivism. Participation at the Northeast Work Camp is more statistically significant in reducing the likelihood of recidivism than is participation at the Southeast Work Camp. • The re-offense patterns for the Work Camp Group and the Prison Group were generally the same. Recidivists from both groups were reconvicted of a wide variety of crimes. Over 70% of the reconvictions for both groups were misdemeanors. During the study period the median number of reconvictions for the Work Camp Group was two as opposed to three reconvictions for the Prison Group. • Recidivists from both groups were reconvicted soon after release from DOC custody. Approximately 45% of the recidivists from the Work Camp Group were reconvicted within one year and 92% were reconvicted within three years. Forty-nine percent of the Prison Group recidivists were reconvicted within one year and 88.4% were reconvicted within three years. • Sixty-nine percent of recidivists in both the Work Camp Group and the Prison Group earned their new offense in the county in which they lived at the time of entry into custody. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Department of Corrections, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/workcamp_files/Work%20Camp%20Final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/workcamp_files/Work%20Camp%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 127587 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Programs Recidivism Rehabilitation Work Camps (Vermont)

Author: Wiliszowski, C. Title: An Evaluation of Intensive Supervision Programs for Serious DWI Offenders Summary: Intensive Supervision Programs (ISPs) for offenders convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) vary considerably around the United States. There are State “systems” that provide standard guidelines to counties and local communities in the State, and there are numerous local county and community programs that appear promising in reducing DWI recidivism. We prepared case studies for two State programs (Nebraska and Wisconsin), four individual area ISPs (“Staggered Sentencing for Multiple DWI Convicted Offenders” in Minnesota; “Serious Offender Program” in Nevada; “DWI Enforcement Program” in New York; and “DUII Intensive Supervision Program” (DISP) in Oregon) and two rural programs (“24/7 Sobriety Project” in South Dakota; and “DUI Supervised Probation Program” in Wyoming). These ISPs revealed certain common features:  Screening and assessment of offenders for the extent of their alcohol/substance abuse problem  Close monitoring and supervision of the offenders  Encouragement by officials to complete the program requirements successfully  Jail for noncompliance The authors evaluated three of the programs. The Minnesota Staggered Sentencing Program appeared to be successful in reducing offender recidivism, even given the small sample size of program offenders (n=200). Compared to a similar matched group of DWI offenders, the staggered sentencing offenders had a significant 30.6% lower recidivism rate (p=.017) up to 4 years post-offense. The program prevented an estimated 15 to 23 re-arrests for DWI due to its effectiveness. The Westchester County program appeared to be effective in the short term (18.1% lower recidivism in 5 years post-offense [p<.001]) but not in the long term (only 5.4% [p=.171] lower recidivism in 15 years post-offense). This program resulted in an estimated 78 fewer re-arrests for DWI in the first 5 years. The Oregon DISP intervention group had 54.1% lower recidivism up to 8 years post index offense than both of the stratified matched-sample comparison groups, adjusting for the demographic covariates (Wald=51.50; p>.001). The program prevented 67 re-arrests for DWI in the first 8 years. The benefit/cost of ISPs appears to be very good for the prevention of rearrests. Preventing re-arrest for DWI for multiple offenders saves thousands of dollars in sanctions (jail time) and rehabilitation. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research, 2011. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2013 at: www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811446.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127596 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Drunk Driving Intensive Supervision (U.S.) Probationers Recidivism

Author: Dunham, Kate Title: The Effort to Implement the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) Impact Evaluation: Lessons and Implications for Future Research Summary: In the summer of 2005, the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOL ETA) issued a request for proposals (RFP) to conduct an Impact Study of the Youth Offender Demonstration Program (YODP). The YODP evaluation team selected by DOL was comprised of Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), MDRC, Decision Information Resources (DIR), and Johns Hopkins University. As detailed in the RFP, the intended study was a random assignment evaluation to address a number of important questions about how to work most effectively with youth offenders to prevent recidivism and increase their employment and earnings. To try to answer these questions, the study would have had courts in six different jurisdictions agree to use random assignment methodology to assign youth to a control group in which they received only standard incarceration or assign youth to one of two study groups as follows: study group 1, in which youth were incarcerated but received aftercare services from a YODP grantee, or study group 2, in which youth received services from a YODP grantee in lieu of being incarcerated. To implement the random assignment study required that the courts allow the random assignment process to determine which youth would be incarcerated and which would be assigned to a YODP grantee (essentially to be set free), instead of relying on the judge’s discretion. A similar study took place in the Wayne County Juvenile Court in Detroit, Michigan in the mid 1980s. This study randomly assigned more than 500 youths to either a control group in which youth were assigned to state incarceration or to a study group in which youth received intensive supervision as an alternative to incarceration. This study was only successfully implemented due to a set of very specific circumstances (described in detail below) that did not exist within the six YODP sites. Despite the evaluation team’s best efforts, the evaluation team was unable to convince the courts and YODP programs in any of the six selected jurisdictions to accept the random assignment methodology. As a result, DOL opted not to proceed with the evaluation. This paper describes the evaluation team’s efforts in persuading sites to implement the random assignment design, discusses the range of reasons why these efforts were unsuccessful, and explores what lessons can be drawn from this experience and other studies that have employed random assignment to aid the implementation of future random assignment evaluations. The paper begins with an overview of the six YODP grantees selected by DOL to participate in the evaluation and of the random assignment evaluation plan as outlined in the evaluation team’s proposal. Next, the paper describes the various challenges encountered by the evaluation team in implementing the original random assignment design. Following this, the paper summarizes a number of other studies that have successfully implemented random assignment and draw comparisons and contrasts of these studies to the intended design in the YODP evaluation. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of lessons learned from this effort and several recommendations that may assist DOL in implementing future random assignment evaluations. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2008. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://www.nawdp.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchReports/2009-5-TheEfforttoImplementtheYouthOffendeDemonstrat.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.nawdp.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchReports/2009-5-TheEfforttoImplementtheYouthOffendeDemonstrat.pdf Shelf Number: 127649 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Employment Ex-Offender Employment Intensive Supervision Recidivism Treatment Programs Young Adult Offenders (U.S.)

Author: Spatial Information Design Lab Title: Justice Re-Investment New Orleans Summary: This report focuses on allocating public safety resources with a new approach, known as Justice Reinvestment, in which public officials identify ways to reduce the growth of the prison population and reinvest those savings in the parts of cities to which most people released from prison return. The states of Connecticut, Texas, Arizona, and Kansas have passed Justice Reinvestment laws. In Texas, for example, lawmakers created a $241 million network of treatment and incarceration diversion programs rather than spending $500 million on new prisons. Lawmakers in Kansas mandated a twenty percent reduction in parole revocations and set aside $7 million for reinvestment in high incarceration communities. The Council on State Governments has provided technical support to lawmakers in half a dozen other states considering similar justice reinvestment initiatives. Typical projects include introducing day reporting centers as alternatives to jails and prisons, promoting workforce development and job placement, providing drug treatment and other community-based programs to inmates and parolees, and strengthening family networks as people return home. This final report based on work done for a grant titled "Rebuilding Community, Prisoner Reentry and Neighborhood Planning in Post-Katrina New Orleans." The report contains three parts: 1. An Introduction to the concepts of Million Dollar Block maps and Justice Reinvestment. 2. Mapping Incarceration in Post-Katrina New Orleans. 3. A description of the neighborhood planing process and the four pilot projects were were implemented as a result of that process. Details: New York: Spatial Information Design Lab, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. 2009. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.spatialinformationdesignlab.org/MEDIA/JR_NewOrleans.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.spatialinformationdesignlab.org/MEDIA/JR_NewOrleans.pdf Shelf Number: 127653 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Justice Reinvestment (New Orleans) Prison Reform Urban Planning

Author: South Dakota. Unified Judicial System Title: Drug Court Study Summary: In 2009, the South Dakota Legislature passed SB78, which required the Unified Judicial System (UJS) to provide a plan to “determin[e] the need for an additional drug court or drug courts to be established in judicial circuits with the highest volume of felony convictions” and for such findings to “be presented to the 2010 Legislature for possible implementation in fiscal year 2011”. The stated goal of this plan was to present proposals to reduce the prison population without jeopardizing the public safety. To effectuate this plan, the following study was conducted to analyze the need and interest of alternative sentencing options and make appropriate initial recommendations. Ultimately, by utilizing alternative sentencing programs, the final objective is to address the underlying problem of addiction, subsequently reducing recidivism and substance abuse related crime. An overall examination of literature relative to the subject was conducted and is included within this report. Overview information and statistical data specific to each of the three programs currently in place in South Dakota was examined and detailed. For expansion evaluation purposes, in order to determine the highest areas of need in the state, the ten counties with the highest numbers of felony drug and DUI charges for FY 08 were selected for consideration. The ten counties were: Beadle, Brookings, Brown, Brule/Buffalo, Codington, Davison, Lincoln, Pennington, Union, and Yankton. At their request, Walworth County’s DUI convictions were also examined for purposes of this report. All Fourth and Sixth Circuit counties and Minnehaha County were excluded from the study because these areas currently have drug/DUI alternative sentencing programs in place. Upon completion of the study, conclusions were drawn and the following recommendations were made: 1) Continued state allocation of general funds to support the Northern Hills Drug Court Program in the Fourth Circuit; future allocation of state general funds to support the Sixth Circuit STOP DUI Program, and continued state allocation of general funds to support the Adult Intensive Court Services Officer position for the Meth Sentencing Alternative Program in the Second Circuit. 2) Based upon this study’s conclusions, Pennington County, Brown, Yankton, and Davison Counties are identified as showing the greatest need and feasibility for establishing some form of sentencing alternative program. Therefore, these four counties should be pursued as possible candidates for expansion areas. 3) Further study is necessary and appropriate to identify alternative sentencing program specifications in the previously named counties. It is imperative to have a strong foundation and plan in place prior to implementation of any type of alternative sentencing program. The Unified Judicial System should conduct a Symposium to convene pertinent stakeholders from current programs and possible expansion areas to further determine feasibility and program specifics based upon jurisdictional need. From this additional study, specific recommendations regarding possible expansion of alternative sentencing programs, including funding needs, can be presented to the 2011 Legislative session. Details: Pierre, SD: South Dakota Unified Judicial System, 2009. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.sdjudicial.com/Uploads/PublicDocuments/Final_2009_Drug_Court_Study_Reprinted_08_2010.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.sdjudicial.com/Uploads/PublicDocuments/Final_2009_Drug_Court_Study_Reprinted_08_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 127687 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Driving While Intoxicated Drug Coruts (South Dakota) Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism

Author: West Yorkshire National Probation Services' Cocker, Sarah Title: Using Reconviction Data to Explore the Usefulness of Community Penalties in West Yorkshire Summary: • This study is based on two samples of offenders. The first (Community Penalties) comprised 343 offenders sentenced to a Community Punishment Order, a Community Rehabilitation Order, or a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order. The second sample (Comparison) consisted of 215 cases that had a proposal for one of the three community penalties in their Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) but who received a lesser sentence at court (i.e. no period of supervision by the probation service). • The two samples were not found to be well matched in terms of age, risk of reconviction (OGRS), and index offence. The samples were also taken from differing time periods. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of West Yorkshire community penalties based on this data alone. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties sample was 45.2%; this is 0.3% higher than the predicted rate of 44.9%. In contrast, the actual reconviction rate for the Comparison sample was 31.6%; this is 5.5% lower than the predicted rate of 37.1%. • The actual reconviction rate for the Community Penalties group was 8.1% lower than the recent national figures for community sentences (53.3%). The two studies used different counting methods and are therefore not directly comparable. • Those who were reconvicted in both the Community Penalties and Comparison samples tended to be younger and had higher predicted reconviction rates than those who did not re-offend. • Younger offenders were also found to have higher actual reconviction rates than older offenders in both samples. Offenders aged between 16-20 years had actual reconviction rates of 65.4% (Community Penalties sample) and 63.6% (Comparison sample) whilst offenders in the 35+ age bracket had reconviction rates of 19.2% and 20.3% respectively. • Analysis of reconviction rates by risk band (OGRS) showed that the reconviction rate increased with each risk band. For example, cases with an OGRS score between 0-25 had reconviction rates of 14.0% (Community Penalties) and 11.4% (Comparison) compared to reconviction rates of 83.8% and 77.8% respectively for cases with OGRS scores between 76-100. This suggests that OGRS is a useful predictor of risk of reconviction for both samples. • Cases with index offences of an ‘acquisitive’ nature had the highest reconviction rates in both the Community Penalties (68.4%) and Comparison (50%) samples. • Cases with a Community Punishment Order (CPO) had the lowest reconviction rates (33.8%) of those in the Community Penalties sample. Those with a Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) had the highest rate (57.9%) whilst those with a Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order (CPRO) had a reconviction rate of 36.4%. This rate is lower than anticipated although this may be due to the small number of cases with a CPRO and should be used with caution. • Reconviction rates for those who did and did not complete their community order were significantly different; the reconviction rate for those who completed was 33.2% (n=76) compared to a reconviction rate of 70.3% (n=71) for those who did not complete. However, those who completed their order had a much lower predicted reconviction rate (38.6%) than those who did not complete (59%). • In terms of first re-offence, a larger proportion (+12.4%) of cases that did not complete their community order committed an offence which was of a more serious nature than those who completed their order (47.9% compared to 35.5% respectively). • By the six month stage, 23% of the Community Penalties sample had been reconvicted of an offence and 52% of those who were reconvicted within the two year period had already done so. By 12 months 35% of the sample had been reconvicted and 77% of those who were reconvicted had already done so. • In contrast, by the six month stage, 16% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 51% of those who were reconvicted in this sample had done so by this stage. By 12 months, 22% of the Comparison sample had been reconvicted and 69% of the Comparison sample who were reconvicted had done so by this stage. These findings suggest that the first few months after sentence are critical in terms of reducing the risk of further reconviction. • A larger proportion of the Comparison sample (52.9%, n=66) were convicted of only one offence within two-years compared to the Community Penalties sample (42.6%, n=36). Similar proportions of offenders in the Community Penalties (40%, n=62) and Comparison samples (38.2%, n=26) had two, three or four reconvictions within two-years. However, a much larger proportion (17.4%, n=27) of offenders in the Community Penalties sample had between 5 & 11 reconvictions compared to the Comparison sample (8.8%, n=6). Details: Wakefield, UK: National Probation Service (West Yorkshire), 2006. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk Shelf Number: 127818 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Penalties Probationers Recidivism Reconviction (U.K.)

Author: Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd Title: Thinking Outside: Alternatives to Remand for Children Summary: Jesuit Social Services has over 35 years experience working with children and young people in Victoria’s youth justice system. We know from our experience that the lives of the children who come into contact with this system are among the least fortunate in our community. They often have chaotic family relationships and involvement with child protection services, problems engaging in school, mental illness and substance abuse problems. These children and young people are more likely to come from communities that experience extreme levels of poverty and disadvantage. Their development is compromised by early life experiences and then further compounded as they become entangled in the web of disadvantage. Contact with the youth justice system and exposure to remand often become further strands to this web. At heart, this study is about these children - for children they are, as legally defined until the age of 18. Victoria has a proud reputation for diverting children away from the justice system and has the lowest child custody rate in Australia, yet our rate of unsentenced detention increased by 67 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This is unacceptable, as detention more often than not exacerbates problems that are already entrenched for most of these children. This report presents the main issues that arose from 12 months’ research by Jesuit Social Services. The fundamental question we set out to resolve in our study was: what can be done better? There is no single solution. However, a first step would be to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years; primary school children have no place in our criminal courts. We must promote attitudes against violence and for children. Our research has found that violent offending of varying degrees of seriousness is the main reason for remanding children and is fuelling an increase in arrests that is proportionally the greatest for the youngest children (those 10 to 13 years of age). Once a child with known social and psychological risk factors comes to the attention of the police or courts we must ensure that an assessment of his or her particular circumstances takes place immediately – whether that be during business hours, late at night or on a weekend. This does not occur currently. There is a need for services that children on remand or at risk of remand can access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These services must overcome the present service system’s fragmented response to such children. These children have often experienced significant harm yet, by failing to intervene early and intensively to halt such troubled and troubling life trajectories, valuable time to act decisively is lost. Two groups of children are more affected than most - Aboriginal children and children subject to child protection involvement. Both are over-represented in the youth justice system. Our study identified that there was a small group of children who were remanded for the first time when they were between 10 to 12 years of age, all of whom had been involved in the child protection system. Almost a third of these were Aboriginal. Details: Richmond, VIC, AUS: Jesuit Social Services, 2013. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2013 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127906 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders (Australia)

Author: King, Lucy Title: Tai Aroha – The First Two Years: A formative evaluation of a residential community based programme for offenders Summary: Since October 2007, the number of community-based sentencing options available to the judiciary increased. This led to an increase in the number of offenders in the community requiring rehabilitative interventions. Although the range of rehabilitative options increased, very few programmes focused on the highest risk offender group. Community Residential Centres (CRCs), such as Montgomery House, were originally established to deliver services for high risk offenders in the community but rarely did so, leaving a service gap. In addition, offenders attending the CRCs were on temporary release from prison rather than being permanently in the community. To address these issues, the Psychological Services of the Department developed and tested an intensive residential rehabilitation programme for male offenders serving community sentences. In November 2008, the Executive Management Team (EMT) agreed that this programme would be an open rolling programme with content based on the 300- hour programme delivered in the Special Treatment Units in prison (particularly the Violence Prevention Unit) and the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme. It included a specific focus on the needs of Māori offenders. The Tai Aroha therapeutic community was based on the hierarchical model described by De Leon (20001). The format involved full residence (24 hours, 7 days per week) with an expected stay of 14 to 16 weeks. Offenders transitioned through 4 phases from orientation to full community living over the course of the programme. The core programme (including skills training) was based on best practice principles in offender rehabilitation and adhered to risk, needs and responsivity principles. Cognitive behavioural and relapse prevention informed treatment. Elements of the Good Lives Model were incorporated to enhance programme responsivity. Targets for treatment included: antisocial attitudes and offence-related thinking, antisocial and criminal associates, emotion and behaviour self-regulation difficulties, relationship problems (marital and family), impaired self-management and/ or problem solving skills, and alcohol and drug abuse. The programme was based on open group membership where new residents joined as former residents exited. To graduate residents had to complete assignments associated with each core module and achieve programme learning objectives. The design phase produced a complete group treatment programme containing 10 modules and related assignments. The modules were. 1. Assessment 2. Orientation (includes mindfulness and distress tolerance) 3. Aspirations 4. Life history and self-evaluation 5. Acceptance of responsibility/restructuring problem and offence-related thinking 6. Offence pathways 7. Emotional management 8. Substance abuse management 9. Relationship management 10. Relapse prevention. Details: Wellington, NZ: Psychological Services, Department of Corrections, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2013 at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/641218/COR_Tai_Aroha_WEB.pdf Year: 2012 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/641218/COR_Tai_Aroha_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 127965 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Psychological Services Rehabilitation Therapeutic Communities

Author: Forman, Benjamin Title: Crime, Cost, and Consequences: Is it Time to Get Smart on Crime? Summary: As the title suggests, the report calls into question Massachusetts's current approach to corrections, which favors long prison stays at the expense of treatment, reentry programming, and post-release supervision. Without a change in course, the report concludes that Massachusetts will spend more than $2 billion over the next decade on corrections policies and practices that provide limited public safety benefit for the taxpayer. The report shows that models developed elsewhere, including in many “red states” that have halted prison construction, reformed sentencing practices, and invested in evidence-based programs, provide Massachusetts with sound alternatives. Instead of spending more on what doesn’t work, states like Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas have cut corrections budgets and increased public safety for their residents. Crime, Cost, and Consequences lays the groundwork for a multi-year campaign to make the Commonwealth a leader in the field of corrections. This effort is spearheaded by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Coalition, committed prosecutors and corrections practitioners, defense lawyers and community organizers, and businessmen and women, working together to reform the Massachusetts criminal justice system. MassINC will support the work of the Coalition with additional research, polling, and civic events. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2013 at: http://www.massinc.org/~/media/Files/Mass%20Inc/Research/Full%20Report%20PDF%20files/Crime_Cost_Consequences_MassINC_Final.ashx Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.massinc.org/~/media/Files/Mass%20Inc/Research/Full%20Report%20PDF%20files/Crime_Cost_Consequences_MassINC_Final.ashx Shelf Number: 128142 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice (Massachusetts, U.S.) Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems

Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision Summary: Community supervision, whether in the form of probation or post-release supervision, is ordinarily framed as an alternative to incarceration. For this reason, legal reformers intent on reducing America's disproportionately high incarceration rates often urge lawmakers to expand the use of community supervision, confident that diverting offenders to the community will significantly reduce over-reliance on incarceration. Yet, on any given day, a significant percentage of new prisoners arrive at the prison gates not as a result of sentencing for a new crime, but because they have been revoked from probation or parole. It is therefore fair to say that in many cases community supervision is not an alternative to imprisonment, but only a delayed form of it. This Article examines the reasons why community supervision so often fails, and challenges popular assumptions about the role community supervision should play in efforts to reduce over-reliance on imprisonment. While probation and post-release supervision serve important purposes in many cases, they are often imposed on the wrong people, and executed in ways that predictably lead to revocation. To decrease the overuse of imprisonment, sentencing and correctional practices should therefore limit, rather than expand, the use of community supervision in three important ways. First, terms of community supervision should be imposed in fewer cases, with alternatives ranging from fines to unconditional discharge to short jail terms imposed instead. Second, conditions of probation and post-release supervision should be imposed sparingly, and only when they directly correspond to a risk of re-offense. Finally, terms of community supervision should be limited in duration, extending only long enough to facilitate a period of structured re-integration after sentencing or following a term of incarceration. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1220 : Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Shelf Number: 128179 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Offender Supervision (U.S.) Community Based Correc Parolees Probationers Revocation

Author: Van Nostrand, Marie Title: New Jersey Jail Population Analysis: Identifying Opportunities to Safely and Responsibly Reduce the Jail Population Summary: The New Jersey County Jail System (NJCJS) is collectively operated by each of the state’s 21 counties. Each county is responsible for the safe, secure detention of individuals committed to their custody who have either been charged with a crime and are pending case disposition or who have been sentenced to a period of incarceration after having been convicted of a crime. On any given day the NJCJS has in its custody approximately 15,000 inmates. The population includes adult males and females with varying custody levels, a wide range of physical and mental health needs, and holds minor non-violent inmates to very serious and dangerous inmates. The current study was commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance for the purpose of examining the New Jersey jail population and developing a population profile. The population profile is intended to describe the population in terms of demographics, custody status, offense characteristics, bail status, and any other relevant information. The goal of the study is to use this profile to identify opportunities to responsibly reduce New Jersey’s jail population while maintaining public safety and the integrity of the judicial process. To conduct the study, data were requested and received from the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”). The AOC maintains the County Corrections Information System (CCIS) for which 19 of the 21 counties contribute inmate data (Bergen and Passaic counties do not provide data to CCIS). In addition, an informal survey was conducted of all county correctional facilities and the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ Office of County Services (NJDOC-OCS) was consulted to obtain more detailed information on the individual jail facilities. A jail population cannot be examined in a vacuum. The population is driven by many criminal justice agencies and is a reflection of the operation of the entire criminal justice system. It is based both on the number of people admitted to the jail and how long they stay. Any responsible population- reduction strategy must take into consideration many outside factors including the practices of key stakeholder agencies such as law enforcement, prosecutor, public defender, courts, alternatives to detention programs, and the jail itself. A detailed examination of these areas was outside the scope of this study, but readily available information related to criminal justice system trends and key stakeholder agencies (e.g., crime rate, incident, and arrest statistics; law enforcement; prosecutor; public defender; and the courts) were included to provide context to the population profile results. The current report includes a description of the NJCJA, an overview of criminal justice system trends and key stakeholder agencies, a detailed population profile, and a summary of findings. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2013 at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/New_Jersey_Jail_Population_Analysis_March_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/New_Jersey_Jail_Population_Analysis_March_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128341 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Institutions County Jails (New Jersey, U.S.) Inmates

Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment Summary: Over the past 20 years, state spending on corrections has skyrocketed—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than $52 billion in 2011.1 Declining state revenues and other fiscal factors are putting a serious strain on many states’ criminal justice systems, often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition with public safety. Strategies tested in numerous states and local jurisdictions, however, show that there are effective ways to address the challenge of containing rising corrections costs while also increasing public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://justicereinvestment.org/resources/lessons-learned Shelf Number: 128422 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice (U.S.) Criminal Justice Expenditures

Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: An Inspection of Community Supervision by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland Summary: Supervising offenders in the community represents a significant proportion of the overall work of the probation service, and is carried out by probation officers and probation service officers across the whole of Northern Ireland. A small number of these offenders when released from prison continue to pose a significant risk to the community, and it is essential that they are being supervised effectively to support their rehabilitation. This inspection assessed the performance of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) in supervising offenders in the community. The inspection also sought to ensure that there was a legacy of both personal and organisational learning by involving probation managers and probation officers/probation service officers in the review of case files, together with the assessors from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation). We also sought to benchmark the performance of the PBNI in comparison with other probation services and practice in England and Wales. The inspection shows the PBNI to be an effective organisation which delivers its services against challenging standards which compare to, and on many occasions exceed, those being delivered in England and Wales. The results of the case file reviews, feedback from stakeholders from within the criminal justice system and third sector, as well as offenders and victims, reflects the approach of an organisation which understands and accepts its role in delivering public safety and reducing offending. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/78/78040759-0c4f-449b-b36b-647dd986eb51.pdf Shelf Number: 128691 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Probation (Northern Ireland) Probationers

Author: Abraham, Manja Title: Halt Updated Process evaluation study of the updated Halt programme Summary: Juveniles aged from 12 to 18, who have been apprehended by the police for, for example, vandalism, shoplifting, firework offences or truant, may be given a choice between the criminal justice system and - via a conditional nolle prosequi - the Halt programme. The aim of the Halt programme is to hand out an alternative punishment – Het ALTernatief in Dutch – to make these juveniles aware of their behaviour, to give them the chance to right their wrongs and to make it clear to them that criminal behaviour is unacceptable. If they take part in the Halt programme, juveniles can also avoid having a criminal record. In addition to the police and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), special investigating officers (BOAs) with special powers can refer juveniles to the Halt programme. The updated Halt programme has been implemented by all the Halt offices since 1 January 2010. The questions to be examined were: Is the updated Halt programme being implemented as intended? Which points are being implemented as intended and which are not? What are the causes of any problems in the implementation? Details: Amsterdam: WODC, ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie,, 2013. 11 p. (summary) Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2013 at: http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/evaluatie-nieuwe-haltafdoening.aspx Year: 2013 Country: Netherlands URL: http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/evaluatie-nieuwe-haltafdoening.aspx Shelf Number: 128838 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Delinquency Prevention Halt Programme Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Offenders (Netherlands)

Author: Marder, Ian Title: Restorative Justice for Young Adults: Factoring in Maturity and Facilitating Desistance Summary: Drawing on primary evidence in the form of interviews with criminal justice practitioners and young adult offenders, as well as the existing literature, the aim of this report is to broaden our understanding of how restorative justice can be used with young adults (both victims and offenders) throughout the criminal justice process, considering the relevance of the maturation process, its implications for restorative practitioners working with this age group, and why restorative justice might be effective at encouraging desistance from crime. The main findings are as follows: • Although technically considered to be adults, victims and offenders between the ages of 18 and 25 may not be fully mature. This has many implications for restorative practice, of which facilitators and other criminal justice professionals must be aware; • There are a number of theoretically- and empirically-informed ways in which participation in a restorative process might encourage desistance and otherwise have a significant impact on young adult offenders. For example, it can be argued that it helps to develop a sense of personal responsibility and self-efficacy, is conducive to the building of social bonds and attachments and encourages compliance by being perceived by participant offenders to be more procedurally-just than court-based processes. Depending on the offender, restorative justice might either instigate the desistance process or provide additional motivation for those who have already chosen or begun to desist; • It is possible for service managers to integrate restorative practices into their work with 18-25 year old victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal justice process. The key recommendations are as follows: • Restorative justice should be offered to all victims irrespective of the age of the offender; • Restorative practitioners who work with young adults should be aware of the practice implications of a lack of maturity; • Restorative practice should be used to develop maturity and facilitate desistance among young adults who offend. Details: London: Restorative Justice Council, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/t2a-985/#.UayXHDXD_cs Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/t2a-985/#.UayXHDXD_cs Shelf Number: 128926 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Mediation Young Adult Offenders (U.K.)

Author: McKenzie, Jacqueline Title: Insights from the Coalface: The value of justice reinvestment for young Australians Summary: Youth Justice policy in Australia has proved to be an insufficient means to improve public safety, and to assist young people to get back on track. Not only are the rates of both the incarceration and remand of young people rising, but most young people in contact with the justice system are Australia’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Young people are important. Demographic trends have highlighted the unique circumstances of our time - a greater number of retired and elderly Australians, with a reduced labour force working age. The value of all young people as engaged, active and contributing members of society is immense. As evidence shows both incarceration and remand rates are on the rise. There is great understanding of the issues at hand, which are more prevalent in some communities than others, and there are appropriate measures to resolve issues in communities for young people. Action is essential to secure the wellbeing of Australia, both here and now and continuing into the future. The money spent maintaining the status quo of the criminal justice system must be reinvested into communities, with young people as the focal point. Young offenders will be tomorrow’s adult prison population, if we do not take the necessary steps now. The creation of alternative pathways through a Justice Reinvestment framework proposes the way. A Justice Reinvestment framework applies a data-driven approach to reduce incarceration spending and reinvest savings in strategies that decrease crime and strengthen communities. This is a targeted approach, requiring commonwealth leadership for consistency and support across jurisdictions. AYAC believes that young people have the right to access adequate and appropriate programs and services regardless of geographic location, race, gender, sexuality, physical ability or disability, social religious or economic circumstances. This should be especially so for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable, who are over-represented in the current youth justice system. We call for action that enables young people to fully realise their potential as positive members of society, and cease the toll on community and government that comes with current increases in both incarceration and remand of young people. Details: Surry Hills, NSW, AU: Australian Youth Affairs Coalition (AYAC), 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/JRinsightsfromcoalface.pdf Shelf Number: 129192 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment (Australia) Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: University of California, Berkeley. School of Law. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy Title: JDAI Sites and States An Evaluation of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: JDAI Sites Compared to Home State Totals Summary: The Annie E. Casey Foundation developed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) to address the unnecessary and prolonged detention of youth. JDAI has been in operation for over 20 years. It is almost unheard of that a foundation commit to such a long-term effort to reform public policy. The longevity of JDAI is due in part to a learned value of thorough and thoughtful data collection and reflection on that data. The Initiative leaders have been willing to conduct honest self-assessments, post unfavorable results when they occur, and take a problem-solving approach to improving the program. Assessing the impact of JDAI is anything but simple. Deciding how to globally measure results is challenging to begin with. Beyond that, sites need to spend energy, attention, and resources to collect adequate data. However, this data collection is of benefit to the sites as a critical tool to use in improving their juvenile justice systems. As data collection improves over time, data are more complete and therefore more useful for meaningful evaluation. Casey supports its JDAI sites to continue to expand their capacity to collect and analyze high-quality data by providing technical assistance. Initiative leaders have examined the use of detention in participating JDAI sites by looking at the standard measures of Average Length of Stay (ALOS), Admissions, and Average Daily Population (ADP) in detention centers, among other indicators. In past publications, Casey has reported on impressive reductions in detention within JDAI sites and has presented other indicators of impact, influence, and leverage. This report is the first effort to compare JDAI sites (both individually and collectively) within a state to the state as a whole. Following is a series of 23 individual state profiles that include both qualitative and quantitative information. Each profile begins with a narrative that may highlight detention reform efforts and the adoption of JDAI in that state. The main data focus is on ADP in the JDAI sites for the baseline year to 2010 (that is, the year prior to implementing JDAI to the most recent year for which data are available) and at the state level from 1997 to 2010. This report also provides additional context in the form of data on youth serving long-term commitments and on juvenile arrest counts as an indicator of crime. Within that framework, and by those measures, JDAI certainly presents some positive gains. Details: Berkeley, CA: University of California (Berkeley), School of Law, 2012. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/JDAI_Rep_1_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129199 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention (U.S.) Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Jones, Denis W. Title: Conditions for Sustainable Decarceration Strategies for Young Offenders Summary: Between 1978 and 1992 the number of juvenile offenders aged under 17 in England and Wales who were removed from home under sentence and sent to institutions such as detention centres, borstals, youth custody institutions or residential Community Homes with Education fell from 14,000 to 1,800. This thesis documents how this significant decarceration came about, and why it has been given little attention in the criminological literature, placing it in context of developments in juvenile justice legislation and practice between 1965 and 1996 and theories of policy change. It suggests that the key development was the funding of charity and voluntary sector organisations to provide Intensive Intermediate Treatment programmes to juvenile courts as an alternative to custody, and the development of a small group of practitioners willing to act as campaigning advocates for young offenders in court. Interviews with key politicians, civil servants, academics and practitioners from this period are used to explore these trends in more detail, and consideration is given to the respective roles of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and the tensions between them over responsibility for young offenders. The development is then situated within theories and examples of decarceration, deinstitutionalization, abolitionism and reductionism, drawing on attempts to close institutions or to reduce institutionalization in the fields of youth justice, mental health and learning difficulties in the UK and other countries. Alternative explanations of what happened in juvenile justice in England and Wales are considered and challenged. Conclusions are then drawn as to the conditions that are necessary for any decarceration strategy to be successful and sustainable. Details: London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2012. 524p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Shelf Number: 129247 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Decarceration Intensive Supervision Intermediate Treatment Programs Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Delinquents (U.K.)

Author: Roguski, Michael Title: He Pūrongo Arotake 2: Hard to Reach Youth (CART) Evaluation Report 2: Hard to Reach Youth (CART) Summary: In 2006 the government launched its Effective Interventions (EI) policy package. The package was established to identify and support options for reducing offending and the prison population, thereby reducing the costs and impacts of crime on New Zealand society. An important component of the EI package was the need to enhance justice sector responsiveness to Māori. As such, Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) and the Ministry of Justice developed and Programme of Action for Māori (later known as the Justice Policy Project with the change of government) which comprised the following three elements:  ongoing engagement with Māori communities;  supporting learning from promising and innovative providers; and  enhancing information gathering and analysis across the sector about effectiveness for Māori. Under the Justice Policy Project, Te Puni Kōkiri invested in a small number of interventions (up to June 2008) that were designed, developed and delivered by Māori providers and test facilitators of success for Māori in the justice sector. This work has contributed to an initial platform for developing an empirical evidence base about „what works‟ for Māori, while agencies develop options for sustainable funding streams. At the direction of the Minister of Māori Affairs, several providers were selected as candidates whose programmes have potential to impact on Māori rates of offending, re-offending and imprisonment. This project aims to gather detailed information on two of the six initiatives. The objectives of this evaluation are to:  gather quantitative information to augment the process evaluations undertaken after one year of operation;  document in narrative form, at least two of the six intervention initiatives, providing at least two examples of successful transition from involvement in crime and the criminal justice sector into pro-social living and a life without offending, utilising networks gained through the first evaluations; and  to go beyond documenting problems and gaps, towards providing examples of Māori succeeding as Māori. The key questions that this evaluation aimed to answer were:  What has Te Puni Kōkiri learnt from Māori designed, developed and delivered initiatives within the criminal justice sector?  What are the facilitators of success for Māori in the justice sector? Details: Wellington, NZ: Te Puni Kökiri, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/in-print/our-publications/publications/addressing-the-drivers-of-crime-for-maori/download/tpk-evaluation-report-2-hard-to-reach-youth.pdf Year: 2011 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/in-print/our-publications/publications/addressing-the-drivers-of-crime-for-maori/download/tpk-evaluation-report-2-hard-to-reach-youth.pdf Shelf Number: 129257 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Evidence-Based Practices Juvenile Offenders (New Zealand) Prisoner Reentry Recidivism Rehabilitation Treatment Programs

Author: Ringland, Clare Title: Sentencing Outcomes for Those Assessed for Intensive Correction Order Suitability Summary: Aim: To examine outcomes of assessments for intensive correction orders, including the penalties imposed on those deemed unsuitable. Method: Assessment data for intensive correction orders were obtained from Corrective Services NSW and linked to finalised court appearances between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. The proportion of assessment episodes associated with a finalised court appearance where an intensive correction order was imposed and the penalties imposed on offenders who did not receive an intensive correction order were examined. Results: 2,580 assessment episodes were identified, with 93 per cent (n=2,389) linked to a finalised court appearance. Of these assessment episodes linked to a court appearance, 55 per cent resulted in an intensive correction order. Of the assessment episodes linked to a finalised court appearance resulting in a sentence other than an intensive correction order, the most common penalties imposed were imprisonment (58%), a suspended sentence with supervision (16%) and a suspended sentence without supervision (8%). Conclusion: In line with intensive correction orders being introduced as an alternative to full-time imprisonment, the vast majority of offenders assessed for an intensive correction order who do not receive one instead receive a penalty of imprisonment or an alternative form of imprisonment (i.e., home detention or a suspended sentence). Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper no. 86: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Shelf Number: 129276 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Intensive Supervision Sentencing (Australia)

Author: Vera Institute of Justice. Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration Summary: As the size and cost of jails and prisons have grown, so too has the awareness that public investment in incarceration has not yielded the expected return in public safety. This creates an opportunity to reexamine the wisdom of our reliance on institutional corrections—incarceration in prisons or jails—and to reconsider the role of community-based corrections, which encompasses probation, parole, and pretrial supervision. However, it could also be an opportunity wasted if care is not taken to bolster the existing capacity of community corrections. With this report, Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections provides an overview of the state of community corrections, the transformational practices emerging in the field (including those in need of further research), and recommendations to policymakers on realizing the full value of community supervision to taxpayers and communities. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/potential-of-community-corrections.pdf Shelf Number: 129463 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections (U.S.) Costs of Corrections

Author: Levin, Marc A. Title: The Verdict on Federal Prison Reform: State Successes Offer Keys to Reducing Crime & Costs Summary: Key Findings • The federal government should better utilize probation, accountability courts, and other community-based sanctions that the states have used to control criminal justice costs and improve public safety. • The federal prison system should expand good time credits. • The federal government should implement better strategies to improve ex-offender reentry and limit the “collateral consequences” of incarceration. • Congress should reverse decades of overcriminalization and limit the use of criminal law to regulate behavior that is not traditionally considered criminal in nature. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-07-PP24-VerdictOnFederalPrisonReform-CEJ-LevinReddy.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2013-07-PP24-VerdictOnFederalPrisonReform-CEJ-LevinReddy.pdf Shelf Number: 129561 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Costs of Corrections Federal Prisons (U.S.) Prison Reform

Author: Prospero, Moises Title: Jail as a Condition of Felony Probation Summary: Although the literature has found that incarceration generally has no effect on recidivism, alternative sentencing practices have been found to have some reductions on recidivism rates. Jail as a condition of felony probation (JCFP) is the practice of sentencing convicted felony offenders to jail for up to a year as a privilege for receiving probation. The purpose of this article is to describe the use of JCFP throughout the state of Utah and to reveal the effects of time in jail on recidivism. The results of the present study found that individuals served approximately 70% of time sentenced and that this trend was similar across offense types and most counties. Both the survival analyses and the linear regression model revealed that longer periods of time spent in jail for similar offenses did not reduce or increase the likelihood of recidivism. Additionally, the study did not find an “optimal time” for jail to reduce recidivism. The study also found that the largest effect on recidivism was risk level of offenders, which highlights the need for assessment and provision of appropriate services to address offender needs in order to reduce reoffense. Details: Salt Lake City: Center for public Policy & Administration, University of Utah, 2009. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy In-depth: 09-30-2009: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://cppa.utah.edu/_documents/publications/criminal-justice/jail-as-condition-of-probation.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://cppa.utah.edu/_documents/publications/criminal-justice/jail-as-condition-of-probation.pdf Shelf Number: 129569 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Felony Probation (Utah, U.S.) Jail Recidivism Sentencing

Author: Penal Reform International Title: The Probation and Parole System in Pakistan: Assessment and Recommendations for Reform Summary: Alternatives to imprisonment in Pakistan have their legal basis at the pre-trial stage in the form of bail; at the sentencing stage with fines and probation; and at the post-sentencing stage with parole. Probation and parole are, however, underused, despite significant overcrowding in the country's prisons and widely accepted evidence globally that alternatives to imprisonment such as community-based rehabilitation programmes and restorative justice are more effective at reducing re-offending. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: Year: 2012 Country: Pakistan URL: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pakistan_English-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 131490 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Parole Probation (Pakistan) Rehabilitation

Author: Utkin, V.A. Title: Alternative Sanctions in Russia: Status, Problems and Prospects Summary: PRI's Moscow office has produced a new resource looking at the range of non-custodial sanctions available in Russia - how they developed, their application and impact in practice and how their effectiveness can be enhanced going forward. Details: Moscow: Penal Reform International, 2013. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2013 at: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Alternative-sanctions-in-Russia_English.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Russia URL: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Alternative-sanctions-in-Russia_English.pdf Shelf Number: 131606 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Law Prisons Punishment (Russia) Sentencing

Author: New Zealand. Department of Corrections. Strategic Analysis and Research Title: Community Sentence Patterns in New Zealand: An International Comparative Analysis Summary: Community sentences are sentences other than imprisonment or monetary penalties, that have conditions that are served or performed in the community, and which involve regular oversight or management by a corrections official (Ministry of Justice 1999). There are relatively high volumes of offenders on community sentences in New Zealand compared with other jurisdictions. This feature has become even more pronounced since the introduction of new community sentencing options in late 2007. This paper investigates the reasons for the disparity by comparing criminal justice statistics from New Zealand to other jurisdictions, including England/Wales, Australia, Scotland and the United States. Despite difficulties in comparing the statistics from different criminal justice systems, a number of key findings emerge from the analysis. Evidence, although somewhat circumstantial, suggests that New Zealand's high rate of community sentencing can be largely attributed to differences in sentencing practice. New Zealand courts are more likely to impose community sentences rather than monetary penalties or other forms of non-custodial sanctions. This holds true when considering other factors such as the use of pre-sentencing disposals, the makeup of offending in each jurisdiction, or differences in legislation. This preference towards community sentences has progressively been embedded over three decades of legislative change. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/672768/nz-community-sentence-patterns-april2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/672768/nz-community-sentence-patterns-april2012.pdf Shelf Number: 131641 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Sentencing (New Zealand)

Author: Lee, Cynthia G. Title: A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Summary: In April 2000, a new courthouse opened its doors in a vacant schoolhouse in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn. Over the course of the five previous decades, Red Hook had declined from a vibrant, working-class waterfront community into a notorious hotbed of drug-related violence, cut off from the rest of Brooklyn by an elevated highway and a lack of public transportation. Following in the footsteps of the nation's first community court, established in Manhattan seven years earlier, the Red Hook Community Justice Center aimed to help transform the neighborhood by cleaning up misdemeanor crime and offering defendants treatment for the drug addictions and other social dislocations believed to fuel their criminal behavior. The Justice Center would also handle juvenile delinquency cases, hear landlord-tenant disputes, and provide a wide variety of youth and community programs open to all residents. The ultimate goal was to create a court that "would both respond constructively when crime occurs and work to prevent crime before it takes place," halting the "revolving door" of the traditional criminal justice system. "By bringing justice back to neighborhoods and by playing a variety of non-traditional roles," Justice Center planners asserted, "community courts foster stronger relationships between courts and communities and restore public confidence in the justice system". More than a decade later, the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) is a prominent fixture in the Red Hook neighborhood. The Justice Center is the product of an ongoing partnership among the New York State Unified Court System, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings County District Attorney's Office, the Legal Aid Society of New York, and a number of other governmental and nonprofit organizations. As a demonstration project, it is also arguably the best known community court in the world, welcoming visitors from as far away as South Africa, Australia, and Japan and serving as a model for other community courts across the nation and the globe. In 2010, the National Institute of Justice funded the first comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Conducted by the National Center for State Courts in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, this evaluation represents a rigorous multi-method investigation into the impact of the Justice Center on crime, incarceration, and costs; the mechanisms by which the Justice Center produces any such results; and how policymakers and court planners in other jurisdictions can adapt the Justice Center's vision of the community court model to suit the unique needs of their own communities. The evaluation consists of four major components: a process evaluation that documents the planning and operations of the Red Hook Community Justice Center and investigates whether the program was implemented in accordance with its design; an ethnographic analysis that examines community and offender perceptions of the Justice Center; an impact evaluation that analyzes the Justice Center's impact on sentencing, recidivism, and arrest rates; and a cost-efficiency analysis that quantifies the Justice Center's costs and benefits in monetary terms. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2013. 286p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131668 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Courts (U.S.) Community Justice Problem-Solving Courts Restitution

Author: Irish Penal Reform Trust Title: Women in the Criminal Justice System: Towards a Non-Custodial Approach Summary: The IPRT Position Paper 10: Women in the Criminal Justice System - Towards a non-custodial approach includes an account of recent trends in the imprisonment of women in Ireland. It goes on to look at the complex range of needs experienced by many women convicted of an offence and the associated overuse of remand for women offenders. It then discusses the issues faced by women in prison who have caring responsibilities, followed by a section on challenges faced by women leaving prison. Key Messages - The number and proportion of women in the Irish prison population has increased significantly in recent years. Most women are committed to prison for non-violent offences, such as non-payment of fines. Consequences have included overcrowding in women's prisons and an overuse of temporary release. - Women offenders tend to come from a background of social disadvantage and poverty, and often suffer from mental health problems, substance dependency, accommodation problems and poor family relationships. These issues can make it difficult for women to adhere to bail conditions, which has led to an overuse of remand for women offenders. This in turn has negative implications for children of women who are imprisoned on remand and the employment prospects of these women. - A high proportion of women in prison have children. Women also play an important role in caring for dependent relatives. Women who are imprisoned can no longer fulfil their caring responsibilities and the consequences of this can be significant. This is particularly an issue for mothers with babies, due to the absence of a mother and baby unit in either female prison in Ireland. - Women face a range of problems on being released from prison, relating to housing, accommodation and stability, and over half of women prisoners reoffend. - Developments in the UK have reflected a growing acknowledgement of the value of non-custodial alternatives and community-based supports for women offenders. This has also been highlighted by the UN, in the 'Bangkok Rules', which have informed the Irish Inspector of Prisons on the subject of women prisoners. - The 'one-stop-shop' approach to supporting women offenders in the community takes a holistic approach, with a range of supports and services provided in one location. A number of centres in the UK are based on this promising model. In Ireland, the Tus Nua project provides supported housing and other supports to women leaving the Dochas Centre. - This position paper makes two key recommendations: that a non-custodial approach should be adopted for women offenders; and in the few cases where prison is necessary, the negative impact of imprisonment on the women and those they care for should be minimised. The next section details developments in the UK and prison standards that reflect an increasing acknowledgement of the value of a community-based approach to dealing with women offenders. This is followed by an overview of some emerging models of good practice, followed by conclusions and two key recommendations. Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: IPRT Position Paper 10: Accessed March 14, 2014 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_on_Women_in_the_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_on_Women_in_the_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf Shelf Number: 131924 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Children of Prisoners Community Based Corrections Community Corrections Female Inmates Female Offenders Women Inmates

Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives Summary: Across the United States, criminal justice systems are managing record numbers of people with rates of substance use and mental health disorders that are exponentially higher than those of the general public. In recent years, a confluence of factors has created fertile ground for broad-based improvements to criminal justice policy and practice, including overburdened courts, crowded jails and prisons, strained government budgets, advances in the science of drug use intervention and recovery, shifting public sentiment about drug policy, awareness of the negative and residual impacts of justice involvement on families and communities, and a preponderance of research on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever, and often with strong public support, legislators, prosecutors, judges, court administrators, corrections and probation officials, and the jurisdictions they serve are responding with community-based diversion alternatives, often incorporating substance use and mental health service or program components. Policy responses such as "justice reinvestment" have offered approaches that eschew tough-on-crime policies in favor of the deliberate and data-driven application of resources to solutions that will generate the greatest return to communities and taxpayers in terms of cost savings, public safety, longterm health and personal stability for justice-involved populations, and overall community improvement. It is among these efforts and in this environment that this national survey of diversion programs has been developed. This project set out to explore the landscape of diversion from criminal justice involvement, aiming to collect and present information about programs across the country that offer diversion as an alternative to traditional justice case processing. The effort was undertaken with the knowledge that a robust assortment of alternative options exists but may be absent from or underrepresented in national conversations, and therefore not available or obvious for consideration by other jurisdictions. Details: Chicago: Center for Health and Justice at TASC, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Shelf Number: 132002 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Justice Policy Diversion

Author: Wilson, Pam Elizabeth Title: Program Evaluation of the Monongalia County Teen Court Summary: A review of the history of the juvenile courts would not be complete without mention of teen courts. Teen courts are juvenile diversion programs which allow first time offenders with minor offenses a second chance. Instead of facing the traditional court system, these juveniles are given the opportunity to go before a jury of their peers and complete a sentence that jury imposes. If the juvenile offender completes their sentence in the allotted time, their juvenile record is expunged and they are given the opportunity to ‗start over.� Teen courts have been in existence since the 1970�s and received national recognition in the 1990�s. Teen courts have played a significant role in rehabilitating juvenile offenders and teaching youth volunteers and offenders about the court system. Juvenile offenders are also given the opportunity to serve their community in a constructive way, which gives them a chance to reengage in a positive way. This research project is a program evaluation of the Monongalia County teen court located in Morgantown, West Virginia. This study has looked at the preexisting data set available for juveniles who have been sentenced through this court from 2002-2009. The statistical analysis will give basic information for the program and will make recommendations based on analysis for future improvements. Details: Fairmont, WV: Fairmont State University, 2010. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Shelf Number: 132125 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Courts Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Offenders Teen Courts

Author: Ringland, Clare Title: The Impact of Intensive Correction Orders on Re-Offending Summary: Aim: To examine the risk of re-offending of those who received an intensive correction order (ICO), relative to those who received periodic detention and suspended sentences with supervision. Method: Details of offenders' demographic and offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties received, and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using propensity score modelling, offenders who received an ICO as a principal penalty in a NSW court between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012 were matched to two comparable groups of offenders who received periodic detention between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2009 and suspended sentences with supervision between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. A supplementary comparison with those who received suspended sentences with supervision included matching on Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) assessment scores, in addition to demographic and offending characteristics. Time to first re-offence was estimated using the Nelson-Aalen estimator of the cumulative hazard rate function and compared between groups using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: An offender on an ICO had 33 per cent less risk of re-offending than an offender on periodic detention (HR=0.67, 95% confidence interval (0.55, 0.83), p<.001). There was no significant difference in re-offending between those who received ICOs and supervised suspended sentences after taking into account LSI-R assessment scores. Conclusion: There is some evidence to suggest that ICOs are more effective than periodic detention in terms of re-offending rates. However, future evaluations should include more detailed offender, treatment and program participation information in order to better understand any observed differences between comparison groups. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 176: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Shelf Number: 132261 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Intensive Supervision Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Sowerwine, Sam Title: Sentencing contradictions - Difficulties faced by people living with mental illness in contact with the criminal justice system Summary: This discussion paper focuses on the need to ensure the diversion of people who are homeless and those with a mental illness out of the criminal justice system. Where such diversion does not occur, sentencing options should be focused on addressing the underlying causes of criminal activity. There is a public interest in reducing recidivism and supporting 'justice reinvestment' approaches that move funds away from more expensive, end-of-process crime control options, such as incarceration, towards programs that target the factors that cause offenders to commit crime. This reinvestment should take place both internally and external to the criminal justice system. However, it is imperative that community service organisations - generally the core service providers of such programs - are adequately resourced. There is also a need for specially tailored services to meet the complex needs of people with mental illness. For this reason, it is important that treatment and care under diversionary programs take a multi-disciplinary and multi-stranded approach. Details: Sydney: Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Ltd., 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://www.piac.asn.au/sites/default/files/publications/extras/13.10.15_sentencing_contradictions_-_difficulties_faced_by_people_living_with_mental_illness_and_the_criminal_justice_system_-_briefing_paper.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.piac.asn.au/sites/default/files/publications/extras/13.10.15_sentencing_contradictions_-_difficulties_faced_by_people_living_with_mental_illness_and_the_criminal_justice_system_-_briefing_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 132288 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Homeless Persons Homelessness (Australia) Justice Reinvestment Mentally Ill Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Hobbs, Anne Title: Evaluation fo the Lancaster County Alternatives to Juvenile Detention Summary: In June 2009, the Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was contracted to evaluate four of Lancaster County's Juvenile Justice Programs: Cedars Day Reporting Center, Cedars Evening Reporting Center, Project HIRE, and Cedars Juvenile Diversion. Each of these was identified as a detention alternative. The Institute was further charged with addressing three research questions: - Are detention alternatives keeping youth out of detention and; thereby, saving taxpayers money? - Are Lancaster County's detention alternative programs using "evidence based models" and, if so, have they been implemented with fidelity? - Are there other evidence-based programs that research has shown to be effective with this population? In addition, Lancaster County hoped to examine whether youth who complete these programs committed new legal offenses and ended up more deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system. At the time of this report, the Lancaster County juvenile justice coordinator did not have access to the Nebraska Criminal Justice Information System (NCJIS) to examine recidivism. Access alone does not answer the question of recidivism with accuracy. If Lancaster County plans to utilize recidivism as a long term measure, they must uniformly define the terminology and grant the coordinator access. Although some definitions of recidivism are proposed in this report from across the nation, determining how stable a youth is offers information potentially more useful that simple recidivism. Results from Lancaster County's use of the Youth Stability Reporting Instrument are included; these offer us new ways to examine a juvenile's potential for re-offending. One of the key findings and primary obstacles to this evaluation was the lack of coordinated data systems. This obstacle echoes a finding of the 2007 evaluation of the Juvenile Justice System in Lancaster County. In that report, the Institute noted that gaps exist in the coordination and documentation of juvenile justice interventions utilized in serving young offenders. Although Lancaster County made significant progress in many of the priorities identified in the prior report, the lack of coordinated and consistent data collection continues to be a problem. The gap in documentation made it impossible to provide an in-depth assessment of cost savings realized through the use of detention alternatives. Despite concerns regarding the lack of data, our findings demonstrate that Lancaster County Detention Alternative Programs are using many of the evidence-based practices defined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). These programs appear to be effective in preventing youth from going deeper into the juvenile justice system. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 132367 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Day Reporting Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders (Nebraska)

Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States: An Update on Youth Incarceration in the United States Summary: The number of youth confined in state and county facilities nationwide strongly declined in 2011, affirming the benefits of key juvenile-justice reforms enacted in various states in the past decade. These findings are included in a new report, "The Comeback and Coming-from-Behind States" released today by NJJN and the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Effective Justice (TPPF). The report highlights the continued positive trend in the nine states leading the nation on reducing incarceration, and showcases a handful of states that, while not keeping pace with the nationwide trend, have opened the door for future progress by adopting crucial incarceration-reducing policies that have been shown to improve conditions for youth and communities. For the 2001-to-2011 ten-year period, the number of confined youth declined by 41% nationwide, or an annual average decline of 4.1% - a dramatic drop since 2000, when a record-setting 108,802 youth were held in detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in juvenile facilities in the U.S. The nationwide decline in 2011 (from 70,793 to 61,423 youth) continues the trend from the previous year (the latest for which data is available), which showed youth confinement was reduced by 32% nationwide from 2001-2010. The report also identifies four states - Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming - that are not keeping pace with the national rate of incarceration decline. As a group, these states' average rate of confinement in 2011 was 87% higher than the national average. However, they are poised to show progress in the coming years, as they have already begun to adopt specific policies proven to reduce incarceration. The report argues that positive turnaround can be achieved through changes to state policy that reflect new understandings of the teenage brain, growing use of alternatives to incarceration, and constrained state budgets. These policy reforms include: - increasing the availability of evidence-based alternatives to confinement; - requiring intake procedures that reduce the use of detention facilities; - closing or downsizing youth confinement facilities; - reducing schools' overreliance on the justice system to address discipline issues; - disallowing incarceration for minor offenses; and - restructuring juvenile justice responsibilities and finances among states and counties. NJJN and TPPF identified these six policies as key measures of positive reform, as all encourage less reliance on detention and incarceration across the U.S. For youth being held in detention centers awaiting trial or incarcerated in juvenile facilities, implementing reforms is a critical change. Youth who are locked up are separated from their families, many witness violence and struggle when they get out, trying to complete high school, get jobs or go to college. Aside from the human toll, the financial costs of maintaining large secure facilities have also made it vital to rethink juvenile justice in every community. "States have made strides in changing their policies so that youth are held accountable in age-appropriate ways, but there is more work to be done," said Sarah Bryer, Director of NJJN. "It is critical that we build upon the success seen over the past twenty years and make every effort possible to adopt meaningful reforms that reduce youth confinement and strengthen our communities." The report, an update to the "Comeback States" report issued by the groups in June, uses data from 2011 (the most recent year for which national data is available) on youth confinement provided by the U.S. Justice Department's (USDOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to track the ongoing national reduction of youth incarceration, as well as the continued progress of the nine states leading the nation on implementing meaningful juvenile justice reforms resulting in the reduction of youth in confinement in their states. These comeback states include: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Mississippi, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The nine comeback states were selected because they adopted at least two-thirds of the targeted policy changes, exceeded the national-average reduction in youth confinement, and experienced enhanced public safety with a decline in youth arrests. The four come-from-behind states were identified based on their current population-adjusted rates of youth confinement, and their adoption of at least three of the six incarceration-reducing statewide policies identified in the report. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/The-Comeback-and-Coming-from-Behind-States.pdf Shelf Number: 132586 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: British Academy Title: A Presumption Against Imprisonment: Social Order and Social Values Summary: The British Academy has today published a report, which urges that the UK stop relying so heavily on imprisonment as a form of punishment. Instead of imprisoning so many people for so long, the new report argues that in many cases, alternative measures will provide better, and more sustainable, long term outcomes. The report, titled 'A Presumption Against Imprisonment: Social Order and Social Values', was written by a group of academic experts including Professor Andrew Ashworth FBA, Professor Roger Cotterrell FBA, Professor Andrew Coyle, Professor Antony Duff FBA, Professor Nicola Lacey FBA, Professor Alison Liebling and Professor Rod Morgan. The report illustrates how changes to criminal law and policy have led to progressively harsher sentencing regimes, with longer periods of imprisonment imposed on persistent offenders and the increased use of mandatory minimum and indeterminate sentences for certain crimes. The prison population in England and Wales almost doubled between 1992 and 2011, rising from just under 45,000 to 88,000. Although it has fallen back to about 85,500 today, it is estimated that by 2018 the prison population could reach more than 90,000. (A similar increase has occurred in Scotland.) The report suggests a range of strategies to reduce our reliance on imprisonment, including reviewing sentence lengths, using diversion from the courts more extensively and promoting greater use of alternative forms of sentence. In addition to these strategies, the report recommends three 'overarching institutional proposals': - the creation of a Penal Policy Committee, accountable to Parliament, to formulate policies on the appropriate use of imprisonment; - greater attention by the Sentencing Council to the costs and effectiveness of different forms of sentence; - an urgent review of cases of Imprisonment for Public Protection in which the minimum term has been served, with a view to release. Details: London: The British Academy, 2014. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2014 at: http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Presumption_Against_Imprisonment.cfm Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Presumption_Against_Imprisonment.cfm Shelf Number: 132878 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Justice Reform Prison Reform Prisons (U.K.) Punishment

Author: Daly, Elizabeth Title: Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Summary: The Alternatives to Secure Youth Detention in Tasmania Inquiry originated from a request by the Minister for Children to the Commissioner for Children for advice in relation to the role of secure detention within Tasmania's youth justice system. - This Inquiry is part of a much broader review of the Youth Justice system in Tasmania, currently being undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services. - Ashley Youth Detention Centre is the only secure detention centre for youth offenders (both sentenced and unsentenced) in Tasmania. - The Inquiry found that: - Only a very low percentage of Tasmanian youth commit crime - The trend in numbers of young offenders and those who are detained at Ashley Youth Detention Centre (including those on remand) has declined over the last 5 years. - On an average day in 2011-2012, there were 21 young people in Ashley or 94 over the year. - Ashley takes up a disproportionately high percentage of the Youth Justice budget in Tasmania - approximately $10 million - despite the lack of evidence to suggest it is effective in deterring young offenders or that it promotes and facilitates reintegration into the community upon release. - The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the importance of diverting young offenders from the criminal justice system. It also provides that detention should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. - The Recommendations made in this Report are consistent with these fundamental principles. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: Commissioner for Children, 2013. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childcomm.tas.gov.au/wp-content/files_mf/1377130036AlternativestoSecureYouthDetentionFINAL2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129890 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention (Tasmania) Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice Policy Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders

Author: Cobb, Kimberly Title: Going Beyond Compliance Monitoring of Drug/Alcohol-Involved Tribal Probationers Summary: It is no secret that alcohol and substance abuse are common problems in Indian Country. While official data on crime in Indian Country is hard to come by, anecdotal data alludes to the fact that many tribal communities face overwhelming numbers of crimes either directly related to or associated with drugs/alcohol. Alcohol abuse has been associated with numerous negative consequences including crime, domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, suicide, morbidity, and ultimately mortality (Aguirre & Watts, 2010; Kovas, McFarland, Landen, Lopez, & May, 2008). However, alcohol is far from the only substance abused on tribal land. Marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and various pharmaceutical drugs are also regularly abused (NDIC, 2008). Although there has been great emphasis lately on the building or renovation of detention facilities in Indian Country, many tribal communities hold fast to the belief that they do not want to imprison their members. In fact, alternatives to incarceration, which includes probation and community supervision programs, are professed as a more "culturally compatible approach to punishment for crime" in Indian Country (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p. 63). Therefore, unless something tragic has occurred, those charged with drug/alcohol-related offenses will more than likely be placed on community supervision. That is where you come in as the tribal probation officer. Working with probationers is more than just identifying and controlling their risk to re-offend. As a tribal probation officer, you are "charged with ensuring public safety; holding offenders accountable for their actions; and, facilitating behavioral change in offenders" (The Century Council, 2010, pg. 8). In order to fulfill this charge, you often have to take on many roles associated with law enforcement, social work, counselor and court servant - which, at times, can have conflicting goals (Cobb, Mowatt, Matz, & Mullins, 2011). To be effective, you have to blend your duties of being an officer of the court (focused on compliance) and a probationer motivator (focused on facilitating behavior change) - both of which are necessary to fulfill the mandate of protecting public safety. In order to be effective and protect public safety over the long-term, as a tribal probation officer, you must move beyond compliance monitoring of the probation conditions ordered by the court to working with individuals on your caseload to identifying the root cause of the issues behind their drug/alcohol-related problems and intervene as necessary to put them on a better path. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation & Parole Association, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBAITP.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/GBCMDAITP.pdf Shelf Number: 133133 Keywords: Alcohol Abuse Alternatives To Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Supervision Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Offenders Indians of North America Probation Officers (U.S.) Probationers Risk Assessment Substance Abuse

Author: Natapoff, Alexandra Title: Misdemeanor Decriminalization Summary: As the U.S. rethinks its stance on mass incarceration, misdemeanor decriminalization is an increasingly popular reform. Seen as a potential cure for crowded jails and an overburdened defense bar, many states are eliminating jail time for minor offenses such as marijuana possession and driving violations, and replacing those crimes with so-called "nonjailable" or "fine-only" offenses. This form of reclassification is widely perceived as a way of saving millions of state dollars - nonjailable offenses do not trigger the right to counsel - while easing the punitive impact on defendants, and it has strong support from progressives and conservatives alike. But decriminalization has a little-known dark side. Unlike full legalization, decriminalization preserves many of the punitive features and collateral consequences of the criminal misdemeanor experience, even as it strips defendants of counsel and other procedural protections. It actually expands the reach of the criminal apparatus by making it easier - both logistically and normatively - to impose fines and supervision on an ever-widening population, a population who ironically often ends up incarcerated anyway when they cannot afford the fines or comply with the supervisory conditions. The turn to fine-only offenses and supervision, moreover, has distributive implications. It captures poor, underemployed, drug-dependent, and other disadvantaged defendants for whom fines and supervision are especially burdensome, while permitting well-resourced offenders to exit the process quickly and relatively unscathed. Finally, as courts turn increasingly to fines and fees to fund their own operations, decriminalization threatens to become a kind of regressive tax, turning the poorest populations into funding fodder for the judiciary and other government budgets. In sum, while decriminalization appears to offer relief from the punitive legacy of overcriminalization and mass incarceration, upon closer inspection it turns out to be a highly conflicted regulatory strategy that preserves and even strengthens some of the most problematic aspects of the massive U.S. penal system. Details: Los Angeles: Loyola Los Angeles School of Law, 2014. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-43 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Shelf Number: 133276 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Decriminalization Jail Overcrowding Mass Incarceration Misdemeanors (U.S.) Prison Overcrowding Punishment

Author: Easton, Helen Title: Evaluation of the 218 Service: Examining Implementation and Outcomes Summary: 1.1. The 218 Service opened in Glasgow in December 2003 in response to growing concerns about the needs and treatment of women offenders in the criminal justice system. Since this time, the service has provided holistic, women centred support for adult women offenders through a partnership between Turning Point Scotland (TPS) and Glasgow Addiction Service (GAS). This report presents a summary of the findings of a second evaluation of the service and provides an estimate of key outcomes for women offenders and the cost benefits of the service. Main Findings 1.2. The 218 Service has continued to evolve and remains a highly regarded, holistic, 'person centred' residential and day service for adult women offenders. The maximum period of engagement permitted has changed to six months for the Residential Service and 12 months for the Day Service. The programme has also been updated to focus on offending behaviour and to incorporate a recovery focussed model of change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982) which provides increased flexibility, improved measurement of change, and has potential to increase levels of engagement. 1.3. Police-recorded offending reduced by 21% following contact with the service among the cohort of 320 women referred to the service between 1 June 2007 and 31 May 2008. Among women engaging with the service beyond their assessment overall offending reduced by 31% and dishonesty offences by 44%. 1.4. A conservative estimate of the cost benefit established that for every $1 invested in the service there was a potential saving of $2.50 per year. Further savings are likely if longer term impacts such as the impact on women offenders' children are taken into consideration. 1.5. Most referrals to the service are made by the courts (43%) or Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW)(16%) and are aged 25-39 years (66%). From 2007 to 2009 there was a reduction in referrals of women aged 20-34 (71% of referrals reducing to 57%) and an increase in referrals of women aged 35-44 years (21% increasing to 33%). CJSW referrals had declined slightly from 19% to 16% of the total over the same period. 1.6. The number of assessments increased slightly from 198 in 2007 to 214 in 2009. A total of 439 women were assessed 630 times by the service. Multiple assessments accounted for half (51%) of all assessments compared to two thirds (67%) of referrals. 1.7. Over half (54%) of all referrals were assessed. Referrals from the Drug Court, Social Work, CJSW, and Community Addiction Teams were more likely to be assessed than referrals from other sources. 1.8. The combination of decreasing numbers of referrals, increasing numbers of assessments and lower numbers of multiple assessments than referrals could suggest an improvement in the quality of referrals made to the service. 1.9. Over half (52%) of the women offenders assessed engaged with the service. Those aged between 25-39 years and referred by CJSW, the Sheriff Court, CATs, Social Work and the Drugs Court were more likely to engage. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Government Social Research, 2010. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2014 at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9497&p=0 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9497&p=0 Shelf Number: 133390 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Services Female Offenders (Scotland) Offender Reintegration Offenders Rehabilitation Recidivism

Author: Beckett, Katherine Title: Seattle's Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program: Lessons Learned from the First Two Years Summary: Seattle's Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program is the first known pre-booking diversion program for people arrested on narcotics and prostitution charges in the United States. Launched in October 2011, LEAD is the product of a multi-year collaboration involving a wide range of organizations, including The Defender Association's Racial Disparity Project, the Seattle Police Department, the ACLU of Washington, the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the Seattle City Attorney's office, the King County Sheriff's Office, Evergreen Treatment Services, the King County Executive, the Washington State Department of Corrections, and others. This report draws on a number of data sources to provide an overview of LEAD's principles and operations, and to distill important lessons about what has - and has not - worked well in the first two years of LEAD's operations. The hope is that identification of these lessons will be useful to those interested in replicating LEAD in other jurisdictions or in enhancing its operations in Seattle. After briefly describing LEAD's principles and operations, the report identifies key "lessons learned." These are presented in four different categories: getting started; training; communication; and the transformation of institutional relationships. Each of these lessons is briefly described. Details: Seattle: University of Washington, Law, Societies & Justice Program, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.seattle.gov/council/Harrell/attachments/process%20evaluation%20final%203-31-14.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.seattle.gov/council/Harrell/attachments/process%20evaluation%20final%203-31-14.pdf Shelf Number: 133419 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Offenders Offender Diversion Program Prostitutes Treatment Programs

Author: Loucks, Nancy Title: Evaluation of the 218 Centre Summary: One of the most striking penal phenomena in Scotland during the last decade has been the steady increase in the numbers of women in custody. This, combined with a series of suicides at Scotland's only prison for women, HMP and YOI Cornton Vale, resulted in a wide-ranging review of the use of imprisonment and non-custodial sentences for female offenders. The review concluded that the backgrounds of women who offend and the circumstances which lead to their offending meant that prison was, for the most part, an inappropriate and potentially damaging disposal for this group. It produced a number of recommendations aimed at keeping women out of prison where possible and at improving the conditions for those who were, by necessity, detained. An Inter-Agency Forum was set up to establish services for women in the criminal justice system. The Inter-Agency Forum recommended, among other things, the creation of 'Time Out' Centres to provide residential and non-residential support services for women. The theory was that female offenders should be able to get 'time out' of their normal (chaotic) environment without resorting to 'time in' custody, where many of them were being placed. The work of the Forum was subsequently taken forward by The Ministerial Working Group on Women's Offending. The 'Time Out' Centre, or 218 as it is now called, was established in August 2003 with funding from the Scottish Executive and opened its doors to women in December 2003. The research summarised here evaluated the initial stages of 218. The aims of the research were to: - evaluate the operation and effectiveness of 218; - highlight examples of good practice and identify areas for improvement; - determine the extent to which addiction and offending can be addressed together; - assess the success of 218 in linking women into mainstream services on departure; - assess and determine the effectiveness of the Centre in relation to costs, outcomes and overall effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives. The evaluation was conducted through an analysis of material from documents and project records; focus groups and individual interviews with service users; and interviews with project staff and key stakeholders, with interviews repeated after one year where possible. In total 5 focus groups and 66 individual interviews were conducted with service users. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with staff at 218, and an additional 80 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Justice Department, 2006. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Evaluation_of_the_218_Centre.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Evaluation_of_the_218_Centre.pdf Shelf Number: 133524 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Female Offenders (Scotland) Female Prisoners

Author: Baker, Tom Title: Alcohol and other drug treatment and diversion from the Australian criminal justice system 2012-13 Summary: In the 10 years to 2012-13, the number of treatment episodes provided to clients diverted from the criminal justice system into alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment for drug or drug-related offences more than doubled, while treatment episodes for other clients increased only marginally. This bulletin assesses the nature of diversion clients referred to AOD treatment services, how they compare with non-diversion clients receiving AOD treatment, and the treatment they receive. About 1 in 4 clients had been diverted from the criminal justice system Nationally, there were 24,069 clients who had been diverted into AOD treatment, comprising 24% of all clients. Diversion clients were younger and more likely to be male than non-diversion clients, and less likely to be Indigenous Among diversion clients: - 25% were aged 10-19 compared with 11% for non-diversion clients - 80% were male compared with 67% of non-diversion clients - 12% were Indigenous compared with 15% for non-diversion clients. Among diversion clients, about 1 in 7 also received non-diversion treatment during 2012-13 While there are client data for just 1 collection year, about 1 in 7 (3,640) diversion clients also received non-diversion episodes during 2012-13 (4% of total clients). Diversion treatment episodes were about twice as likely to involve cannabis as the principal drug of concern compared with episodes for non-diversion clients Diversion episodes were most likely to be for cannabis (43% compared with 20% for non-diversion episodes). This was followed by alcohol (21% compared with 46%), amphetamines (18% compared with 13%) and heroin (7% compared with 8%). Police diversion episodes had less intensive treatment types compared with court diversion episodes Police diversion episodes were far less likely than court diversion episodes to involve counselling (21% compared with 54%) and support and case management only (1% compared with 15%) as main treatment types, and much more likely to involve information and education only (46% compared with 20%) and assessment only (31% compared with 5%). Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 125: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 133954 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Offender Treatment Drug Offenders (Australia) Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Ward, Jenni Title: Are problem-solving courts the way forward for justice? Summary: Problem-solving courts are not a new innovation, but their use and implementation appears to be growing across a number of jurisdictions, including the UK. This development suggests there is belief in the 'therapeutic jurisprudence' approach that underpins this style of criminal court adjudication; moreover their growth fits within the discourse which points out traditional criminal justice mechanisms too often leave the offender out as an uninvolved actor in the process (Nolan, 2001; Berman and Fox, 2009; Braithwaite, 1989). Processes that draw people in more closely, making them accountable for their actions, and playing an active role in their rehabilitation are more likely to achieve success at reducing reoffending and assisting people to live altered and reformed lives (Hoyle, 2012). This working paper provides some background detail on problem-solving courts and the central guiding principle of therapeutic jurisprudence, and argues court structures that assist people to construct positive self-identities and reintegrate into purposeful lives, and which empower people to play a role in their rehabilitation demonstrate a criminal justice model that has well-being at its core, and puts a human face to the delivery of justice. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 2/2014: Accessed November 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/What_is_Justice/HLWP_2_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134117 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Problem Solving Courts

Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Exploring the Relationship between Community-Based Order Conditions and Reoffending Summary: 1.1 This report examines the relationship between conditions imposed on offenders as part of a community-based sentence and subsequent reoffending. Specifically, the report considers community-based orders (CBOs) imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2009, with a focus on (a) how magistrates used different combinations of conditions and (b) how offender and offence characteristics, including reoffending rates, differed between offenders who did and did not receive 'supervision' as a condition of their order. The analysis provides an insight into the interaction between decisions made by sentencers in relation to community-based sentencing and subsequent reoffending within the Victorian criminal justice system. 1.2 Although the CBO was abolished in January 2012, this report is highly relevant to the CBO's replacement: the community correction order (CCO). Despite an increased range of conditions available under the latter order, recent research suggests that magistrates are using CCOs in a very similar manner to how they were using CBOs. Thus, the report is still likely to provide an insight into the expected reoffending patterns for CCOs. 1.3 The Council defines reoffending as any offending that followed the imposition of the index sentence and was sentenced in any Victorian court to 30 June 2012. Defined this way, the overall reoffending rate for offenders who received a CBO is 42.6%. 1.4 There are multiple methods for examining reoffending. The methodology used in this report is consistent with the approach taken by the New South Wales (NSW) Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) in their analysis of reoffending in NSW. This method differs from the Productivity Commission's analysis in a number of significant ways, including: - focusing on reoffending that follows the imposition (as opposed to completion) of a community order; - counting reoffending that results in fines; and - including reoffending that occurs between three and five years post-sentence (as opposed to two years). 1.5 Unpaid community work, assessment/treatment, and supervision were the main conditions attached to CBOs. At least one of these three conditions was included in 97.2% (n = 6,177) of the CBOs imposed during the index period. The focus of this report is on the supervision condition. Of the sample of 6,177 offenders, 45% (n = 2,791) received supervision as at least one of the conditions of a CBO (the 'Supervision CBO' group) while the remaining 55% (n = 3,386) did not (the 'No Supervision CBO' group). The Supervision CBO group had a significantly higher reoffending rate than the No Supervision CBO group (49.5% compared with 36.9%). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 134174 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Community-Based Corrections (Australia) Recidivism Reoffending Sentencing

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness Summary: Aliens awaiting removal proceedings or found to be removable from the United States are detained in ICE custody or released into the community under one or more options, such as release on bond and under supervision of the ATD program. Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE is responsible for overseeing aliens in detention and those released into the community. In 2004 ICE implemented the ATD program to be a cost-effective alternative to detaining aliens. ICE administers the program with contractor assistance using case management and electronic monitoring to ensure aliens comply with release conditions-including appearing at immigration court hearings and leaving the United States if they receive a final order of removal. The Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act mandated that GAO evaluate ICE's implementation of the ATD program. This report addresses (1) trends in ATD program participation from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 and the extent to which ICE provides oversight to help ensure cost-effective program implementation, and (2) the extent that ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. GAO analyzed ICE and ATD program data, reviewed ICE documentation, and interviewed ICE and ATD contractor officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that ICE analyze data to monitor ERO field offices' implementation of guidance and require the collection of data on the Technology-only component. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-26: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf Shelf Number: 134254 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Citizens

Author: Millsteed, Melanie Title: Ten Years of the South Australian Police Drug Diversion Initiative: Data Analysis Report Summary: The beginning of September 2011 marked ten years of PDDI operation, and presents a timely opportunity to analyse the data collected by the Drug Diversion Line over the whole ten year period. This briefing paper provides a summary of this data analysis. Its objectives are to determine: - The number and profile of individuals diverted under the PDDI; - Whether the number and/or profile of those diverted has changed over time, and if so, how it has changed; - The proportion of diverted individuals that comply with their diversion, and the profile of individuals that are less likely to comply; and, - The level of recidivism, time between first and subsequent diversions, and the profile of those that are more likely to re-offend within the context of the PDDI. In order to analyse trends over time, the data analysis sometimes splits the data into the following three equal time periods: - 1 September 2001 to 31 December 2004 - 1 January 2005 to 30 April 2008 - 1 May 2008 to 31 August 2011 Details: Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, Office of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2014 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/TenYears-PDDI.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/TenYears-PDDI.pdf Shelf Number: 134265 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Programs Drug Offenders (South Australia) Recidivism

Author: Fawcett, Jo Title: Development of Electronic Monitoring in Scotland - Analysis of Consultation Responses Summary: Background 1.1 The consultation paper 'Development of Electronic Monitoring in Scotland: A Consultation on the Future Direction of the Electronic Monitoring Service' was launched in September 2013, seeking views on the operation of the current electronic monitoring service in Scotland as well as options for future development of the service which could include satellite tracking and remote alcohol monitoring. 1.2 The consultation response form comprised 21 open questions covering the broad themes of radio frequency monitoring, GPS, and other electronic monitoring issues. The final question asked for any other comments that had not been covered elsewhere. 1.3 Forty-eight responses were received from organisations in the public, private and third sectors as well as other independent and professional bodies and academic institutions. Overview of responses 1.4 A majority of the organisations responding to the consultation were broadly supportive of the development of electronic monitoring to be integrated better into the rehabilitative journey. The key themes in responses related to the need for electronic monitoring to be part of a rehabilitative, person-centred 'package' of support, the need for interaction and integration between statutory services and the service provider and the need for effective information sharing between organisations. 1.5 Whilst the current system for handling breach of orders was broadly supported by some organisations responding to the consultation, there were more widespread suggestions for improvements. The main suggestions for improvements focused on further improving speed of response, simplification of the system, the need for greater clarity regarding consequences of breach and improved communication and information sharing. 1.6 The main barriers to greater use of electronic monitoring related to a perceived lack of understanding and awareness generally, public perceptions of electronic monitoring as a 'soft' punishment, the need for evidence on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in terms of reducing reoffending and concerns about the appropriateness of offenders' living arrangements when under electronic monitoring. A small number of respondents also cited privacy and human rights issues as an area of potential concern. 1.7 Responses to the consultation indicate a degree of positive support, notably from but not limited to CJAs, for the concept of developing the scope of electronic monitoring. Many of the suggested areas for development and improvement reaffirmed the themes identified above. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2014 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00462137.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00462137.pdf Shelf Number: 134275 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring (Scotland) Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision

Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts: Imposition, Duration, and Conditions Summary: Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses of judges' sentencing remarks, Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts examines CCOs imposed by Victorian higher courts in the 18 months to June 2013. 1.1 This report builds on the findings from the Council's Community Correction Orders: Monitoring Report, which examines a range of factors associated with the use of community correction orders (CCOs). This report presents the findings of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks for CCOs imposed by the Supreme and County Courts (the higher courts) between January 2012 and June 2013 (inclusive). The analysis has been undertaken to identify case variables influencing the imposition of CCOs, long CCOs (over 2 years duration), and the most frequently imposed conditions. 1.2 The methodology can be summarised as follows: - the sentencing remarks of 437 of the 460 CCOs imposed in the higher courts over this 18 month period are analysed; - the quantitative analysis examines 32 case variables, focusing on the offender, the offence, the victim, and the legal process, and is based on a binary logistic regression; - the imposition of CCOs is compared to short terms of imprisonment for armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and cause serious injury (both intentionally and recklessly); and - the qualitative analysis considers 157 CCO sentencing remarks and a smaller sample of short terms of imprisonment remarks involving the examination of a range of variables associated with the case characteristics. 1.3 With respect to the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment, the quantitative analysis finds that: - the majority of case variables do not predict if a CCO or short term of imprisonment will be imposed; - the only variable that consistently increases the likelihood of the imposition of a CCO (although non-significant for armed robbery) is whether the offender is currently employed and/or involved in an educational program; and - the involvement of drugs and/or alcohol in the offence has an inconsistent predictive influence, increasing the likelihood of a CCO for aggravated burglary, decreasing the likelihood for armed robbery, and having no consistent predictive influence for serious injury. 1.4 Examination of the specific case variables collected for the qualitative research reveals that, for certain judges, some additional factors influence the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment for specific cases. For example: - youth, mental illness, and a significant delay between the offending and sentencing, particularly where accompanied by demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation, influence the imposition of a CCO in some cases; and - previous offending and the seriousness of the instant offending consistently influence the imposition of an order of imprisonment. 1.5 As each sentencing decision is the result of instinctive synthesis, the differences in the sentences imposed could point to differences in the case facts (for example, offender age, nature and extent of prior offending). However, relevant similarities in those case facts, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks on either side of the dispositional divide, indicate that the difference may also be attributable to differences in the weighting of similar case facts. 1.6 With respect to duration, the qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks reveals that the courts provide little explicit guidance on, or clear explanation of, the sentencing purposes intended to be achieved by the imposition of a long CCO. Where comment has been made, the length of the order has been determined by issues of parity, the need to allow appropriate time for completion of rehabilitation courses, or the decision to make the sentence more onerous. 1.7 With respect to the combination of conditions attached to each CCO, the majority of quantitative variables do not make a significant contribution to predicting when a particular CCO condition will be imposed. There is also little judicial comment in the sentencing remarks that directly addresses the sentencing purposes for imposing certain CCO conditions. 1.8 The methodology examines the subjective and objective factors that interact in the complex sentencing process. There are inherent difficulties in clearly assessing the role of quantitative and qualitative factors in judgments based on instinctive synthesis. However, traditional legal analysis of sentencing remarks - in conjunction with the quantitative and qualitative techniques used in this study - allows certain inferences to be made. 1.9 A CCO is a new and different form of sanction. It is not a rebranded version of earlier forms of community-based sanctions. A much broader range of conditions can be imposed on a CCO, and a CCO can be imposed in the higher courts for a period up to the maximum penalty for an offence. However, the duration (85% - 2 years) and conditions attached to CCOs are very similar to those attached to community-based orders (CBOs). An analysis of a range of case factors indicates that the majority of these variables do not contribute to predicting the imposition of a CCO or the duration or conditions attached to a CCO. 1.10 Further research is necessary to gain a better understanding of what is influencing sentencing behaviour in the imposition of CCOs. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 134311 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Criminal Courts Sentencing (Australia)

Author: Stewart, Jacqueline Title: Indigenous Youth Justice Programs Evaluation Summary: Diversion from the youth justice system is a critical goal for addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in the criminal justice system. In this report, four programs that were already being implemented by states and territories and identified by them under the National Indigenous Law & Justice Framework as promising practice in diversion are examined. The programs were evaluated, as part of a broader initiative, to determine whether and on what basis they represent good practice (ie are supported by evidence). State and territory governments nominated the programs for evaluation. The four programs sit at different points along a continuum, ranging from prevention (addressing known risk factors for offending behaviour, such as disengagement from family, school, community or culture), early intervention (with identified at-risk young people), diversion (diverting from court process - usually for first or second time offenders) and tertiary intervention (treatment to prevent recidivism): - Aboriginal Power Cup (South Australia)- a sports-based program for engaging Indigenous young people in education and providing positive role models (prevention). - Tiwi Islands Youth Development and Diversion Unit (Northern Territory) - a diversion program that engages Tiwi youth who are at risk of entering the criminal justice system in prevention activities, such as a youth justice conference, school, cultural activities, sport and recreation (early intervention and diversion). - Woorabinda Early Intervention Panel Coordination Service (Queensland) - a program to assess needs and make referrals for young Indigenous people and their families who are at risk or have offended and have complex needs (early intervention and diversion). - Aggression Replacement Training (Queensland) - a 10 week group cognitive-behavioural program to control anger and develop pro-social skills, delivered to Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth assessed as 'at risk' of offending or reoffending (early intervention and tertiary intervention with offenders to reduce risk of reoffending). For each program, the evaluation team developed a 'program logic', identifying the activities and goals of the program, and how it articulates within a broader framework of criminal justice prevention. This informed the design of the evaluation and the approach to collecting both qualitative data (from young people participating in the program, program staff, family, or other service providers/community members) and quantitative data to identify any effects of the program on individuals, or the broader community. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Reports: Special Report: Accessed January 15, 2015 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 134409 Keywords: Aboriginals Alternatives to Incarceration At-Risk Youth Evidence-Based Programs Indigenous Peoples Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders (Australia) Treatment Programs

Author: Mews, Aidan Title: The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending Summary: Community orders and suspended sentence orders represent a substantial proportion of sentences given in England and Wales - about 13 per cent of all adult sentences imposed in 2013. This study examined the impact on adult re-offending outcomes of these court orders and requirements imposed as part of those orders. It also looked at the effects over different follow-up periods to explore the impact over time. The study builds on previous analyses of community requirements, using more data, a more thorough matching process, and examining more combinations of requirements. Approach Offender data from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive) were used. A propensity score matching approach was followed, matching offenders given particular sentences with other, similar ones given other sentences. This method used data from Offender Assessment System (OASys) assessments, probation and re-offending, and tax and benefits systems. This is a well-tested approach to looking at impact, but one that cannot decisively discount the potential for an unmeasured factor to influence results. Key findings - - Short-term custody (less than 12 months in prison, without supervision on release) was consistently associated with higher rates of proven re-offending than community orders and suspended sentence orders ('court orders'). Over a 1 year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody than other, similar people given a community order (around 3 percentage points higher) or a suspended sentence order (7 percentage points higher). In addition, short term custody was associated with up to 1 more re-offence per person on average than both community and suspended sentence orders. - However, the impact appeared to vary over different follow-up periods. Over a three year period, while it was still the case that more people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody rather than a 'court order', this difference decreased. The benefits of the 'court orders' on reducing re-offending were felt predominately in the first year of follow-up. - The benefit of 'court orders' over short term custody was seemingly increased when OASys variables were not used in the matching method, suggesting that these variables include influential factors associated with re-offending and/or the likelihood of being given a particular sentence. The analysis indicates that it is important to include OASys scores in the matching process, and that their omission leads to an upward bias in the estimate of impact. They should therefore be used routinely in similar analyses, even though that entails limiting the analysis to the subset of cases for which an OASys assessment is available. - There was evidence of particular requirements and groups of requirements having greater benefits in terms of reducing re-offending compared to short term custody. - Supervision requirements were generally associated with reduced proven re-offending where they were used. - There were examples where activity requirements and accredited programme requirements were associated with reductions in re-offending, but overall the impact was uncertain. However, these requirements were examined collectively, and particular activities / programmes may have had a more positive impact on re-offending. In addition, using proven re-offending as a sole outcome measure may not pick up all potential benefits of these requirements. - The impact of using combinations of requirements together was difficult to predict. Sometimes, the impact of requirements changed when used with certain others. For example, activity requirements had an uncertain impact when used with a curfew on community orders. When supervision was added to the activity as well, a significant reduction in re-offending was found. However, when a programme requirement was added to this, the impact returned to being uncertain. - There may be differences in impacts associated with suspended sentence orders and community orders, with outcomes mostly non-significant for suspended sentence orders. Some characteristic of either or both of these orders may make particular requirements more / less effective (the data used in this study do not allow a full explanation of what precisely is driving the effects). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Shelf Number: 134491 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Recidivism Reoffending Sentencing (U.K.)

Author: Wood, Martin Title: Re-offending by offenders on Community Orders: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study Summary: This report is one of a series summarising findings from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of offenders aged 18 and over, who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The report focuses on re-offending by these offenders, using a measure of proven re-offending. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in the 12 months following the start of the Community Order that received a court conviction or caution in that 12 months or within a further six month waiting period. It examines the factors associated with re-offending, such as offenders' needs, attitudes and their relationship with their Offender Manager. The report will help inform policy makers and providers about the key characteristics of this group of offenders and will be useful in the development of practice in the delivery of Community Orders and supervision in the community. Preliminary findings on re-offending levels among offenders on Community Orders from the OMCCS were published in July 2013 (Wood et al., 2013a) using incomplete re-offending data. This report presents updated analysis on levels of re-offending and therefore findings may vary from those previously published. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 134492 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Offender Supervision (U.K.) Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Drake, Elizabeth K. Title: Washington's Residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: Recidivism & Cost Analysis Summary: The 2014 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to examine the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) for offenders sentenced to residential treatment in the community. Residential DOSA was created by the 2005 Legislature as an alternative to prison for offenders with substance abuse problems. When ordered by a court, an offender's sentence is reduced in exchange for completing chemical dependency treatment. When possible, WSIPP conducts benefit-cost analysis to understand the long-term impacts of policies. In addition to residential DOSA's effect on recidivism, research indicates that crime is avoided through confinement, known as "incapacitation." We cannot empirically estimate the extent to which a residential treatment facility itself incapacitates offenders. Thus, we are unable to determine the degree to which the benefits from the favorable recidivism reduction of residential DOSA would be offset by the increased costs of non-confinement. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: DOC.No. 14-12-1901: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1577/Wsipp_Washingtons-Residential-Drug-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative-Recidivism-Cost-Analysis_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1577/Wsipp_Washingtons-Residential-Drug-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative-Recidivism-Cost-Analysis_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134598 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Drug Offender Treatment Drug Offenders (Washington State). Recidivism Residential Treatment

Author: Simpson, Paul Title: Views on Alternatives to Imprisonment: A Citizens Jury Approach Summary: Alarming over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australian prisons, combined with high recidivism rates and poor health and social outcomes among those released from prison, has led many to claim that incarceration is a social policy failure. An important obstacle to a reform agenda in the criminal justice area is public opinion. The public are often perceived to hold punitive attitudes towards offenders, a situation often exploited by politicians to perpetuate punitive penal policies at the expense of developing decarceration initiatives. However, alternatives to public opinion surveys/polls are needed. Citizens Juries offer an alternative method to assess the public's views, views that are critically informed and thus better aid policy development. The Lowitja Institute has published the report that explores, through Citizens Juries, the views of a better informed public towards how we, as a community, should address offenders in terms of incarceration and incarceration alternatives. The research focused on a range of incarceration alternatives including Justice Reinvestment. Details: Melbourne: Lowitja Institute, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2015 at: https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/Lowitja%20Alternatives-text-WEB.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/Lowitja%20Alternatives-text-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 134650 Keywords: Aboriginals Alternatives to Incarceration Indigenous Peoples Public Attitudes Public Opinion (Australia)

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice. Justice Data Lab Title: Re-offending Analysis: Warwickshire Youth Justice Service Summary: This analysis assessed the impact on re-offending of an intervention targeted at young offenders who had committed a violent offence, provided by Warwickshire Youth Justice Service (WYJS). The one year proven re-offending rate for 82 offenders who received the service was 38%, compared with 51% for a matched control group of similar offenders. Statistical significance testing has shown that this difference in the re-offending rates is statistically significant; meaning that we can be confident that there is a real difference in the re-offending rate for the group who received the intervention. The offenders included in this analysis all had index offences of violence against the person, and were all between 14 and 18 years of age at the time of this offence. The individuals in this analysis were receiving a statutory programme of provision, which is statutory for all young offenders who commit and are subsequently convicted of violent offences. This analysis therefore presents a comparison of the provision from WYJS against the statutory provision outside the Warwickshire area. What you can say: This analysis shows that participating in an intervention provided by Warwickshire Youth Justice Service led to a reduction in re-offending of between 2 and 24 percentage points. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279366/warwickshire-youth-justice-service-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279366/warwickshire-youth-justice-service-report.pdf Shelf Number: 135011 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Re-offending Recidivism Violent Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)

Author: Boulger, Jordan Title: Performance incentive funding for prison diversion: An implementation study of the DuPage County Adult Redeploy Illinois Program. Summary: Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) was designed as a response to the high numbers of non-violent offenders incarcerated in Illinois' prisons at great cost to the state. Participating ARI counties divert non-violent offenders from prison and into community corrections programs. These programs are less expensive than prison and designed to be more effective at reducing recidivism. They are required to reduce the number of individuals sent to IDOC from an eligible target population during the grant period - typically 12 months - by at least 25 percent. This evaluation of DuPage County ARI explored both planning and implementation of ARI programming during its pilot phase starting January 1, 2011 and concluding in June 30, 2012. Data collection had four main components: interviews with ARI program staff and stakeholders, interviews with ARI clients, analysis of ARI administrative data, and analysis of clients' criminal history record information. Key findings from the evaluation of the DuPage County ARI drug court program include: Program outcomes - DuPage County's ARI program exceeded its 25 percent prison admission reduction goal. The program successfully diverted 127 non-violent individuals from IDOC, far surpassing its goal of 35. - Of the 37 clients who were closed (or terminated) from the ARI program, 46 percent successfully completed the program (n=17), while 27 percent had been re-sentenced to IDOC (n=10). - Of the 106 ARI clients in the sample, 18 percent were arrested while participating in the program (n=19). Of them, 8 percent were arrested for a felony arrest and 3 percent were arrested for a violent crime. - Program administrators implemented with fidelity eight of 10 Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) components, but could work toward more fully implementing two components - (1) creating minimum and maximum length of participation and (2) setting contact levels with higher levels initially to lower levels in final stages. Client characteristics - ARI clients in DuPage County were mostly male, white, unmarried, and unemployed with a high school diploma, and living with friends or family. - Based on criminal histories, risk assessment instruments, and previous probation non-compliance, DuPage County targeted individuals at high risk for recidivism for participation in the program. - Almost half of the ARI clients were sentenced for a Class 4 felony. Many clients (40 percent) were convicted of a drug offense and 24 percent were convicted of a property offense. - Slightly more than half of ARI clients were determined to be at high risk for recidivism based on the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R), a validated instrument that assesses the risk (53 percent). - DuPage County ARI clients averaged six prior arrests, with 86 percent of clients arrested for a felony offense and 14 percent previously incarcerated. - According to nine interviewed clients, they met with their probation officer face-to-face an average of two times each month lasting an average of 38 minutes per client. - Of five interviewed clients who received rewards for following the rules of the program, all found them to be good motivators to do well in the program. The average number of rewards each person received was six. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/ARI_DUPAGE_030315.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/ARI_DUPAGE_030315.pdf Shelf Number: 135014 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Correction Diversion Programs Recidivism

Author: Skorek, Rebecca Title: Influence of court-ordered forensic evaluations on juvenile justice system-involved youth Summary: This evaluation measured implementation and impact of the Detention to Probation Continuum of Care (DPCC) program administered through a collaboration of River Valley Detention Center (RVDC) mental health staff, and Will and Kankakee county juvenile court judges and probation officers. In 2011, RVDC had 667 youth admissions between the ages of 10 and 17, with an estimated 50 percent released into the community under court supervision monitored by a probation officer. The DPCC program has three phases: 1. Institutional phase, in which youth receive mental health screening while in detention. The mental health screening is administered by RVDC mental health staff to identify factors among detained youth that may be leading to delinquency, ascertain if there are any mental health disorders present, and establish appropriate in-detention care, including prescription of psychotropic medications. A mental health screening can only be completed if RVDC mental health staff were able to meet with the detained youth prior to their release. 2. Structured phase, which is the completion of a court-ordered forensic evaluation by RVDC mental health staff. This evaluation is ordered by the juvenile court judge during a youth's detention hearing occurring within 40 hours of detention admission. The forensic evaluation is conducted for the purpose of developing a rehabilitative plan to guide sentencing conditions and supervision in the least restrictive manner. The mental health screen provides a foundation for the court-ordered forensic evaluation. 3. Reintegration phase, which begins when the judge receives the forensic evaluation report at the youth's adjudication hearing and ends at completion of the probation supervision. The forensic evaluation report includes a rehabilitative plan that describes appropriate community-based treatment services, such as counseling or psychiatric treatment, to be judicially imposed through conditions of probation. Completion of community-based care is monitored by a Will or Kankakee county probation officer. ICJIA researchers used two methods to conduct this evaluation. One method was interviews with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of DPCC program activities and the utility of court-ordered forensic evaluations. The second method was analysis of detention and probation data on a sample of 211 youth who were detained at RVDC between 2003 and 2009 and discharged from Will and Kankakee probation between 2007 and 2009. These data allowed ICJIA researchers to assess the extent to which these youth progressed through the DPCC program phases and to track their compliance with sentencing conditions, and subsequent detention admissions and arrests. Research questions to measure program implementation included: - Institutional phase�XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a mental health screen? - Structured phase�XTo what extent did those juvenile detainees who were ultimately eligible for probation-based mental health treatment receive a court-ordered forensic evaluation (were DPCC program enrolled/participants)? - Reintegration phase�XTo what extent did conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services reflect the rehabilitative plan developed through the court-ordered forensic evaluation? Research questions to measure program impact included: - To what extent did receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation influence conditions of probation regarding community-based treatment services? - To what extent did those receiving a court-ordered forensic evaluation receive indicated treatment services and subsequently have higher rates of compliance with judicially imposed conditions of probation, and fewer detention admissions and arrests? - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs receive a mental health screen and/or court-ordered forensic evaluation - To what extent did moderate/high risk juvenile probationers with mental health needs complete appropriate community-based treatment services? Details: Chicago: Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/RVDCMHP_122014.pdf Shelf Number: 135073 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Community-Based Treatment Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders (Illinois) Juvenile Probationers Mental Health Services

Author: Keaton, Sandy Title: Seeking Alternatives: Understanding the Pathways to Incarceration of High-Risk Juvenile Offenders February 2015 Summary: In 2003, San Diego County's juvenile justice system formed a committee to address the issue of Disproportionate Minority Contact of youth, now referred to as Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity (RED). This committee, which is comprised of key juvenile justice decision makers1 in San Diego County has spent years conducting research and internal reviews to identify and reduce disparities throughout the juvenile justice system. As part of this process, the committee sought to learn more about those youth most deeply entrenched in the system. Research has shown that the trajectory for most (e.g., 90%) juvenile offenders is away from offending and delinquent behaviors. However, for chronic offenders, their adolescent years are spent in and out of school, custody, and under the scrutiny of the court and the rules of probation. Recent research in the field has shown that long-term incarceration of youth does not reduce recidivism and in some cases, for lower-level offenders, it can actually increase criminal recidivism. This information, combined with the overrepresentation of youth of color in parts of the system, and the belief that more could be done to redirect these entrenched youth, provided the impetus for the RED committee to seek out the support of The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) to learn more about this population. RED members approached CWF to fund a study designed to examine factors contributing to youth becoming deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system with the purpose to inform California juvenile justice systems. Of particular interest was capturing the youths' perspective on their experiences prior to and during their involvement in the justice system. In partnership with San Diego County Probation and The Children's Initiative, SANDAG's Applied Research Division designed and conducted a qualitative study of 40 high-risk youth either sentenced to the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU) or to the Community Transition Unit (CTU) to learn more about their paths deeper into the system and what interventions could have altered that course, and when those interventions could have been implemented to the greatest advantage. YOU is a graduated sanctions program in which youth are in custody locally for up to 9 months and supervised in their communities for the remaining 3 months, for a total of 12 months. CTU is a community-based supervision program for youth who are returning to their communities after completing a sentence in a Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility. A mixed-model design was used with data gathered from a structured interview with the youth, validated assessments, and official Probation records. The goal of the research was to capture information on all the systems the youth had come in contact with, including education and Child Welfare Services (CWS). Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Shelf Number: 135079 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Disproportionate Minority Contact Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Reentry

Author: Villettaz, Patrice Title: The Effects on Re-offending of Custodial vs. Non-custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge Summary: As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non-custodial sanctions on re-offending. For this purpose, we examined, in 2006, more than 3,000 abstracts, and identified more than 300 possibly eligible studies. For the update, nearly 100 additional potentially eligible studies published or completed between 2003 and 2013 have been identified. For the update, 10 matched-pair design studies and one RCT have been abstracted. One study (Bergman 1976) that, in 2006, had been classified as an RCT turned out, after closer examination, to have been quasi-experimental with respect to the comparison of the custodial and the non-custodial groups. As a result, it has been "downgraded" and included among the quasi-experimental studies in this update. The findings of the update confirm one of the major results of the first report, namely that the rate of re-offending after a non-custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in most comparisons. However, this is true mostly for quasi-experimental studies using weaker designs, whereas experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non-custodial sanctions. It can be concluded that results in favour of non-custodial sanctions in the majority of quasi-experimental studies may reflect insufficient control of pre-intervention differences between prisoners and those serving "alternative" sanctions. Details: Oslo: Campbell Collaboration, 2015. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2015:1: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/?go=monograph&year=2015 Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/?go=monograph&year=2015 Shelf Number: 135108 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Crime Prevention Custodial Sentences Re-Offending Recidivism

Author: Kantorowicz, Elena Title: Cognitive Biases and Procedural Rules: Enhancing the Use of Alternative Sanctions Summary: The practice of short-term imprisonment has been long criticised due to its criminogenic effect and costs. To minimise its use, many countries introduced alternative sanctions such as community service or home confinement with electronic monitoring. Unfortunately, in practice those sanctions are often imposed on non-prison bound offenders, a phenomenon termed "the net-widening problem". Consequently, instead of reducing the prison population, the alternative sanctions substitute lighter punishments such as fine or conditional imprisonment. The discretion power whether to impose a prison sentence or its alternatives lies in the hands of the courts. Therefore, the way to enhance the use of alternative sanctions as a substitute to short-term imprisonment is to change the behaviour of judges. This paper adopts the unique approach of behavioural law and economics in order to discuss procedural rules that have the potential to achieve the above-mentioned goal. Each of the analysed procedural rules explains the cognitive biases, which judges are subject to when choosing between a prison sentence and an alternative punishment. Following that, this paper analyses how the suggested procedural rules overcome or use those biases in order to promote the use of alternative sanctions. Details: Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam , 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE) Working Paper Series No. 2014/10 : Accessed April 6, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531418 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531418 Shelf Number: 135162 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Law Judges Judicial Discretion Net-Widening Punishment

Author: KPMG Title: Evaluation of the Drug Court of Victoria: Final Report Summary: The Drug Court of Victoria (DCV, 'the Court') was established in May 2002 to further improve the safety of the community by focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders with a drug and/or alcohol dependency, and by providing assistance in reintegrating them into the community. It was designed using international best practice principles on the basis of the 10 key principles defined by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and U.S. Department of Justice in 1997. Since 2005, the DCV has received ongoing funding, including additional national drug strategy funding, and has had an operating budget of approximately $1.6 million per annum. The Court has not been evaluated since 2005, however in 2010, the Victorian Auditor General released a report finding that problem solving approaches to justice in Victoria had reduced recidivism. In response to this, the government at the time confirmed that problem solving courts would remain in operation, and the then Attorney-General stated 'we are looking to identify successful elements which can be taken up and implemented more widely'. To this end, it is understood that the Magistrates' Court of Victoria (MCV) is considering how the DCV may deliver its services to the wider community, including a proposal for expansion to additional locations. KPMG has been engaged by the MCV to undertake an evaluation of the DCV over the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The objectives of the evaluation are to: - assess the performance of the DCV against its specified activities and anticipated outcomes; - document key lessons learnt from the Court; and - provide an evidence base to inform government decision-making. Key evaluation questions have been drawn from the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) evaluation policy and standards for evaluating lapsing programs, to facilitate the use of the evaluation in any potential future funding bid. These include consideration of: - What is the evidence of a continued need for the DCV and the role for government in delivering it? - Has the DCV been effective, considering progress made towards its stated objectives and outcomes and the alignment between the Court, its outputs, MCV's objectives and government priorities? - Has the DCV been delivered within its scope, budget, expected timeframes and in line with appropriate governance and risk management practices? - Has MCV demonstrated efficiency and economy in delivering the DCV? The evaluation has sought to collect both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support key findings and recommendations, and this has included analysis of DCV participant related data, finance data, a recidivism study undertaken by the Department of Justice (DoJ) for the purposes of this evaluation, a review of publicly available literature and data, and widespread consultation with key stakeholders, including program participants. Details: Melbourne: Magistrates' Court of Victoria, 2015. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/141218%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Drug%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/141218%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Drug%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 135191 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts (Australia) Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism

Author: Hoatson, Lesley Title: Evaluating the impact of International Detention Coalition. Work towards ending and limiting unnecessary immigration detention and developing alternatives Summary: The IDC commissioned a comprehensive External Evaluation to consolidate key insights. Conducted by Lesley Hoatson, an accredited evaluator of NGO, UN and government programs, the evaluation looks at the impact of the IDC's work. It provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of advocacy outcomes as well as recommendations to strengthen the work of the IDC, following interviews with a wide range of members, funders, governments and stakeholders. Significantly the evaluation finds: - A broad range of stakeholders hold overwhelming support, respect and trust for the IDC - The IDC is seen as leading a community of practice that has moral authority and uses this political capital to move detention reform forward - The IDC has been a major contributor to the shift in the international debate towards alternatives to detention by offering leadership, technical expertise, groundbreaking research, capacity building and training - 90% of the 77 countries the IDC is working in now have NGOs advocating for alternatives to immigration detention, representing a 5 fold increase since 2009 - From this work has come changes to law, policy and practice and a significant number of people have either been released from detention Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2014. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135220 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Asylum Seekers Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention

Author: Davis Y. Ja Associates Title: Dependency Drug Court: Evaluation Report Summary: The San Francisco Superior Court engaged Davis Ja and Associates, Inc. (DYJA) to implement the outcome evaluation for the Dependency Drug Court (DDC) project. DYJA reviewed the initial work plan, the goals and objectives of the project and assigned evaluation staff to work with the Superior Court on the evaluation. Under this work plan, DYJA staff was responsible for developing consent forms, and data collection protocols and assumed some of the data entry procedures for specific measures. DYJA was also responsible for determining satisfaction through client surveys, conducting data analysis and compiling interim reports and a final evaluation report. DYJA staff worked with the program staff to establish consent procedures, assessment protocols and procedures and to utilize existing measures that would capture the data necessary to answer the evaluation and research questions indicated in the goals and objectives. However, in reviewing the process to capture adequate data necessary to fulfill goals and objectives, DYJA determined that the existing database and management information systems (MIS) of the Superior Court was inadequate and could not provide the data necessary. This was due in large part to the fact that the Superior Court system was never intended to capture outcome data, but to document court proceedings, charges and judgments. Attempts were made to revise and make changes, but authorization for these changes was difficult to obtain. Ultimately, the most significant change was the inclusion of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), an outcome measure used by members of the collaborators of this project. Details: San Francisco: Davis Y. Ja & Associates, 2012. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241056.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241056.pdf Shelf Number: 135224 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Guenzburger, Gloriam Vanine Title: Differences Between Jail Sentences and Jail Terms Actually Served among DUI offenders In Selected California Counties Summary: Records of 32.7% of California's DUI offenders convicted in 2006, who received jail or a jail alternative sentence, were used to compare jail terms at sentencing to actual jail time served, and to describe used alternative sanctions to jail. County data systems' variation, tracking methods, quality and completeness of data, and lack of communication between Courts and Sheriff's Departments limited sample size and representativeness. Percentages of jail time served across participating counties ranged from 0 to 67% for 1st offenders, 0 to 47% for 2nd offenders, and 0 to 67% for 3rd offenders. Median percentages of jail sentences actually served across participating counties were 0%, 19%, and 38% for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd offenders, respectively. Alternative sentences were used more often on 1st DUI offenders, less so on 2nd offenders, and least often on 3rd offenders. The most popular alternative sentences in lieu of jail options were Sheriff's Work Program and Caltrans Work Program. Jail sentences reported to DMV greatly overstate amount of jail time actually served by DUI offenders. Further evaluation of effectiveness of jail time served by California DUI offenders is not possible at present because California's DUI Offender Tracking System does not keep good track of offenders. Recommendations are: results from previous California DMV studies and/or studies from other states showing jail terms as ineffective in reducing alcohol-involved crashes or DUI recidivism should be taken with caution; efforts should be made so California's DUI Offender Tracking System is consistent with NHTSA's 2006 guidelines; DMV's court abstract collection system should require jail terms keyed in, if disposition code "J" is present; DMV's JAG project to assess accuracy and timeliness of DUI conviction data sent to DMV should be finished, and its findings used in conjunction of this study's findings to enable the implementation of recommendations from NHTSA's 2011 California Traffic Records Assessment. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-239.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-239.pdf Shelf Number: 135229 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence (California) Drunk Driving Jails Sentencing

Author: Clarke, Rebecca Title: London Probation Trust Peer Mentoring Evaluation Report Summary: London Probation Trust (LPT), in their aim to reduce reoffending, improve compliance with supervision and provide a more holistic service for offenders decided to work in partnership with voluntary and community sector organisations to provide mentoring services for offenders in London to improve their rehabilitation prospects. The two strands of projects that were evaluated were: - A peer mentoring service for 100 young offenders aged 18-25 who were subject to Intensive Alternative to Custody orders or licenses. Mentoring was offered to support offender management, encourage motivation and enable compliance. Catch22 and St Giles Trust jointly designed and delivered this service. - A mentoring service for women and testing the 'personalisation' agenda to reduce the risk of re-offending. This included an enabling fund to allow women and their mentors to address any unmet needs that supported their rehabilitation. Catch22 designed and delivered this service. The over-arching outcomes for the services were: - Reduced re‐offending rates - Improved attendance/compliance Additional outcomes were: - Improved offender manager and sentencer understanding of the support that can be provided to offenders through mentoring - Increased positive life outcomes through practical and motivational support. - Reduced social exclusion of offenders. - Increased access to community interventions for offenders. - In the case of peer mentoring, peer mentors develop personally and socially through supporting others to develop, keeping their own focus on rehabilitation and boosting their self-‐esteem and confidence. - Develop integrated partnership working with the third sector. Key Findings In the first year: 152 referrals were made to the peer mentoring project (against a target of 150) and 71 referrals were made to the women's project (against a target of 70). - For many young men on the peer project progress in relation to the area of ETE was prioritised. Mentors supported individuals to complete steps towards being ready for and accessing work both in practical terms (with a CV, completing applications) and in relation to their motivation and/or confidence. - The availability of and access to settled and suitable housing was unsurprisingly identified as a key goal for some mentees, with mentors acknowledging the challenge in supporting progress in other areas without resolving this. Both projects recorded some very positive outcomes for service users in relation to housing, inevitably though the mentor plays a specific role support and advocacy and is reliant on other providers prioritising their clients. - The profiling information for the peer project indicated that just over one fifth of the young men referred were assessed and flagged as 'gang involved' by probation staff within their case management system. Details: Manchester, UK: Manchester Metropolitan University, Policy Evaluation & Research Unit (PERU), 2014. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.mmuperu.co.uk/assets/uploads/files/LPT_PM_Interim_report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.mmuperu.co.uk/assets/uploads/files/LPT_PM_Interim_report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135274 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Offenders Mentoring Programs (U.K.) Peers Young Adult Offenders

Author: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. Title: Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court: Evaluation Report Summary: The Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court (FJTC) began in 2008 as an innovative response to youth with mental health and co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance use disorders together). As in other parts of the country, it grew from the recognition that mental health disorders, sometimes paired with substance abuse, frequently contribute to the reason juveniles commit offenses and appear before the Court. The FJTC targets youth whose mental illness likely contributed to the commission of their offense. Like most therapeutic courts, the FJTC is managed by a multi-disciplinary team which uses a collaborative (as opposed to an adversarial) approach. Members step out of their traditional roles to encourage treatment of the juvenile while still promoting public safety. FJTC's mission is to "promote public safety while moving adolescents from the traditional juvenile justice system into a mental health/substance use treatment system that can sustain health and non-criminal behavior." The Alaska Court System (ACS), in collaboration with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, have sponsored this evaluation to analyze outcomes of participants in the FJTC in state fiscal years (SFY) 2009 through 2012, and to measure the effectiveness of the FJTC at improving the lives of juveniles with mental health and substance use disorders. The purpose of the study is to help guide the FJTC in its future development by providing information on: 1. the functioning of the FJTC in relation to mental health and juvenile drug court standards; 2. the clinical and demographic characteristics of FJTC participants and their corresponding service needs; 3. the services available and used by FJTC participants to identify any unmet needs or gaps in the service delivery system; 4. the clinical and criminal recidivism outcomes of FJTC participants, and factors associated with and predictive of those outcomes; 5. characteristics of FJTC participants appropriate for diversion; and 6. evidence-based programs and services which could be employed to divert youth from court or reduce recidivism. The FJTC is a diversion program, meaning that the juvenile's current charges are held in abeyance, or not adjudicated, pending the agreement of the youth to participate in FJTC. Agreement means the youth must accept treatment for his or her mental health and/or substance use, attend court hearings and obey the conditions of conduct set out by the court. The youth's agreement to participate includes admission to the charges, and an explanation of the consequences in the plea agreement, which may include detention should the youth not complete the program. To qualify for participation, the youth must have a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV3 (DSM IV) Axis I mental health diagnosis, qualifying criminal charges, and must be willing to accept services and will preferably be supported by a parent or caregiver. Details: South Portland, ME: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., 2014. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135306 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Courts Juvenile Diversion Programs Juvenile Offenders (Alaska) Mental Health Courts Problem-Solving Courts Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Closing the Gap Clearinghouse Title: Diverting Indigenous offenders from the criminal justice system Summary: What we know - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are vastly over-represented in the Australian juvenile and criminal justice systems. - Incarceration comes at a high cost through exposure to harsh prison environment, marginalisation, poor health outcomes and impact upon employment opportunities. - A person's contact with or progression through the justice systems can be reduced through diversion programs. - Indigenous Australians have lower participation and completion rates of diversion programs, particularly those who access mainstream programs. What works - Positive outcomes found for diversion programs include reduced drug and substance use, and improved social functioning. - There is some evidence that diversion programs reduce reoffending, but the evidence is not strong. - Diversion programs of between 12 and 18 months have better outcomes than those of very short or extended durations. - On-the-job work experience and other forms of support, such as mentoring, help reduce reoffending and promote reintegration into the community. - Culturally appropriate treatment initiatives and rehabilitation boost the participation in and completion of a diversionary program. - Programs that address the concerns of Indigenous defendants by involving Indigenous Elders or facilitators in delivery work better. What doesn't work - Programs with strict eligibility criteria are not effective as repeat offenders are often unable to take advantage of relevant and helpful programs. - Unrealistic participation requirements that affect an offender's ability to complete a program could encourage their continued involvement with the criminal justice system. - Diverting offenders to protracted programs when their crimes were minor in nature can be counterproductive. The nature and length of a diversion program should be in proportion to the severity of the offence and any risk of reoffence. In some cases, a jail sentence of lesser duration may have been preferred to the program ordered. - Focussing on illicit drugs often misses the target. Alcohol, and not substance abuse, is the major underlying problem for Indigenous offenders, but it is not addressed by most of the mainstream drug diversion programs. - A lack of committed funding can limit the reach and functioning of a diversionary program, particularly in rural and remote Australia. What we don't know - Process rather than outcomes is often the focus for measuring success of a program and it is therefore difficult to determine the effectiveness of many diversionary programs. - There is little by way of in-depth data and objective evaluations to determine the medium and long-term effectiveness of Australian diversionary programs. - Outcomes for Indigenous participants of mainstream programs are not always measured or reported separately. Consequently, the suitability of these programs for Indigenous clients has not been fully verified. - It is unclear whether some diversionary programs lead to net-widening - that is, they may increase rather than lessen the involvement of defendants with the justice system. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Resource sheet no. 24: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Shelf Number: 135411 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Programs Indigenous Offenders Indigenous Peoples (Australia) Minority Groups Treatment Programs

Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Community Orders with punitive requirements: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study Summary: This report uses the OMCCS to describe which offenders received punitive elements as part of a Community Order, the nature of these requirements, offenders' views and the level of compliance and breach. This found that most Community Orders contained a punitive element, with unpaid work being most common, and suggests that breach and non-compliance could be addressed through Offender Managers discussing individual needs with offenders. This report is one of a series summarising findings from the OMCCS. Other reports include details of the characteristics of the whole cohort of offenders on Community Orders and the methodology for the study. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295645/community-orders-with-punitive-requirements.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295645/community-orders-with-punitive-requirements.pdf Shelf Number: 135450 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Orders Community Sentences (U.K.)

Author: Hiller, Matthew Title: Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court (WATC): Process and Outcomes Summary: This report presents findings from a process and outcome evaluation of the Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court (WATC), a program initiated by a group of local stakeholders to address the Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) problem endemic to the county and to Wisconsin as a whole. With 3 years of implementation funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the program has been in operation since April 2006. Specifically, this report examines an exhaustive sample of participants admitted to the WATC between May 1, 2006 and May 15, 2009. Process data summarized below compared the implementation of the program to both the plan laid out in the narrative of the grant funded by BJA as well as the 10 Key Components, a commonly accepted guideline that details the program theory underlying these types of programs. In addition to this, the outcome evaluation portion of this study compared WATC participants with a "waiting list" comparison group of 3rd OWI offenders who were precluded from participation because they served out their jail time before a program slot became available. In general, findings showed that the program continues to be implemented well, adhering closely to the plan laid out in the grant proposal and to the 10 Key Components. Analysis of outcome data showed a measurable impact on 2-year recidivism rates, with 29% of the WATC group being rearrested for a new offense compared to 45% of the comparison group. More specifically, the process evaluation shows a number of program strengths, including a team of dedicated professionals (with limited turnover evident), intensive supervision of convicted 3rd OWI offenders (a niche that historically has received limited local attention), a much greater than anticipated retention rate, and a high degree of on-going program fidelity. Suggested improvements include more fully integrating substance abuse treatment into the program, engaging the District Attorney's office more actively in the program, and careful study of why OAR rates do not drop significantly while the participants are in the program (possibly suggesting the need for a specialized intervention focused around transportation issues faced by those in the program). With respect to the outcome evaluation, reductions in overall recidivism (combining new OWI, OAR and other criminal offenses) were observed. However, because OWI reoffending was infrequently observed in both the comparison and WATC groups, additional study using larger samples and longer follow-up intervals is needed to determine whether the WATC substantially reduces the risk for OWI recidivism (i.e., small differences were observed, but statistical power was too low to determine whether these differences were statistically meaningful). In conclusion, the WATC is a well-implemented program that is measurably impacting recidivism among individuals convicted for their 3rd OWI offense. It fulfills an important niche in the post-conviction supervision of these individuals (who are typically not under probation supervision after release from jail or Huber). Future examinations should determine the extent to which costs offset by the program (related to new offense and to the number of days participants do not serve on their original jail/Huber sentence because they are being supervised in the community) relate to costs incurred by the program. Details: Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice, 2009. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/WATC_Outcome_Evaluation-final%20draft.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/WATC_Outcome_Evaluation-final%20draft.pdf Shelf Number: 135617 Keywords: Alcohol Treatment Courts Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Drug Treatment Courts Drunk Driving Problem Solving Courts Recidivism

Author: Texas Juvenile Justice Department Title: Community-Based Program Evaluation Series: Overview of Community-Based Juvenile Probation Programs Summary: The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) Program & Services Registry was created in 2010 with the purpose of cataloging the community-based programs offered in juvenile probation departments across the state. Each juvenile probation department is required to enter information into the program registry for all active community-based programs. In addition to programs offered by the department, community-based programs include those contracted through the department and those receiving referrals from juvenile probation. Program entries provide general contact information and a description of the program and its goals. Departments must also provide information regarding duration and funding, eligibility requirements, and distinct program components. This brief will explore the information captured in the Program & Services Registry, focusing on the basics of programs offered throughout the state. It will examine program types offered, program duration, funding, and the intended attributes of juveniles to be served. While most of the data presented in this brief is presented as it is reported by departments, some information regarding program type and juveniles served has been changed to reflect recommendations made in a January 2012 program audit. This brief is the first in a series exploring the community-based programs available to juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and the effectiveness of those programs in lowering recidivism rates. Future briefs in this series will examine the characteristics of juveniles served and outcomes for program participants. Lastly, TJJD will report on recidivism rates throughout the state and determine which programs are providing meaningful interventions and what program elements improve youth outcomes. This information will be used to assist juvenile probation departments in creating more effective programming. Details: Austin: Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2015 at: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Shelf Number: 135713 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Probation

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Title: A Way Forward: Diverting People with Mental Illness from Inhumane and Expensive Jails into Community-Based Treatment that Works Summary: Jails have become warehouses for people with mental illness. Nationwide, nearly half a million inmates with mental illness are in local jails, and an estimated 10-25% have a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. In Los Angeles County alone, at least 3,200 inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness crowd the jails on a typical day, which constitutes about 17% of the jail population. These numbers capture only the number of inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness: the actual number may well be higher. Former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has called L.A.'s jail system "the nation's largest mental hospital." The war on drugs and other law enforcement policies have resulted in mass incarceration of low-level drug and other non-violent offenders, many of whom are arrested for behaviors related to a mental illness. In L.A., roughly 1,100 inmates with mental illness are behind bars on an average night for charges or convictions for nonviolent offenses. And many of the behaviors that lead to such charges are rooted in mental illness. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, drug offenses make up the largest portion of charges for this inmate population, nearly 27%. "Mental illness frequently becomes de facto criminalized when those affected by it use illegal drugs, sometimes as a form of self-medication, or engage in behaviors that draw attention and police response." After drug crimes, status offenses, administrative offenses, and parole violations are the most common charges or convictions for which people with mental illness are held in L.A.'s jails. For those with mental illness, incarceration causes needless suffering and even death. Not only does the lack of adequate care in jails and prisons exacerbate the symptoms of mental illness, but also overcrowding and other conditions of confinement make it harder to successfully treat prisoners with mental illness. Prisoners with mental illness are far more likely to suffer sexual and physical abuse at the hands of jail staff or other inmates than are inmates who do not have a mental illness. The Los Angeles County jails have been rife with such abuse for decades. Incarceration can also imperil the very lives of those with mental illness: suicide is the leading cause of death in jails, and inmates with mental illness commit suicide at much higher rates than people with mental illness living in the community.13 Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently sent a letter to Los Angeles County stating that it had found that the County was violating the constitutional rights of inmates with mental illness, noting the ten suicides by inmates in 2013, and finding that the Sheriff's Department and Department of Mental Health had failed to take adequate steps to "protect prisoners from serious harm and risk of harm at the Jails due to inadequate suicide prevention practices.' Upon release, inmates with mental illness find it even more difficult to get a job and find housing than before their incarceration because they now have a criminal record. And families suffer when their loved ones are imprisoned. Widespread incarceration of people with mental illness harms not only them and their families but also wastes precious taxpayer resources. It costs far more to incarcerate inmates with mental illness than those without mental illness, and it is far less costly to supervise them in community settings than in jail. Many communities are beginning to address the warehousing of people with mental illness in jails through collaborations between the criminal justice system and the public mental health system that "divert" people with mental illness from incarceration. Effective diversion programs ensure that people with mental illness who are arrested or end up in jail are connected to effective community-based treatment programs. Diversion can occur at any stage of the criminal process, including pre-arrest, pre-and post-booking, pre-trial, and pre-sentencing. The key to success is relying on treatment services, including Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and supportive housing, with demonstrated success in reducing recidivism (re-offending), improving mental health outcomes, and lowering costs. Diversion programs not only improve public safety and public health, but they are also consistent with the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and with the landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the ADA prohibits the needless institutionalization of people with mental disabilities. The DOJ has been actively promoting community-based services, especially ACT and supportive housing, as a means of preventing the needless institutionalization of people with mental illness in jails. Details: Los Angeles: ACLU of Southern California, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 135721 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Diversion Jail Inmates Jails Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Ben-Moshe, Liat Title: Genealogies of Resistance to Incarceration: Abolition Politics within Deinstitutionalization and Anti-Prison activism in the U.S. Summary: "Genealogies of resistance to incarceration: Abolition politics within de-institutionalization and anti- prison activism in the U.S." looks at two main sites in which abolition of "total institutions" is enacted. The first site is activism around penal and prison abolition. The second site is deinstitutionalization- the move to close down institutions for people labeled "mentally retarded" (or intellectual/developmental disabilities) and "mental illness" (or psychiatric disabilities). My goals in this study are twofold and interrelated. First, I investigate abolition or closure of institutions as a radical form of activism and sketch the costs and benefits of engaging in abolition as an activist tactic. I highlight the limits of reform efforts, but also the way they are used strategically to improve the lives of those who are incarcerated. My second aim is to demonstrate the interwoven relations between multiple sites of incarceration and the resistance to them. I begin by sketching an alternative historiography of prisons and institutions in an attempt to paint some of the perils of these systems that were present from their inception. These landscapes of incarceration are also mapped out in both historical and ideological ways. The phenomenon of psychiatric and developmental disabilities centers closing and then turning into prisons will be highlighted as a parable of the cyclical nature of social control. I also connect prisons and mental institutions by demonstrating the ways in which such institutions shifted from being rehabilitating to custodial; were (and are) embedded in notions of danger; were created for economic gain; and were influenced by increased medicalization, as well as racist and eugenic impetuses that mark them to this day. One of the contributions of my research is in the utilization of Michel Foucault's work not only theoretically, but also methodologically. Genealogies interrogate truth claiming, notions of (scientific) progress, and the discovery of one universal truth, and provide means to extrapolate buried histories of ideas and actions that have been discarded and discredited. As part of this genealogical excavation, I critically investigate instances of possibility, both in deinstitutionalization as a tactic, a dream and its unfulfilled promises and in relation to current prison abolition work and the vision of non-punitive society. During and in the aftermath of the move out of institutions, many critiques were laid out by policy makers, academics, and organizations that cater to people with disabilities. In the popular imagination these staunch criticisms have led to a backlash toward what can be characterized as "the failure of deinstitutionalization." Part of this genealogy is devoted to investigating the chasm between activists' perception of the process of institutional closure and that of their critics. As part of such excavation, I also offer an analysis of the ways in which disability, mental illness and prisoners have been constructed in the social sciences (what Foucault characterizes as erudite knowledge), as well as the ways in which these characterizations are resisted, enacted or performed by prison abolition and de-institutionalization activists. I particularly highlight the critiques of the social world offered by those engaging in deinstitutionalization and prison abolition (about disability/mental illness/mental retardation, concepts of home and community, dependence, crime and punishment, social control, social justice etc.). Genealogy also encompasses the excavation of subjugated knowledges, in the Foucauldian sense as both buried histories -the story of the enactment of prisons and institutions told by the activists who wish to abolish them; and disqualified knowledge- disability studies, anti psychiatry scholarship and critical prison studies as forms of knowledge that are deemed non-scientific and illegitimate. Lastly, this work maps the various ways one fights against total institutions and target the instances in which abolition is seen as a useful strategy. In sum, I trace the costs and benefits of utilizing abolition as a strategy of resistance to incarceration, for the activists, for perceptions of them and their work in the public discourse and for their prospective goals. This research also attends to the various ways in which abolitionary practices are combined with others (such as reform efforts) and the social or political constraints that moved movements and activists from one strategy to the other in the winding road towards a non-carceral society. Details: Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 2011. 410p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=soc_etd Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=soc_etd Shelf Number: 129830 Keywords: Abolitionism Alternatives to Incarceration Prisons

Author: Council of State Governments, Justice Center Title: Juvenile Reinvestment in Alabama: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: This report summarizes comprehensive analyses of sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole data presented to Alabama's Prison Reform Task Force. It outlines strategies and policy options to reduce the prison population and recidivism in the state by strengthening community-based supervision and treatment, prioritizing prison space for violent and dangerous offenders, and providing supervision to every person released from prison. The report also offers strategies for supporting victims of crime through improved victim notification. If implemented, the report's suggested policies would reinvest $26 million in recidivism reduction strategies in FY2016 and avert $407 million in prison construction and operations costs by FY2021 Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/JRinAlabamaPoliciesandFramework.pdf Shelf Number: 135832 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Supervision Correctional Institutions Justice Reinvestment Parole Prisons Probation

Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System Summary: January 2009 the United States Sentencing Commission issued a report, Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System. The report analyzed data from the prior decade concerning the imposition of alternative sentences by federal courts. In particular, that report found "the proportion of federal offenders sentenced to alternatives . . . remained low and decreased slightly" during the prior decade. As a supplement to the 2009 publication, the Commission is releasing this new report, using data from 2005 through 2014, to examine more recent trends in the rates of alternative sentences using a methodology that expands that of the prior report. Notably, this new report updates the previous analysis to include federal sentencing data since the U.S. Supreme Court's December 2007 decision in Gall v. United States, which reinforced sentencing courts' discretion to vary below the sentencing ranges recommended by the Guidelines Manual. This current report examines how sentencing courts use their discretion to impose alternative sentences, specifically combinations of probation and confinement options that substitute for the full prison terms permitted by law. This analysis shows a continued decreasing trend in the imposition of alternative sentences and explores factors associated with the decrease. In examining these trends, this report demonstrates: - Alternative sentences were imposed for a small proportion of federal offenders, in part, as a result of the large number of federal offenders who were ineligible for such sentences due to convictions under certain statutes or their status as deportable aliens. - During the past ten years, rates of alternative sentences declined among U.S. citizen federal offenders who were eligible for such sentences despite 1) a steady overall increase in sentences below the guideline range due to downward departures or variances and 2) overall consistency in offense severity and criminal history among those offenders. - In recent years, the decrease in rates of alternative sentences for eligible offenders, in part, is a reflection of the Commission's 2010 amendment that expanded Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table. The amendment added to Zones B and C offenders whose sentencing ranges previously were in Zones C and D, thereby increasing the proportion of offenders eligible for alternatives. However, as to be expected, courts imposed alternatives for these more serious offenders less frequently than for offenders whose sentencing ranges otherwise were in Zones B and C. This has contributed to the decrease in the rate of alternative sentences for eligible offenders. - Alternative sentences were imposed at notably different rates for offenders in different race categories with White offenders receiving such sentences at higher rates than Black and Hispanic offenders. - During the past ten years, alternative sentences have been imposed at a consistently low rate among U.S. citizen offenders whose sentencing ranges were in Zone D of the Sentencing Table. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/alternatives/20150617_Alternatives.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/alternatives/20150617_Alternatives.pdf Shelf Number: 135975 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Courts Punishment Sentencing

Author: Martinovic, Marietta Title: The evolution of home detention based sanctions frameworks in the USA and Australia up to 2013: a comparative case study Summary: Contemporary Home Detention Based Sanctions (HDBS), which utilise electronic monitoring (EM) technology, became first available in the 1980s in the United States of America (USA). While the development and expansion of contemporary HDBS throughout the world has taken place over the last three decades (1982-2013) with varied success, relatively little is known about their comparative rationale, implementation and operation. The employment of comparative historical scholarship in this study of HDBS has allowed the researcher to identify and examine the similarities and differences in the development, operation and outcomes of HDBS over time (last three decades, that is, from 1982 to 2013) and place (the USA and Australia). More broadly, the evolution of the HDBS frameworks in this research has been divided into three ideologically distinguishable phases. The early phase of HDBS in the USA and Australia occurred from 1840s until the 1960s. Following this, the middle phase of HDBS occurred in the USA and Australia from the 1960s to 1970s. It comprised five converging factors. This culminated in a 'correctional disillusion' that led to governments' decisions to introduce the late phase of HDBS, which has been operational over the last three decades (1982-2013). The late phase of HDBS in the USA commenced with the implementation of intermediate sanctions, comprising of HDBS with Radio Frequency (RF) in the 1980s. In the mid-2000s, however, the expansion of sex offender post-release supervision laws and the development of electronically monitored Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology led to utilisation HDBS for serious sex offenders. The last three decades of evaluative research about HDBS with RF have generally indicated problematic operational outcomes as well as significant ethical and political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas. On the other hand, HDBS with GPS have been operationally successful, although studies assessing some of their ethical and overall political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas have been lacking. The late phase of HDBS with RF in Australia also started in the 1980s. HDBS with GPS entered the correctional arena after 2000 in very similar circumstances to the USA. The last three decades of evaluative research of HDBS with RF have generally found that these sanctions have achieved their anticipated operational results, but have encompassed significant ethical and particularly political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas. Research assessing the operational outcomes, ethical and political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas of HDBS with GPS is still inadequate, and it is imperative that such research is conducted in the future. The predicted future trajectory of HDBS in both the USA and Australia is increased sanction application. The future viability and outcomes of HDBS in both nation states are however dependent on whether policy makers and/or correctional administrators, with the support of governments, improve the operation of HDBS by implementing the lessons learnt based on the evidence of best practice. If the jurisdictions within the USA and Australia implement the specific lessons learnt relevant to their own problematic areas of HDBS' operation, the application of these sanctions will become more effective. Details: RMIT University, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, 2013. 344p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:160602 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:160602 Shelf Number: 135981 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Home Detention

Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Monitoring Report Summary: The community correction order (CCO) was introduced as a sentencing option in Victoria in January 2012. The purpose of a CCO is to provide a non-custodial sentencing option that is more flexible than the orders it replaced, in particular the community-based order (CBO), the intensive correction order (ICO), and the combined custody and treatment order (CCTO). Relative to the orders that have been replaced, CCOs can be imposed for longer maximum durations in the higher courts and all courts can order a higher maximum number of hours for unpaid community work. This allows the courts to use CCOs for a wider range of offending behaviours. Also, a greater range of conditions can be attached to a CCO than to the orders it replaced. This provides the courts with increased capacity to address the specific circumstances of the offender. The new order was introduced at a time when another sentencing option, the suspended sentence of imprisonment, was being phased out. CCOs are also intended to be a replacement for suspended sentences in cases where the court considers immediate custody unnecessary to fulfil the purposes for which the sentence is imposed. In light of these sentencing reforms, this report examines three questions: 1. How have sentencers used CCOs and what are the characteristics of offenders who receive them? 2. Have CCOs only replaced CBOs and ICOs in sentencing practice? 3. To what extent, if any, have CCOs replaced suspended sentences of imprisonment in sentencing practice? The questions have been addressed in relation to the Magistrates' Court and the higher courts (the County and Supreme Courts) through analyses of relevant sentencing data. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 72p. Source: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Shelf Number: 136086 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Criminal Courts Sentencing (Australia)

Author: Levine, Barbara R. Title: 10,000 fewer Michigan prisoners:Strategies to reach the goal Summary: Michigan's prisoner population has grown from fewer than 7,900 in 1973 to over 43,000. Corrections has gone from 1.6 percent of General Fund spending to nearly 20 percent. Today the budget of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) is roughly $2 billion. This growth is not the inevitable product of increases in the size of the general population or of increased crime. On the contrary, Michigan's population growth has been modest and index crime rates have been declining steadily for the last three decades. Prison expansion resulted from specific changes in law, policy and practice that caused the state's incarceration rate to rise from 160 per 100,000 residents in 1983 to 442 today. Reexamining policies in light of current research could allow Michigan, in the next five years, to: 􀂍 Have 10,000 fewer prisoners. 􀂍 Reduce the prisoner population to 33,704 (about the same amount as in 1990 and 35 percent below the high point in 2006). 􀂍 Close seven entire prisons and six additional housing units. 􀂍 Avoid the need to train 2,000 new corrections officers to replace retirees. 􀂍 Save nearly $250 million annually. Details: Lansing, MI: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2015. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2015 at: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://media.mlive.com/lansing-news/other/CAPPS%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136092 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Prison Population Prison Reform Prisoners

Author: Stuckey, Skyler Title: Enhancing Public Safety and Saving Taxpayer Dollars: The Role of Mental Health Courts in Texas Summary: Measures that divert suitable offenders with mental illness from lockups to effective treatment programs can produce net savings while furthering public safety and offender accountability. States have begun implementing problem-solving courts to accommodate offenders with specific needs that traditional courts cannot adequately address. These problem-solving courts focus on outcomes that benefit society by reducing crime and saving correction costs. Mental health courts are one of these problem-solving courts designed to reduce recidivism by requiring offenders with mental illness to be directly accountable to the court on an ongoing basis for compliance with a supervision and treatment plan. Jails and prisons have become some of the largest providers of mental health care across Texas and the country. Offenders with mental illness often move through these facilities as if they were a revolving door. Mental health courts that use best practices can help break this cycle by offering an alternative that holds offenders accountable and provides treatment. Many issues related to mental illness in the criminal justice system stem from deinstitutionalization, which began in the 1950s. Throughout the decade, popular sentiment and litigation led to significant reductions in the mandatory institutionalization of people with mental illness in state-sponsored psychiatric hospitals. In 1963, President Kennedy pushed the Community Mental Health Act, which closed many of these state-run institutions. Although these institutions were imperfect, the current challenges at the intersection of mental illness and corrections are partly attributable to lack of a replacement. Thus, people with mental illness who come in contact with law enforcement are often funneled into jails and prisons. Mental health courts could help Texas break the cycle of mental illness and crime. To reduce recidivism and spending on corrections, many states have established mental health courts. For example, New York has handled over 7,124 cases in mental health courts since December 2013. And in Texas, the Harris County Felony Mental Health Court began screening defendants for court admission in March 2012. Given this progression the time seems ideal for examining the role these courts can play in Texas' future criminal justice policy. Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Shelf Number: 136117 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Mental Health Courts Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) Title: Alternatives to punishment for drug-using offenders Summary: Based on the options provided by the international drug control legal framework, this paper considers the rehabilitative measures of treating, educating or reintegrating drug users as alternatives or additions to conviction or punishment that are established in the laws of many countries in Europe today. Distinguishing them from 'alternatives to prison', it outlines the variety of rehabilitative measures in use and sets out the main issues in their design, implementation and evaluation. The paper finds that alternatives to punishment are available across Europe to varying degrees and with inconclusive evaluations suggesting positive results. The success of these measures depends partly on the degree to which they are accurately targeted to specific objectives and specific users. The policy arguments in favour of them seem to have developed along two lines: reducing harms to the individual and society by problem drug users, and addressing structural burdens on the justice system by non-problem users. Yet the paper finds that this distinction, or prioritisation, is not always clear in the design or implementation of the different measures, which can in turn affect the few evaluations carried out. Compromises between the two different aims of the laws (to treat or to punish these offenders) can also have unintended effects on the outcomes. Clarity on these issues should assist development and implementation of more successful measures in the future. Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: EMCDDA Papers: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_240836_EN_TDAU14007ENN.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_240836_EN_TDAU14007ENN.pdf Shelf Number: 136234 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Decriminalization Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Enforcement Drug Offenders

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2015 Summary: The rate of return to sentenced youth justice supervision is an indicator of the effectiveness of the services provided to young people serving supervised sentences. Around 20% of those aged 10-16 when released from sentenced community-based supervision in 2012-13 returned to sentenced supervision in 6 months, and 44% returned within 12 months. The rate of return was higher for those released from sentenced detention: 50% returned to sentenced supervision within 6 months and 76% returned within 12 months Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 18: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129551648 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129551648 Shelf Number: 136243 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Murray, Kath Title: Evaluation of the Whole System Approach to Young People who Offend in Scotland Summary: The Scottish Government's Whole System Approach for Children and Young People who Offend (WSA) aims to prevent unnecessary use of custody and secure accommodation wherever possible, through the availability and use of services; and to seek opportunities to engage such young people, by putting in place a more streamlined and consistent response that works across all systems and agencies (a 'whole system' approach) to achieve better outcomes for young people and their communities. This evaluation, commissioned by the Scottish Government, examines the operation of the WSA in three Scottish local authorities. It combines scrutiny of WSA policy documentation and guidance notes, with a set of 33 qualitative interviews with WSA practitioners and stakeholders, observations of WSA meetings in each case study area, and quantitative analysis of relevant management data. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Evaluation-of-the-WSA-approach.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Evaluation-of-the-WSA-approach.pdf Shelf Number: 136407 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Young Adult Offenders

Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Re-Examining Juvenile Incarceration : High cost, poor outcomes spark shift to alternatives Summary: A growing body of research demonstrates that for many juvenile offenders, lengthy out-of-home placements in secure corrections or other residential facilities fail to produce better outcomes than alternative sanctions. In certain instances, they can be counterproductive. Seeking to reduce recidivism and achieve better returns on their juvenile justice spending, several states have recently enacted laws that limit which youth can be committed to these facilities and moderates the length of time they can spend there. These changes prioritize the use of costly facilities and intensive programming for serious offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending, while supporting effective community-based programs for others. In general, research has found that juvenile incarceration fails to reduce recidivism: - Meta-analyses - studies that combine the results of multiple evaluations - suggest that placement in correctional facilities does not lower the likelihood of juvenile reoffending and may, in fact, increase it in some cases. One longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, found that after matching youth offenders on 66 factors, including demographics and criminal history, those in placement fared no better in terms of recidivism than those on probation. - A separate analysis of the same data found that youth who reported the lowest levels of offending before being placed were more likely to reoffend following institutional stays. - In Texas, a recent study found that youth in community-based treatment, activity, and surveillance programs had lower rearrest rates than those with similar criminal histories and demographic characteristics who were released from state facilities. - An examination of long-term recidivism and education outcomes in Cook County, Illinois, found that juveniles who experienced confinement were more likely to drop out of high school and to be incarcerated as adults than youth offenders who were not incarcerated. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/04/Reexamining_Juvenile_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 136492 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Recidivism

Author: Texas Juvenile Justice Department Title: Overview of Community-Based Juvenile Probation Programs, Part 1 Summary: The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) Program & Services Registry was created in 2010 with the purpose of cataloging the community-based programs offered in juvenile probation departments across the state. Each juvenile probation department is required to enter information into the program registry for all active community-based programs. In addition to programs offered by the department, community-based programs include those contracted through the department and those receiving referrals from juvenile probation. Program entries provide general contact information and a description of the program and its goals. Departments must also provide information regarding duration and funding, eligibility requirements, and distinct program components. This brief will explore the information captured in the Program & Services Registry, focusing on the basics of programs offered throughout the state. It will examine program types offered, program duration, funding, and the intended attributes of juveniles to be served. While most of the data presented in this brief is presented as it is reported by departments, some information regarding program type and juveniles served has been changed to reflect recommendations made in a January 2012 program audit. This brief is the first in a series exploring the community-based programs available to juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and the effectiveness of those programs in lowering recidivism rates. Future briefs in this series will examine the characteristics of juveniles served and outcomes for program participants. Lastly, TJJD will report on recidivism rates throughout the state and determine which programs are providing meaningful interventions and what program elements improve youth outcomes. This information will be used to assist juvenile probation departments in creating more effective programming. Details: Austin: Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Community-Based Program Evaluation Series: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/CommunityBasedJuvenileProbationPrograms.pdf Shelf Number: 135713 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation

Author: Graham, Hannah Title: Scottish and International Review of the Uses of Electronic Monitoring Summary: This Review provides a bounded overview of Scottish and international evidence and experience of the uses, purposes and impact of electronic monitoring (EM). Electronic monitoring, using radio frequency (RF) technology, currently operates at a number of points in the adult criminal justice system in Scotland, which are reviewed in Section 2. EM is most often used with adults as a stand-alone measure without additional criminal justice social work supervision and support from others. Restriction of Liberty Orders (RLOs) and Home Detention Curfews (HDCs) are the two most commonly used electronic monitoring modalities, making up 53% and 45% respectively of all electronically monitored orders in Scotland (G4S, 2015). In terms of children and young people (aged under 16 years), electronically monitored movement restriction conditions are used in a relatively small proportion of cases of those supervised through Intensive Support and Monitoring Service (ISMS) orders in Scotland. Electronic monitoring is significantly cheaper than the cost of incarceration. The average unit cost for electronic monitoring in Scotland in 2013-2014 was L743 (L1,043.73) (a significant reduction from L1,940 (L2,725.21) in 2011-2012) (Scottish Government, 2015; Scottish Government, 2013b). This figure is based on total expenditure across all forms of electronic monitoring, including as part of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) as well as part of Movement Restriction Conditions (MRCs) imposed with children and young people by the Children's Hearings System. In 2013, the average cost per EM order per day in Scotland was estimated at L10.17 (L14.29) (Scottish Government, 2013a: 7). In terms of order completion, approximately 4 out of 5 of those made subject to EM in Scotland complete their period of monitoring (G4S, 2015). There is some evidence that breach rates are higher for those under longer periods of monitoring, among younger people and among those with more extensive criminal histories. Section 3 of this Review provides a circumscribed overview of a range of purposes and uses of electronic monitoring in different international jurisdictions, including: violent crimes; domestic abuse; sexual crimes; alcohol and drug-related crimes; vehicle theft; with people with prolific offence histories and with people suspected or convicted of terrorism. Two types of offenders are highlighted here, in discussions of the international evidence and experience regarding the uses and impact of global positioning system (GPS) tagging and tracking. In relation to sex offenders, this Review establishes the following: - Despite some emergent positive research findings of the impact of this technology during the period of monitoring, there remains a significant lack of empirical evidence to support the positive impact of GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders in terms of increasing compliance, reducing re-offending and enabling desistance and reintegration; - Where research has shown that GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders has been associated with benefits and positive impact, EM is usually integrated with other surveillance, supervision and risk management, and supports; - Where it is used on a mid- to long-term basis, GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders may be less cost-effective and less easily ethically defensible, in that it can cost more than other electronic monitoring technologies such as RF and 'standard' probation supervision, although it remains cheaper than prison, yet it may not realise significant reductions in re-offending and may have unintended consequences in the lives of monitored people. However, findings on the grounds of fiscal efficiency are mixed; some US studies state that GPS monitoring of sex offenders is cost effective. Additionally, Sections 3 and 4 of this Review of the uses, effectiveness and impact of GPS tagging and tracking with domestic abuse defendants and offenders show that: - There has been growth in the use of GPS tagging and tracking in places like the United States, Spain and Portugal, with both criminal justice and civil - in the form of EM restraining orders - pilots and initiatives specifically designed for perpetrators of domestic abuse. A considerable number of these initiatives use GPS EM at the pre-trial stage, to reduce the use of remand (imprisonment) while ensuring surveillance forms a part of tailored risk management within the granting of bail; - Limited available research from the US suggests that pre-trial GPS monitoring of domestic abuse defendants is more effective, in comparison to RF EM, in reducing violations and promoting compliance; - Professional ideology and institutional orientations affect the use and impact of GPS monitoring technology, with motivational and collaborative approaches yielding different results to punitive approaches; - Bilateral EM is becoming a feature of discussions about victim participation in the EM of domestic abuse offenders, and while victims hold a diversity of positions on this, it seems to attract mostly positive responses. The empirical evidence and criminological literature on GPS-based bilateral EM is limited and relatively new, and it is too early to make strong claims about its impact, and comparisons to RF EM, on compliance, reducing re-offending and enabling desistance after their EM order has concluded. Section 4 of this Review highlights a number of other significant findings regarding impact and effectiveness based on international evidence and experience: - Overall, the electronic monitoring programmes and approaches which are shown to reduce reoffending during and/or after the monitored period are mostly those which include other supervision and supportive factors (e.g., employment and education, social capital) associated with desistance. The effective approaches discussed here have developed on the basis of high levels of integration with supervision and support from Probation Officers and other staff and services. In other words, the more effective programmes and approaches, in Europe in particular, are those where EM is not a stand-alone measure. - The effective approaches discussed here use tailored, and in some cases quite restrictive, eligibility criteria to determine who can participate in EM programmes. This affects how the impact of EM on recidivism, desistance and reintegration should be interpreted. - A significant number of the major empirical studies conducted - mostly in North America and the United Kingdom - in the last fifteen years conclude that the efficacy of EM in reducing re-offending after it has concluded is modest or minimal. Whereas research from other countries - especially Scandinavian countries and some European countries - indicates more extensive effectiveness and positive impact. - There is currently only limited empirical literature available which focuses on the perspectives and lived experiences of monitored people regarding issues of compliance (or non-compliance), legitimacy, and desistance from crime. More research is needed. - Flexibility in the use of EM orders and conditions may foster motivation for monitored people to comply. The capacity to incentivise and reduce curfew hours and days (e.g., curfews from 7 days a week down to 5 days a week) as a form of recognition and reward for a monitored person's formal compliance in the initial stages of an order may positively affect their perceptions of the legitimacy of that order. More research on this is needed. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: SCCJR REPORT No.8/2015: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Scottish-and-International-Review-of-the-Uses-of-Electronic-Monitoring-Graham-and-McIvor-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Scottish-and-International-Review-of-the-Uses-of-Electronic-Monitoring-Graham-and-McIvor-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136612 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Desistance Electronic Monitoring Global Positioning Systems Offender Supervisioin Tagging

Author: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Title: Review of Applicability of Transdermal Continuous Alcohol Monitoring Devices for First-Time DUI Convictions Summary: Transdermal alcohol monitoring devices detect drinking by sensing alcohol that passes through perspiration in the skin. Independent evaluations have concluded that the science behind transdermal alcohol testing is sound (Barnett, 2011), and the devices themselves are generally reliable and accurate (McKnight, 2012). This technology has been commercially available since 2003 and has been used as a supervisory tool in pre-trial and probation/parole programs, in domestic violence cases with alcohol, drugs courts, and in treatment settings. Non-compliance readings from the devices have been found court-admissible with expert witness testimony. There have been some successful court challenges to the devices in the past, but improvements to the technology have addressed the issues that were raised in the court challenges. After alcohol is consumed and metabolized through the body, it is excreted through the skin via perspiration. The amount of alcohol excreted through perspiration is called transdermal alcohol content (TAC). Transdermal alcohol monitoring devices are a secured ankle bracelet worn continuously that uses a sensor to sample the wearer's perspiration to measure TAC at a specific time interval. The device does not measure alcohol content in the breath or blood, and it measures TAC only above a certain threshold; it may not register low-level amounts of alcohol in the wearer's system. These devices can also detect environmental alcohols, such as in personal care products or in the air (for example, in a bar or an industrial environment), or, rarely, alcohol produced naturally in the body after metabolizing large quantities of certain foods. These can lead to a false reading of a drinking event, or a "false positive." As an anti-tamper measure, the bracelet also contains sensors that sample the wearer�s body temperature and the device's proximity to the skin. The collected TAC, temperature, and proximity readings are stored in the ankle bracelet. Offenders are both fitted with these devices and monitored by a private, for-profit service. Readings from the ankle bracelet are usually downloaded once a day to the monitoring service's central repository via a modem located in the wearer's home. One monitoring service uses the cellular network to download readings, and advertises that it can notify supervisors of suspected offender drinking events in near-real time via cellular text, email, or voice notification. The readings from the bracelet are used to produce reports of the wearer's drinking events, tamper attempts, or other forms of noncompliance. Non-compliance and offender status reports are accessible to court personnel by logging on to a secure website. There are three transdermal alcohol monitoring systems commercially available today: the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring system (trademark SCRAM) manufactured by Alcohol Monitoring Systems (AMS), the Transdermal Alcohol Detection System (trademark BI-TAD) from BI Incorporated, and CAM Patrol Plus from G4S Justice Services. Table 2 summarizes some of the feature of each of these systems. SCRAM was the first transdermal CAM system on the market and is currently in widest use. SCRAMx is the latest version of the AMS system. Details: Richmond: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/Alcohol_Monitor_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/Alcohol_Monitor_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 136676 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Drunk Driving Electronic Monitoring Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring

Author: Desai, Anita Title: Community Connections: The Key to Community Corrections for Individuals with Mental Health Disorders Summary: The scope of the Community Connections report moves beyond Towards an Integrated Network (St. Leonard's Society of Canada and Canadian Criminal Justice Association 2008) by focusing on those who are not diverted from the criminal justice system and who - sometimes repeatedly - enter this system struggling with mental health disorders. Based on the experiences of SLSC and its affiliates, and research conducted in this field, there is evidence of a need for integrated and cooperative approaches for the successful reintegration of offenders who have mental health disorders. Beyond successful diversion practices, SLSC has identified four major principles to consider when approaching the issue of successful reintegration and community connections for residents at Community-based Residential Facilities (CBRFs) living with mental health disorders. These include: accurate diagnoses, treatment, and discharge planning beginning within the prison; successful in reach efforts between CBRFs and the offender prior to release; successful partnerships between the CBRF, the resident, and at least one mental health partner - inclusive of a mental health agency within the local community; and finally, adequate discharge planning that involves the establishment of a support system that can and will be accessed by clients upon warrant expiry. SLSC has conducted this research with one major issue guiding our objective: to recognize that the needs of offenders who have mental health disorders do not end concurrently with warrant expiry, and it is this reality that motivates and demands that we continue on the journey of creating stronger, healthier, and more reliable community connections. Details: Ottawa: St. Leonard's Society of Canada, 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.hsjcc.on.ca/Resource%20Library/Social%20Determinants%20of%20Health/Community%20Connections%20-%20The%20Key%20to%20Community%20Corrections%20for%20Individuals%20with%20Mental%20Health%20Disorders%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.hsjcc.on.ca/Resource%20Library/Social%20Determinants%20of%20Health/Community%20Connections%20-%20The%20Key%20to%20Community%20Corrections%20for%20Individuals%20with%20Mental%20Health%20Disorders%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 136784 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Mental Health Services Mental Illness Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Title: Juvenile Prisons: National consensus and alternatives Summary: Recent reports issued by the Office of the Child Advocate1 and by a consultant to the Department of Children and Families itself raise urgent concerns about conditions at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and the Pueblo Unit. In addition to immediately improving safety at these facilities, the state should develop a long-term plan for youth in the juvenile justice system that maximizes their prospects for rehabilitation. A wealth of research and the experience of other states show that correctional facilities offer the worst outcomes for youth at the highest cost. The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance makes the following recommendations in the interest of child well-being, public safety and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 1. Conditions must be improved immediately at CJTS and Pueblo, with input from national experts and with independent oversight, as recommended by DCF's own consultant. 2. The state must work toward closing these facilities. CJTS should close in 18 to 24 months. Pueblo should close much sooner. 3. Closure must be preceded by the development of a robust system of care that meets the needs of all children, in the least restrictive setting possible. The objective is not simply to close facilities - it is to serve kids better. 4. Connecticut must draw on outside expertise to develop this system. In particular it should be guided by the successes of other states as described in this report. This report includes a summary of findings about CJTS and Pueblo, research on the failure of youth prisons as well as successful state-level initiatives to close them in favor of community-based programs that are producing far better results. The experience of other states shows that improved outcomes and cost savings are clearly achievable - in fact, are highly compatible. Furthermore, their experience creates a blueprint for Connecticut. Details: Bridgeport, CT: Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/youthprisonreport81115.pdf Shelf Number: 136823 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Training Schools

Author: Braithwaite, Helen Title: Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) on parolee perceptions of supervision Summary: In 2009, the California Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new supervision policies and procedures in light of recent evidence-based research findings and supervision methods being introduced in jurisdictions across the country. The Task Force developed a package of parole reforms called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). CPSRM represented a significant change to the way that DAPO supervised offenders. Caseloads were reduced from a funding ratio of 70:1 down to 48:1. With fewer parolees to supervise, agents would have more time to get to know the particular needs of parolees and be able to manage these needs more effectively. Agents were given extensive training over a 6-month period in evidence-based practices and the new procedures relating to pre-release planning, case management, quality of supervision, programming, and parolee rewards and incentives. The goal was to shift parole from a 'surveillance' or a 'contact-driven' model of supervision toward an approach that emphasized case management, with parole agents spending more time both understanding the criminogenic risk factors of parolees, and addressing these needs through referrals to programming. Supervision under a CPSRM model was quite different from routine parole supervision. For example, agents conducted an in-depth interview with parolees at the time of their release from prison and arrival into the parole system to gather detailed information about issues such as their relationships with their family and friends, triggers that caused them to get into trouble, their drug and alcohol use, participation in programs, their perceived challenges in reentering the community, and their plans or goals. Parolees collaborated in developing an individualized case plan and were invited to attend a periodic review of this case plan in a Case Conference Review. Parolees worked with their agents to develop monthly goals, specifying the small steps they agreed to work on in the coming month toward a bigger goal (for example, spending 20 hours looking for a job and attending school for 100 hours). These monthly goals were a tool for the parolee to receive the 'dosage' (i.e. number of hours) required to impact their criminogenic risk factors, and were also a mechanism for the parolee to be part of their supervision rather than supervision being something that happened to them. Working towards achieving these goals provided evidence of progress that could be used by the parolee during the discharge consideration process. Agents were trained in the use of Motivational Interviewing techniques to improve the quality of the relationship with the parolee and to recognize the importance of the parolee's willingness to change. Taken together, these and the other policy changes implemented with CPSRM represented a dramatic change in the way that DAPO supervised offenders. CPSRM was introduced at four pilot parole units across the state - one in each of the four parole regions - in August, 2010. Since early 2010, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) has been involved in evaluating CPSRM implementation. This CEBC process evaluation has used a variety of methods - including surveys, interviews, and a behavioral study - to examine agent perceptions of CPSRM, and change in agent attitudes or behavior brought about by parole reform policies. CEBC has disseminated several reports presenting the findings from these studies. In addition to the process evaluation, CEBC is conducting an outcome evaluation to examine the impact of CPSRM on parolee recidivism. This outcome evaluation will compare the rates of parole violations, arrests, convictions and return to custody of parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites with (a) a control group of parolees supervised under routine parole supervision at four comparable non-CPSRM parole units, and (b) parolees supervised at the four CPSRM pilot sites prior to the introduction of CPSRM. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2014/08/Impact-of-the-California-Parole-Supervision-and-Reintegration-Model-CPSRM-on-parolee-perceptions-of-supervision.pdf Shelf Number: 136843 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Evidence-Based Practices Offender Supervision Parole Parolees

Author: Andersen, Signe Hald Title: Serving time or serving the community? Exploiting a policy reform to assess the causal effects of community service on income, social benefit dependency and recidivism Summary: There is a widespread belief among criminologists, judges and the like that criminals are better off serving non-custodial sentences instead of going to prison. However, empirical evidence of the effects of community service is scarce. This paper exploits a policy reform that implemented the use of community service as punishment among specific groups of criminals in order to assess the causal effect of community service on post-sentence income, dependency on social benefits, and crime. Details: Copenhagen, Denmark: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 37: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Shelf Number: 124696 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Service Community-Based Corrections Recidivism

Author: Andersen, Lars Hojsgaard Title: Losing the stigma of incarceration: Does serving a sentence with electronic monitoring causally improve post-release labor market outcomes? Summary: Many Western countries now use electronic monitoring (EM) of some offenders as an alternative to more traditional forms of punishments such as imprisonment. While the main reason for introducing EM is the growing prison population, politicians and administrators also believe that this type of punishment achieves a positive effect by reducing recidivism and the probability of post-release marginalization. The small existing empirical literature on the effect of EM finds mixed support for this belief, but is, however, based on very small sample sizes. We expand this literature by studying the causal effect of EM on social benefit dependency after the sentence has been served. We use administrative data from Statistics Denmark that include information on all Danish offenders who have served their sentence under EM rather than in prison. We compare post-release dependency rates for this group with outcomes for a historical control group of convicted offenders who would have served their sentences with EM had the option been available - i.e. who are identical to the EM group on all observed and unobserved characteristics. We find that serving a sentence with EM significantly decreases the dependency rates after release. Details: Copenhagen, Denmark: The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Study paper No. 40: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/RFF-site/Publikations%20upload/Arbejdspapirer/Losing%20the%20stigma%20of%20incarceration_40.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/files/RFF-site/Publikations%20upload/Arbejdspapirer/Losing%20the%20stigma%20of%20incarceration_40.pdf Shelf Number: 124697 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Ex-offender Employment Offender Supervision Recidivism

Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A Survey of People Who Returned to Prison from Parole and Community Supervision Agents Summary: A new analysis from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) shows the connection between efforts to reduce prison populations, connect people to work, and address the challenges of Baltimore's distressed communities. In Parole Perspectives in Maryland: A survey of people who returned to prison from parole and community supervision agents, JPI heard from the people most directly impacted by and involved with Maryland's parole practices. JPI surveyed people who returned to prison from parole and their community supervision agents to get a clearer picture of the barriers to successfully transitioning to the community from prison. About half of the people surveyed were from Baltimore City and most of the parole agents surveyed were responsible for a caseload that includes people from Baltimore City. Forty-six percent of the people who left prison and were on parole that were surveyed were from Baltimore City, and 12 percent were from Baltimore County. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/paroleperspectivesinmaryland.pdf Shelf Number: 136854 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Costs of Corrections Offender Supervision Parole Parole Revocations Parolees

Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Second Monitoring Report. (Pre-Guideline Judgment) Summary: The community correction order (CCO) is a recently created and important sentencing option for Victorian criminal courts. The CCO allows courts to combine a range of punitive and therapeutic conditions in a sentence that an offender serves in the community. With the recent abolition of suspended sentences of imprisonment in Victoria, the CCO is now, for some offending, the only alternative sentence to imprisonment. This report examines changes in the use of CCOs, and sentencing practices more generally, by Victorian courts during the period from January 2012 to December 2014. One of the aims of this report is to assess the effects on sentencing practices of major sentencing reforms, including the phase-out of suspended sentences and the changes adopted in September 2014 to the way CCOs may be combined with sentences of imprisonment. This report does not assess the effects on sentencing practices of the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment, which was issued at the end of this report's reference period. The guideline judgment will be the subject of future research by the Sentencing Advisory Council (the 'Council'). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136859 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Community-Based Corrections Sentencing Reform

Author: Schiraldi, Vincent Title: Community-Based Responses to Justice-Involved Young Adults Summary: This paper raises important questions about the criminal justice system's response to young adults. Recent advances in behavior and neuroscience research confirm that brain development continues well into a person's 20s, meaning that young adults have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults. This developmental distinction should help inform the justice system's response to criminal behavior among this age group. Young adults comprise a disproportionately high percentage of arrests and prison admissions, and about half of all young adults return to prison within three years following release. At the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), we see the opportunity to reduce future criminal activity - and consequently the number of future victims - by having a justice system that appropriately responds to criminal behavior, helps young adults rebuild their lives, and is not overly reliant on incarceration. The authors outline a number of thoughtful recommendations aimed at making our justice system more developmentally appropriate in its response to young adults. At OJP, we are committed to collaborating with our local, state and tribal partners on this important issue so that we can help all of our communities become safer, stronger and more stable. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2015. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf Shelf Number: 136893 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Young Adult Offenders

Author: Heard, Catherine Title: Community sentences since 2000: How they work - and why they have not cut prisoner numbers Summary: Over the past decade, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has been charting developments in community sanctions and calling for a more ambitious approach to criminal justice policy, informed by principles of social justice. Our research has shown that the UK's increased use of community sentences has not led to any overall reduction in the number of people in prison. At best, it may have controlled the growth of short-term prison sentences. At worst, it has simply expanded the net of criminalisation and punishment, exacerbating rather than resolving social harms. This report offers a unique review of the range of alternatives to custody in the UK, from bail, through community sanctions and probation, to early release from prison. It gives an overview of how governments have attempted to control the staggering rise in prisoner numbers since 2000 by the use of so-called 'alternatives' - and largely failed to do so. The key measures are explained in Appendix 1, with supporting statistical and financial data for the separate jurisdictions of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in Appendix 3. Probation practices under the three systems are described in Appendix 2. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 136926 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Probation

Author: Neill, Katharine A. Title: Second Chances: The Economic and Social Benefits of Explanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County Summary: In recent years, the United States has experienced a sea change in drug policy. Along with the four states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), many others have relaxed criminal penalties for nonviolent drug possession offenses. The federal government has taken similar steps, with the U.S. Department of Justice moving away from the steep mandatory minimum sentences that arose during the peak of the drug war, and the president himself commuting the sentences of individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. The wave of drug reform has touched even the most conservative states in the country, including Texas. Though none ultimately would become law, a number of bills introduced during the state's 2015 legislative session would have reduced or even eliminated the criminal penalties associated with some drug offenses. As reform efforts have continued across Texas, the Harris County District Attorney's Office implemented its First Chance Intervention Program, which allows a defendant arrested for possession of two ounces or less of marijuana to be diverted from the criminal justice system if the arrest is his or her first offense. This report reviews the broader issues with current approaches to drug enforcement that have facilitated calls for reform, then demonstrates the need for drug policy reform in Harris County (Houston's home) prior to implementation of the First Chance Intervention Program (FCIP). Next, the report evaluates the FCIP and suggests ways in which policy outcomes can be improved through the program's expansion. Finally, the report concludes with a number of recommendations for Harris County going forward. Details: Houston, TX: Rice University, Baker Institute for Public Policy and Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2015. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2015 at: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/993306dd/DRUG-HarrisCountyDrugPolicy-092915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/993306dd/DRUG-HarrisCountyDrugPolicy-092915.pdf Shelf Number: 136939 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Drug Enforcement Drug Offenders Drug Policy Drug Reform Drug Treatment Programs

Author: Brennan, Iain Title: An experimental evaluation of an adult female triage pilot project Summary: Executive Summary: - The evaluation found a 46% reduction in the rearrest rate over a 12 month follow-up period when compared to a control group of similar female offenders. - The rearrest rate was 13.64% for women referred on to the intervention compared to 25.44% for women who were processed through the criminal justice system as usual. - Those women who were referred to the intervention and attended their appointment with TWP where less likely to be rearrested and went longer without rearrest than those women who were referred but did not attend their appointments. - The pilot project is unique insofar as it provides an early-diversion scheme for adult female offenders. - The pilot project used a modified version a youth triage assessment tool to screen low-severity adult female offenders detained in the custody suite for suitability to an early-diversion intervention. - The primary goal of the pilot project was to reduce reoffending rates amongst low-severity female offenders by offering a 'one-chance-only' opportunity to receive empowerment support work with Together Women's Project (TWP) rather than the more usual charge or caution. - The evaluation employed a natural experiment methodology and included eligible arrestees from December 2012 to July 2013 with a reoffending follow-up period of 12 months. - The evaluation used a combination of interviews, observations and documentary analysis to support and inform the statistical analysis of reoffending rates. - For the small number of women referred to the intervention who were subsequently rearrested they were rearrested more frequently than those women in the control group. The reasons for this are unknown but could be due to either assessment errors early in the project's lifespan or unknown risk factors in the women's history. - This suggests the intervention may not be suitable for a sub-group of female offenders and a further follow-up study should be undertaken to investigate this further. - A further evaluation with a larger sample who could be randomly assigned the intervention would be required to conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of the intervention. Details: Hull, Yorkshire, UK: University of Hull, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2015. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/Police-Female-Triage-Report-Hull-University-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/Police-Female-Triage-Report-Hull-University-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137149 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Program Female Offenders Interventions Re-arrest Recidivism

Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Otter Tail County DWI Court Fergus Falls, MN. Process, Outcomes, and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. DWI courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, proessional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these programs. This is the site-specific report for the Otter Tail County DWI Court (OTC-DWI). The OTC-DWI was implemented in February 2008. This program, designed to take 18 months to complete, takes post-conviction participants, but also allows some participants to enter the pro-gram pre-plea (offenders who know they are pleading guilty and want to start the program before their court hearing). The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders (with two or more DWI offenses) charged in Otter Tail County with a gross misdemeanor or felony level DWI, who are determined substance dependent. Process Evaluation Summary. The OTC-DWI has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating some exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts including good communication between team members, rapid results from drug testing, an appropriate range of services, written incentive and sanctions guidelines, and swift response to participant behaviors. The process evaluation did reveal some recommendations that could further enhance program outcomes that the court was considering or was in the process of implementing in our last discussion. These recommendations included the following: - Flexible hours for the probation officer. The probation officer currently works 24 hours per week on a set schedule of every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. It is strongly recommended that the probation officer position have flexible hours. This would allow for more random drug testing (especially for the female participants) and allow the probation officer to do more home and workplace visits. - Ensure that the home and workplace visits are truly random and ensure appropriate training for the surveillance position. Participants reported that the visits mostly occur in the evening and they are often able to determine when the visit will occur (or were actually told when the next visit would occur). It is recommended that the OTC-DWI develop procedures to ensure that participants are unable to determine the visit schedule. In addition, due to reports of frequent turnover in the surveillance officer position, it is recommended that guidelines be created for this role and training instituted to ensure that all surveillance officers are following appropriate procedures. - Schedule staffing meetings and court sessions for a recurring day and time when all team members are able to attend. Participant feedback and site visit observations indicated that many team members do not regularly attend court sessions. It is strongly recommended that the staffing meeting and court session be held at a time when all team members are able to regularly attend. - Continue efforts toward getting a defense attorney on the team. It was reported that some public defenders support the program and some do not (because they feel their clients do not receive due process and are better served by taking jail time instead of participating in DWI court). The OTC-DWI has made efforts to reach out to and educate the public defenders about DWI court, but due to a severe lack of funding the public defender office does not have time or resources to participate. - Consider sentencing more offenders into the program, specifically felons and high-risk offenders. It was reported that the option of sentencing an offender into the OTC-DWI is rarely used. It is recommended that the program be explained to all judges and that they consider it among their sentencing options. In addition, the OTC-DWI currently has only two felons in the program, and only four felons have been in the program over the past year. It is recommended that the team make an effort to take on more felons in the program since it is the higher risk offenders who most need the services and intensive supervision provided in the OTC-DWI. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on OTC-DWI participants who entered the DWI court program from January 2009 through December 2011, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than OTC-DWI. Figure A illustrates the average number at 1 year and 2 years after program entry for OTC-DWI graduates, all OTC-DWI participants, and the comparison group. DWI court participants were rearrested about half as often as comparison group members across both years; this difference was statistically significant in Year 1 (p <.05). The results of the outcome analysis for the OTC-DWI are positive. Overall the data showed few-er average arrests among DWI court participants than the comparison group. While most differences were not statistically significant, some of this is attributable to the small sample size. We recommend the program continue to track participants and perhaps conduct another study several years hence. Cost Evaluation Summary. Although the OTC-DWI is a substantial taxpayer investment, over time it results in significant cost savings and a return on its investment. Recommendations. Based on the outcome and cost evaluation, there are some key possibilities for program adjustments that may improve program outcomes. These include: - Ensuring that the program is targeting high-risk/high-need offenders (e.g., felony DWIs) - Decreasing the frequency of court sessions in Phase 2, or seeing some participants who are doing well less often so that the judge can spend at least 3 minutes per participant and also decrease the costs of court appearances. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137164 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Driving While Intoxicated Drugged Driving Drunk Driving Drunk Driving Courts Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Borderland Substance Abuse Court, Lake of the Woods County, MN: Process and Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: There are two key policy questions of interest to policymakers about DWI courts. The evaluation of Borderland Substance Abuse Court (BSAC) provided answers to these questions. This study included participants who entered the program between 2008 and 2012, and a matched comparison group of DWI offenders who were eligible but were not referred to the program. Just over half of the participants were assessed as high-need (54%) and two-thirds were assessed as high risk (69%). Participants had an average of 2.4 DWI arrests in the ten years before DWI court entry. DWI Recidivism. Out of 33 DWI court participants, there were only two new DWI arrests in the two years after DWI court entry, an indicator of reduced driving while using alcohol, and increased public safety. Compared to DWI offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the BSAC participants (regardless of whether they graduated from the program): - Had 24% fewer rearrests two years after program entry; - Were 32% less likely to be rearrested for any charges - Had no rearrests for person crimes - Had a longer time to the first rearrest for any charge (20 months versus 18 months) - Had a substantially higher graduation rate than the national average (77% versus 57%) Research indicates that drug and DWI courts should target high-risk/high-need individuals, as lower risk participants require different intervention methods and may not benefit (or may actually be harmed) from the intense supervision provided by the full drug court model (NADCP, 2013). These positive results indicate that the BSAC is targeting the correct population and should continue or increase its focus on high risk individuals. In general, these outcomes provide some evidence that the BSAC is implementing its program with good fidelity to the DWI court model and is having the intended impact on its participants. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137165 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving While Intoxicated Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drugged Driving Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism

Author: Zil, Charlene E. Title: South St. Louis County DWI Court, St. Louis County, MN: Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. These courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, professional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health, and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these pro-grams. This is the site-specific report for the South St. Louis County DWI Court (SSLC). The SSLC was implemented in February 2008. The program is designed to take 12 to 24 months to complete and takes pre-plea, post-plea/pre-conviction, and post-conviction participants. All offenders must be in the post-adjudication stage upon phase advancement and cannot graduate if not in that stage. The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders, with gross misdemeanors and felonies accepted into the program. Process Evaluation Summary. The SSLC has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts and the 10 DWI Court Guiding Principles including having a dedicated, collaborative, team with members from all key agencies (a law enforcement representative, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation, treatment, coordinator, and judge); a focus on regular training on the drug court model and other relevant topics for the team; a swift referral process; the use of evidence-based treat-ment models, rapid results from drug testing; a random and fully observed drug testing process; a judge who has been with the program long term (well over 2 years); and good communication among the team with a coordinated response to participant behavior. Although this program is functioning well, NPC's review of program operations resulted in some recommendations for program enhancements, which the program has already begun work on implementing. These recommendations included: Modify the current team member Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to include language about the use and disclosure of protected health information at staffing sessions. Protected health information, particularly around the topic of participant re-lapse, may need to be disclosed by treatment providers at staffing sessions so that the team can make an appropriate and informed decision regarding incentives and sanctions for the participant. - Continue to assess transportation needs of participants and look for resources to provide transportation to those participants who need it. Team members noted significant challenges in providing transportation to participants. - Reevaluate the required length of sobriety to help make program completion a more realistic goal for participants. The SSLC requires that all participants complete 300 days of sobriety in order to graduate. Although there is a clear relationship that indicates the longer a person remains clean (as shown through negative drug tests) the less likely he/she will be to relapse, there are diminishing returns to the participant remaining in the program for an extended length of time (Carey et al., 2005). - Increase the focus on rewards for participants who are doing well. The SSLC has identified the need to provide more meaningful incentives to their DWI court participants. The SSLC currently provides a wide range of intangible rewards, such as praise from the judge and applause for participants, but only occasionally provides tangible re-wards, such as gift cards or tickets to sports games. Focus group participants mentioned the value of overnight passes. The team might consider raffling off or awarding overnight stays or similarly valued rewards for positive behaviors or advancement in the program. - Consider holding graduation ceremonies separate from the drug court hearing or implementing practices that would make them more distinct from regular drug court hearings. Graduations provide an opportunity for community partners to witness DWI court program successes. Inviting community partners to observe and participate in graduations is a low-cost way to highlight the effectiveness of the program and garner interest for continued and future involvement with the program. - Apply to be a DWI Academy Court. Based on the success of its operations, its commitment to best practices, and its strong team, we recommend that the SSLC apply to the National Center for DWI Courts in the next round of applications to be a NCDC DWI Academy Court. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on SSLC participants who entered the DWI court program from February 1, 2008, to August 23, 2012, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than SSLC. The study groups were tracked for 2 years from program entry. Outcomes measured included graduation rate, rearrests with associated charges (including new DWI charges), crashes, and license reinstatements. The results of the outcome analysis for the SSLC were positive. Figure A illustrates the rearrest rates over a 3-year period for graduates, all participants and the comparison group. (Graduates should not be compared directly to the comparison group as the two groups are not equivalent.) Compared to offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the SSLC participants (re-gardless of whether they graduated from the program) had: - 3 times fewer rearrests for any charge in Year 1 - 66% fewer rearrests, and 66% fewer new DWI arrests 3 years after program entry - Half as many victimizations (person and property arrests) 2 years after entry - 60% fewer felony arrests 2 years after entry Overall the data showed that DWI court participants were rearrested less often than the comparison group, despite the fact that the DWI court group had more offenders with felony DWI arrests than the comparison group. Moreover, and of particular interest, high-risk participants (individuals with three or more prior arrests) had the highest reductions in recidivism (showing the greatest benefit from this program), while lower risk participants (those with two or fewer prior arrests) show little reductions in recidivism. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Shelf Number: 137176 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Driving Under the Influence Drugged Driving Drunk Driving DWI Courts Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism

Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Assessment Of The Second Judicial District Court Pretrial Services Office Summary: According to the American Probation and Parole Association and the Pretrial Justice Institute, in perhaps no more than 15% (460) of the nation's 3,065 counties, judicial officers are aided by pretrial services programs in the balancing act between the presumption of innocence and public safety (APPA, 2010). At midyear 2011, about 6 in 10 jail inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge - a rate unchanged since 2005 (Minton, 2012). U.S. jails over the past two decades have become largely occupied by individuals awaiting trial, with only a minority of inmates serving out convictions. Before the mid-1990s, jail populations historically were evenly split between pretrial and sentenced prisoners. Since 1996, however, pretrial inmates have grown in numbers and at a faster rate than sentenced inmates, even though crime rates have been falling (Bechtel, et al, 2012). During the 2012 regular session of the New Mexico State Legislative session, the Legislature passed House Joint Memorial 20 (HJM 20) "Bernalillo Case Management Pilot Project." HJM 20 lists a series of conditions justifying the passage of the memorial; a shortage of incarceration options; $30 million to house felony arrestees; the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has exceeded its design capacity for years; opportunities to alleviate burdens on county jails, but the opportunities were too difficult to implement; and the old Bernalillo County Detention Center could be renovated into a treatment center. HJM 20 resolves that the Bernalillo County Commissioners create a pilot project that will streamline case management, evaluate and expand treatment and diversion programs, create an alternative incarceration facility, as well as start new mental health and substance abuse treatment options, alternative incarceration, transitional living, and reintegration programs. The major stakeholders of the Bernalillo County criminal justice system should be represented in the pilot project. Additionally, HJM20 requests the NM Sentencing Commission (NMSC) collect jail population data, research case management practices, and evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the proposed pilot project. In response to HJM 20, NMSC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bernalillo County. The scope of work was, "evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded pretrial services program operated by the [Second Judicial District Court (SJDC)] - [also evaluate] new or expanded treatment programs and diversionary programs [if time and budget allow]." Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Shelf Number: 137239 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Case Management Diversion Jail Inmates Mental Health Services Pretrial Services Substance Abuse Treatment Treatment Programs

Author: Kilgore, James Title: Electronic Monitoring Is Not the Answer: Critical reflections on a flawed alternative Summary: This report offers a critical assessment of electronic monitoring (EM) in the criminal justice system. The author, who spent a year on an ankle bracelet as a condition of his own parole, draws on his in-depth study of legislation, policies, contracts, and academic literature related to electronic monitoring. In addition to this research, he interviewed people directly impacted by EM in four states. Interviewees included those who had been on the monitor, their family members, corrections officials, and the CEO of a monitoring company. The report rejects any simplistic rush to deploy electronic monitors as an alternative to incarceration. Instead, the document sets out two critical conditions for EM to be a genuine alternative: (1) it must be used instead of incarceration in prison or jail, not as an additional condition of parole, probation, or pre-trial release; (2) it must be implemented with an alternative mindset that rejects the punitive philosophy that has dominated criminal justice since the rise of mass incarceration. A genuine alternative mindset as applied to EM must ensure the person on the monitor has a full set of rights and guarantees, including the rights to seek and attend work, to access education and medical treatment, and to participate in community, family and religious activities. Without these rights, the person on the monitor remains less than a full human being, a captive of the punitive, "tough on crime" mentality that has been at the heart of more than three decades of mass incarceration. Moreover, the author asserts that electronic monitoring is more than just a tool of the criminal justice system. With the rise of GPS-based electronic monitors capable of tracking location, EM devices have become part of the arsenal of surveillance, a technology that enables both the state and business to profile people�'s movements and behavior. In the present situation, this surveillance component of EM has completely escaped the view of policy makers and even social justice advocates. EM as a tool of surveillance requires regulation. Details: Urbana-Champaign, IL: Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2015 at: http://centerformediajustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EM-Report-Kilgore-final-draft-10-4-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://centerformediajustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EM-Report-Kilgore-final-draft-10-4-15.pdf Shelf Number: 137765 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision

Author: Dryden, Ruth Title: Evaluation of sixteen women's community justice services in Scotland Summary: In 2013-15, the Scottish Government funded 16 projects proposed by criminal justice partners across Scotland to develop community services for women who offend. Developments were based on existing service provision and to ensure changes could be sustained locally at the end of the funding. Funding varied in amount and timeframes. Most of the projects were undertaken by local authority criminal justice social work (CJSW) departments with partner providers, including public and third sector agencies. The national evaluation examined how the 16 women's community justice services (WCJSs) were implemented and to what extent they contributed towards positive outcomes for women. A further aim was to build local capacity for self-evaluation in WCJSs. Findings were drawn from two phases of interviews with practitioners and women, secondary documents, and quantitative data for 1,778 women who were in the WCJSs between April and December 2014. This included outcomes data for 406 women. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00484398.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00484398.pdf Shelf Number: 137319 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentences Community Service Community-Based Corrections Female Offenders

Author: Gilhuly, Kim Title: Healthier Lives, Stronger Families, Safer Communities. How Increasing Funding for Alternatives to Prison Will Save Lives and Money in Wisconsin Summary: Human Impact Partners is excited to release an HIA examining the impacts of a proposal to increase state funding to $75 million for alternatives to prison in Wisconsin. WISDOM, a non-profit network of congregations across Wisconsin that has been advocating for state funding for treatment alternatives to prison for nearly a decade, commissioned the HIA. The HIA findings include strong evidence of the effectiveness of problem solving courts, such as drug and alcohol courts, mental health courts, and diversion programs, in improving health and public safety. The HIA predicts that increasing state funding to $75 million a year would reduce the prison and jail population in Wisconsin, reduce crime, increase recovery from substance abuse and mental health problems, help more families remain intact - and save Wisconsin money on corrections costs. The HIA involved a wide range of partners including many WISDOM congregations across Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Health Services, the state Public Defender's Office, the University of Wisconsin and Community Advocates Public Policy Institute, and the HIA was partially funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The HIA findings support WISDOM's 11X15 Campaign to decrease the number of incarcerated people in Wisconsin to 11,000 by 2015 and promote alternatives to prison. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2012. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/projects/hia-case-stories/treatment-instead-of-prison-hia/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/projects/hia-case-stories/treatment-instead-of-prison-hia/ Shelf Number: 137831 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice

Author: San Mateo County (California) Title: Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Summary: The Maguire Correctional Facility (men's jail) located in Redwood City is populated beyond its State-rated capacity, and has been for many years. Since it appears that the jail facilities will continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future, the Grand Jury questioned whether electronic monitoring devices are being used for pre-trial detainees (PTDs) and if electronic monitoring devices can be used to alleviate overcrowding in our jail. From 2002 to 2007 approximately 50 percent of the male jail population consisted of pre-trial detainees. The other 50 percent were individuals who had received a trial or pled guilty and were serving a prescribed sentence. Since 2008, this ratio has steadily changed, with pre-trial detainees reaching about 76% of the jail population in 2011. The Grand Jury looked at the alternatives offered to this growing population of untried, unsentenced individuals to determine if there were opportunities to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial. A potential alternative to serving time in jail awaiting trial is to release carefully selected persons into an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The Grand Jury found that utilizing electronic monitoring devices for pre-trial detainees is not part of the current classification process in San Mateo County, no EMP exists for pre-trial detainees, and consequently no persons awaiting trial wear an electronic monitoring device. Several of those interviewed acknowledge that electronic monitoring devices for specific individuals could be a useful tool in reducing jail populations. Expanding EMP efforts to the pre-trial detainee population would require some investment in staff and training, as well as modification of eligibility guidelines. This investment could be partially or wholly offset by cost savings in reducing jail headcount. The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day are available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office do the following: 1) conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees; 2) should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. The objective analysis would include a review of best-practices in adjoining counties and statewide to evaluate the impact and usefulness of electronic monitoring and its effect on the jail population. It would also include the introduction of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. Implementing a non-jail confinement program for some classes of pre-trial detainees could be an important contribution to addressing overcrowded conditions in the men's jail in San Mateo County at a cost savings to the taxpayer. Details: San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Shelf Number: 137927 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Electronic Monitoring Jails Pretrial Detention Prison Overcrowding

Author: RMIT University Title: Evaluation of the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services: Final Report Summary: Community corrections in Victoria instigated the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy (CLTMS) in 2001.The Reducing Re-offending Strategy was a component of CLTMS and was designed to guide correctional policy and practice over the next decade. A major feature of the Reducing Re-offending Strategy was the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services (CCS). Within the available funding, 42.3 million dollars was allocated to the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services. The Redevelopment was initiated to strengthen the capacity of Community Correctional Services to manage offenders and to reduce the number of prison beds. There were three compelling reasons that this was necessary: - The prison system was under enormous pressure due to a dramatic rise in prison numbers; - There was a financial imperative to expand community corrections as a more cost effective alternative to prison and there was a need for a greater range of sentencing options; - There was a growing evidence base that community correctional services had more potential to assist offender rehabilitation and reduce re-offending than a custodial sentence. A key indicator of success was an increase in substitution from prison to community based correctional services with an anticipated reduction of 350 prison beds over the four year period of implementation. The intended longer term outcome of the implementation of Redevelopment was a reduction in re-offending. Details: Melbourne: RMIT University, 2005. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2016 at: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Australia URL: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 137974 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community-Based Corrections Offender Rehabilitation Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: International Good Practice: Alternatives to imprisonment for women offenders Summary: This report presents a wide range of international examples of alternatives to custody for nonviolent women offenders. It profiles a number of dynamic projects in different jurisdictions, some of which have proven to be particularly successful in reducing reoffending in women offenders. Due to both time constraints and the availability of research evidence, the report uses information from predominantly Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. European examples are used where available and relevant. The women's prison population in England and Wales more than doubled between 1995 and 2010 and, although numbers are starting to decline somewhat, approximately 13,500 women are sent to prison each year in the UK. This is one of the highest rates of women's imprisonment in Western Europe. The human, social and financial costs are considerable. Women in prison are ten times more likely than men to harm themselves, Most women are imprisoned for short periods and they have very high reconviction rates, suggesting that for many prison is neither rehabilitative nor a deterrent. Many of the women sent to prison are mothers, compounding and prolonging the detrimental impact. According to one survey, six in ten women in prison had dependent children (on average two children.) At least a third of mothers are lone parents before imprisonment. In 2010, more than 17,000 children were separated from their mothers by imprisonment. For eight out of ten children, it's the first time they have been separated from their mums for more than a day or so. Innovative approaches are needed if these damaging impacts are to be significantly reduced. Various studies have shown that non-custodial programmes are significantly more cost-effective than imprisoning women who offender. The average annual cost of a woman's imprisonment in England and Wales today stands at L56,415 compared to a Community Order cost of L2,800 per year, and an average of L1,300 for standalone community-based services. From early intervention strategies to resettlement programmes, this report outlines a range of alternatives to imprisonment for women offenders. These include inter alia women's centres and one-stop-shops, community residential alternatives, and small units designed to accommodate women offenders. Focusing on a diverse range of alternatives emphasises the specific issues faced by women in the criminal justice systems across the world such as mental health needs, exposure to domestic and sexual abuse, drug and alcohol use, and homelessness. By addressing the factors that underlie women's offending, we are better able to generate sustainable alternatives that have the potential to significantly reduce offending. This research has been exclusively desk-based and as such makes extensive use of studies undertaken and statistics presented by academics, policy-makers, and international agencies. It focuses predominantly on non-violent adult women offenders, although some reference is made to young women offenders, older women offenders, and women sentenced for serious and violent crimes. It does not present a rigorous comparative analysis of different approaches but does include as much evaluative evidence as possible for the different initiatives. In October 2013 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences, presented a new report to the UN General Assembly, Pathways to, conditions and consequences of incarceration of women. It illustrates the strong link between violence against women and women's imprisonment - prior to, during and after prison. That report examines the causes, conditions and consequences of women's incarceration and is a timely and forceful reminder of why alternatives to incarceration are so badly needed. Academic experts and practitioners concur that, if they are to work for women, services and interventions must be 'gender-responsive'. Gender-responsive practice can be divided into five parts: - relational - recognising that women develop self-worth through their relationships with others and are motivated by their connections with other people - strengths-based - using each woman's individual strengths to develop empowered decisions - trauma-informed - recognising the ways in which histories of trauma and abuse impact upon a woman's involvement in the criminal justice system - holistic - providing a comprehensive model that addresses the multiple and complex needs of women offenders - culturally-informed - services recognise and respond to the diverse cultural backgrounds of women offenders. The information provided about the different programmes and services profiled in this report is organised thematically, as is evident from the chapter headings. The same service may be described under more than one heading where it provides for a range of needs or different groups. This is indicated by a cross reference at the beginning of a project. All the material is extensively referenced, enabling the reader to investigate particular projects further. Details: London: PRT, 2015. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/international%20good%20practice%20final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/international%20good%20practice%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 138114 Keywords: Alternatives to incarceration Children of Prisoners Female Offenders Gender Specific Responses Gender-Based Programs

Author: Deal, Teri Title: Measuring Subsequent Offending in Juvenile Probation Summary: NCJJ has released a new StateScan publication that summarizes the results of a review of publicly available recidivism reports that include measures of recidivism for youth adjudicated to probation. This StateScan is the 6th in a series that distills important knowledge from NCJJ's Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics website (www.JJGPS.org). The authors organize results from an online search for available state-level recidivism reports. Most reports located focused on juvenile correction populations, but 14 reports included measures of reoffending for youth under probation supervision. This publication explores the different ways reoffending is measured for this population, including the various marker events and follow-up periods used. This original analysis also emphasizes the need to measure reoffending among probationers given that most court involved youth are supervised by probation departments Details: Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: STATESCAN: Accessed March 7, 2016 at: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/JJGPS%20StateScan/JJGPS%20Measuring%20Subsequent%20Offending%20in%20Juvenile%20Probation%202015_6.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/JJGPS%20StateScan/JJGPS%20Measuring%20Subsequent%20Offending%20in%20Juvenile%20Probation%202015_6.pdf Shelf Number: 138122 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Recidivism

Author: Wilson, James D. Title: Policy brief on electronic monitoring : review and recommendations Summary: This paper seeks to review the historic use of electronic monitoring, the results of previously implemented pilot programs, and the current policy implications regarding electronic monitoring. Specific questions are raised regarding whether electronic monitoring is a cost-effective measure for enhancing public safety, or whether it is an additional measure that widens the correctional net and toughens the prospects of community reintegration. Furthermore, some key concerns are discussed regarding future initiatives to expand the use of electronic monitoring, before concluding with some recommendations. Details: Ottawa: St. Leonard's Society of Canada, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://deslibris.ca/lire/tabid/156/ID/240144/language/fr-CA/Default.aspx Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://deslibris.ca/lire/tabid/156/ID/240144/language/fr-CA/Default.aspx Shelf Number: 138139 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Home Detention

Author: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Title: Strengthening Our Future: Key Elements to Developing a Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Diversion Program for Youth with Behavioral Health Conditions Summary: Developed by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ) and the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) as part of the 2014-15 Policy Academy-Action Network Initiative, this report: - presents the current understanding of child trauma in the context of juvenile justice - identifies 9 implementation domains essential to achieving a trauma-informed juvenile justice diversion approach, and - highlights case examples from each state involved in the initiative (Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Tennessee). Details: Delmar, NY: Policy Research Associates, Inc., National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2016. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: http://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/traumadoc012216-reduced-003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/traumadoc012216-reduced-003.pdf Shelf Number: 138209 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Treatment Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Services

Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Monitoring of Progress on Implementation of the Youth Justice Review Recommendations Summary: Reducing the number of children entering the criminal justice system and dealing more appropriately and effectively with those that do, were the main goals of the Youth Justice Review. This report, the second of two by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, examines whether we are any closer to the youth justice system envisaged when the review team reported in 2011. As a general observation on recent criminal justice reform programmes, it is very hard to maintain momentum on recommendations, especially those which require the collaboration and support of other Northern Ireland Executive departments. Some of the recommendations within the Youth Justice Review are less relevant now than when they were made, and some were unrealistic in expecting the delivery of both the spirit and letter of what was intended. Legislative changes envisaged by the Review Team have been frustrated by a lack of political consensus and the opportunities for progress within the lifetime of the current Northern Ireland Assembly are limited. The criminal justice system is changing before our eyes and it is important that in any assessment of progress, we factor in the fiscal challenges and current operating environment. The Department of Justice's target of 90% achievement of recommendations has not been met however, it is the nature of some that have been achieved which, in my view, deserve special mention. We should acknowledge that no child has been held in an adult prison for the last four years. Fewer children are being committed to youth custody, and the age and offending profile of those who are, means that we are dealing with the most difficult and disturbed young people. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspectorate, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/35/355260de-ceb0-43f8-ad83-e91fee363dd1.pdf Shelf Number: 138226 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders

Author: Schafer, N.E. Title: Evaluation of a JAIBG-Funded Project: Voice and Location Telephone Monitoring of Juveniles Summary: Direct supervision of juvenile probationers is seldom possible in many communities in Alaska due to their remoteness, so alternative supervision strategies are desirable. Electronic monitoring or voice recognition systems can substitute for institutionalization or face-to-face supervision by a probation officer. This report describes and evaluates the use of a voice and location telephone monitoring system for the supervision of juvenile probationers through the Mat-Su Youth Corrections Office in Palmer. In practice, VALUE - Voice And Location Update Evaluation - was used primarily as a transitional tool for clients "stepping down" from traditional electronic monitoring to release from supervision. Details: Anchorage: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2001. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Year: 2001 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2000/0010.kap/0010.kap.pdf Shelf Number: 138245 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Offender Supervision Voice Recognition Systems

Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Title: Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System Summary: The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) is a tool that enables communities to create coherent strategies to divert people with mental and substance use disorders from the criminal justice system. The mapping process associated with SIM . focuses on five discrete points of potential intervention, or "intercepts" (Munetz & Griffin, 2006): 1: Law enforcement; 2: Initial detention/first court appearance; 3: Jails/courts; 4: Reentry from detention into the community; and 5: Community corrections, probation, and parole. Much has been written about four of these intercepts. For example, the Crisis Intervention Team model has been disseminated broadly as a strategy to improve law enforcement interventions at Intercept 1. Mental health courts, drug courts, and other treatment courts have become an increasingly common part of the judicial landscape and define much of the conversation at Intercept 3. Reentry from jail or prison, Intercept 4, has become a core topic in general discussions regarding correctional policies at the federal, state, and local levels. SAMHSA's SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access and Recovery) (Dennis & Abreu, 2010) ease reentry on release from jail or prison. And while many communities lack much in the way of resources at Intercept 5, a literature has emerged that discusses specialized probation as a strategy to ensure longer community tenure (Skeem & Manchak, 2008). While each intercept presents opportunities for diversion, Intercept 2 may hold the most unexplored potential. This is because it is at Intercept 2 (initial detention and first court appearance) that the vast majority of individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system appear. Many of these individuals have a mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders; these are the individuals whom communities often try to divert. However, for a variety of reasons discussed below, this intercept is often overlooked. The purpose of this document is to turn community attention to the possibilities that Intercept 2, especially when the first appearance is at a municipal court, presents for diversion. The optimal diversion strategies that are most often overlooked and involve municipal courts are at first appearance (Intercept 2). Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA15-4929/SMA15-4929.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA15-4929/SMA15-4929.pdf Shelf Number: 138598 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Programs Drug Offenders Mentally Ill Offenders Substance Abuse

Author: Klofas, John Title: Juvenile Justice Reform Extension Evaluation Report Covering January 2012-June 2014 After-Hours Cases, Diversion Review Process, and Juvenile Detention Data Summary: This report is an evaluation of Monroe County, New York's Juvenile Justice Front-End Reform grant, which had the goals of reducing the number of juveniles (youth under sixteen years old) unnecessarily detained in Monroe County and increasing the number of juvenile cases diverted from court by ensuring diligent efforts were made at engaging juveniles and their families in the diversion process. Additional goals included decreasing the number of days between a juvenile's arrest and probation intake, ensuring there is always justification for detaining juveniles, and reviewing and documenting reasons for petitioning juvenile cases to be sure diversion attempts have been exhausted for that case. As such, four initiatives were implemented in Monroe County in March 2012: the after-hours detention hotline, expedited appearance tickets, a respite program, and a Diversion Review Committee (DRC). This report thoroughly describes each of these reforms, how they change the juvenile justice process, and whether they contributed to the goals of the reforms. We also examine factors that may have affected our results, such as the everyday practice of using these reformed systems and the relocation and capacity reduction of the local juvenile detention center. By reviewing data from multiple sources, this report reveals the effects of these reforms on juvenile case processing and outcomes. We find that all of the reform efforts were successfully implemented and largely had the desired impact. Since the reforms were implemented, - there are fewer juvenile detentions, - more juvenile delinquent cases are diverted from Family Court, - juvenile detentions and petitions are thoroughly and objectively assessed and justified through administrative review, and - juveniles are being seen, on average, 1-2 days after their after-hours arrests. Our findings indicate some room for process improvement, but the implementation of these reforms overall has been very successful. Details: Rochester, NY: Center for Public Safety Initiatives, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper #2014-18: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/images/2014-18%20-%20Probation%20Final%20Report%202014%20no%20appendices.pdf Shelf Number: 138625 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Program Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Foussard, Cedric Title: Addressing Juvenile Justice Priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region Summary: The International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) is proud to present the 'Addressing Juvenile Justice Priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region(link is external)' report. The aim of this report is to identify and analyse the priority issues for juvenile justice systems in the Asia-Pacific region. Accordingly, the report deals with the issues of violence against children in the juvenile justice system, restorative justice, cross-border issues and diversionary and alternative measures. It was produced by the IJJO's Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice, with the support of the Department for Juvenile Observation and Protection of the Ministry of Justice of Thailand. This report is unique in the sense that it is comprised of a theoretical framework, snapshots from countries in the Asia-Pacific region and policy-oriented workshops. Promising practices are presented to give an overview of what can be done, in practice, to improve the development of juvenile justice systems in line with human rights standards. The report outlines the need to improve the juvenile justice system in accordance with human rights standards, including safeguards and policies in this area. The report is based on the Second Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice held in Phuket in May 2015. Representatives from governments in the Asia-Pacific region, academia, judiciary and NGO's discussed "Policy Recommendations on Violence against Children; Alternatives to Detention; Restorative Justice in the Asia-Pacific Region". The meeting focused on three areas in particular: violence against children, alternatives to detention and restorative justice. Each of these subjects was tackled using a multilayered approach. The first theme that is discussed in the report is violence against children. As children find themselves in particular vulnerable circumstances when they are in contact with the law, children can be easy targets of different types of violence: psychological pressure, abuse of power, degrading treatment and physical violence are only a few examples. This violence often remains invisible, causing it to be unrecorded and unprosecuted. Tackling this issue is a priority for governments and requires specific safeguards and complaint and monitoring mechanisms. The second theme that is addressed in the report concerns diversionary measures and alternatives to detention. Detention is an overused measure to bring children to justice. Custody for children and young people should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Children are extremely vulnerable when they are in detention, so the necessary safeguards must be put in place. Furthermore, effective diversion and alternative measures based in the community facilitate reintegration into society. Governments should make it a priority to implement effective diversion and alternative measures in order to promote the development of the child and to limit the amount of children deprived of their liberty. The last theme that is analysed in the report is restorative justice. Restorative justice can be used as a diversionary or alternative measure. Restorative justice is particularly interesting because it can be used to address the child's specific needs. Furthermore, restorative justice aims to promote reconciliation between the parties, adding a rehabilitative purpose. The last section of the report specifies the priorities of the Asia-Pacific Council for Juvenile Justice in the region. The APCJJ Subcommittee for ASEAN has established that cross-border safeguards for children in contact with the law should be brought to the attention of the member states. As member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are working towards opening their borders, this issue becomes extremely relevant. The report concludes with some key recommendations on every topic that was addressed. The most important recommendations represented in this report are, in summary: 1.Reducing the number of children in contact with the justice system, for instance, by avoiding criminalization of statutory offences and setting an appropriate age of criminal responsibility, which is an effective way to avoid the risk of secondary victimization within the justice system; 2.Ensuring that deprivation of liberty is only used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, by promoting available and effective options of diversion, as well as alternatives to detention; 3.Fostering diversion measures, as it allows to reduce the cost of court proceedings and generally proves to be more responsive to the needs of first time and non-serious offenders; 4.Ensuring that legislation guarantees the recourse to diversion at every stage of the criminal justice proceedings; 5.During restorative processes, both the offender and the victim shall enjoy fair trial guarantees to avoid secondary victimization and ensure fairness of the proceeding. Restorative principles, such as voluntary participation, confidentiality and neutrality of the mediator, should be guaranteed by law; 6.Facilitators shall be offered high quality training, both as a precondition to get in contact with children, as well as throughout their experience in restorative practices; 7.National legislation shall ensure that every child has the right to equal and fair treatment, regardless of their nationality; 8.Legislation shall enshrine the right to privacy of children: any information collected in the course of the proceeding is not to become public, even after the child has reach 18 years of age. Details: Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://www.apcjj.org/sites/default/files/oijj_asia-pacific_council_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Asia URL: http://www.apcjj.org/sites/default/files/oijj_asia-pacific_council_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 138793 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Child Abuse and Neglect Child Protection Juvenile Justice Systems Restorative Justice Violence Against Children

Author: Hawken, Angela Title: Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report. Draft. Summary: The Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP) is a pilot project designed to determine whether the principles of effective community supervision - clear rules, close monitoring, and swift and certain, but not severe, penalties for each violation - can succeed with a group of parolees of diverse risk levels in Seattle. WISP includes offenders with longer and more serious criminal histories than is typical of HOPE probationers in Honolulu, which provides an opportunity to test HOPE-style sanctioning on higher-risk offenders. Program fidelity to date has been extraordinarily high, and both individual performances and the level of coordination within DOC staff have been exemplary. Parolees appear to have a clear understanding of the program and are, for the most part, successfully adjusting their behavior to the new environment. Non-compliance has been consistently sanctioned. The workload burden, especially on the CCO dedicated to the program, was very high at first, but has begun to ease. While more time and additional data collection will be required before a comprehensive evaluation can be conducted, evidence so far points toward a successfully implemented program and positive outcomes. Key findings from the outcomes evaluation show that, compared with control subjects, WISP subjects experienced: Reduced drug use Reduced incarceration Reduced criminal activity However, WISP subjects were more likely to be the subjects of bench warrants. A longer followup period is needed for a reliable assessment of the costs of WISP compared with routine supervision, but the reductions in incarceration and criminal activity suggest that WISP will likely yield sizable savings. Details: Unpublished report, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Shelf Number: 138921 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Supervision Intensive Supervision

Author: Osterman, Linnea Title: Making Restorative Justice Work for Women Who Have Offended Summary: Restorative justice is about direct communication between a victim and their offender, typically through a face to face conference. It holds offenders to account for what they have done, helps them to take responsibility and make amends, and also gives victims the chance to explain the real impact of the crime. While restorative justice has experienced a surge in both theory and practice of late, there remains "[a] woeful lack of evidence regarding female offenders in restorative justice conferences" (Miles, 2013: 8). The vast majority of evidence around restorative justice is gender-blind (Cook, 2006), and/or uses an all-male sample. This is despite a significant and growing evidence base showing that women1 involved in criminal justice have different offending patterns and come into the system with different backgrounds (Elis, 2005). In view of this, recent years have seen a mounting recognition in both policy and practice of the value of gender-sensitive approaches when working with women in criminal justice. This study critically questioned whether restorative justice is lagging behind other areas for criminal justice service provision in this area. The extremely limited literature that exists suggests that very low numbers of female offender cases go through to conference, and that there is a perception in the field that women who have committed an offence are more reluctant to engage in restorative justice (Miles, 2013). The reasons behind this remain unclear, though it is not wholly unlikely to be related to the particular nature and circumstances of female offending. Moreover, there are tentative suggestions in the literature that restorative justice may have a stronger effect on women who offend, especially those convicted of violent offences (Strang, 2015; Sherman et al, 2006). Again, the reasons behind these suggestions remain unclear, though theories include higher levels of empathy and a particular female 'ethics of care', positive impacts on mental health and new opportunities for engagement with services and positive networks. In contrast, some gendered risks have also been highlighted in the limited literature, including that restorative justice, if not well delivered, may exacerbate mental health problems, linked to particular experiences of shame, guilt, and a higher prevalence of vulnerability, trauma and self-harm. Details: London: Restorative Justice Council, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2016 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/making_restorative_justice_work_for_women_offenders_fullreport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/making_restorative_justice_work_for_women_offenders_fullreport.pdf Shelf Number: 139008 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Female Offenders Gender-Specific Programs Restorative Justice Victims of Crime

Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: Community Supervision as a Money Bail Alternative: The Impact of CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release Program On Legal Outcomes and Pretrial Misconduct Summary: The New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc., is a non-profit organization, working under a contract with the City of New York to provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the City's Criminal Court system. The Agency's primary mission is to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention in New York City. As part of that mission, CJA has advocated for community supervision as an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a medium risk of failure to appear (FTA) if released on unsupervised personal recognizance. CJA created a pilot program after extensive consultation with, and the support of, the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (since renamed the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice). The program was designed to offer judges at Criminal Court arraignment the option of supervised release as a bail alternative in selected non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set. In August 2009, CJA introduced its first Supervised Release (SR) program in the Queens Criminal Court. Based on the success of that program, the City contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April 2013. Owing to the success of the CJA programs the City, through the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, developed a proposal to introduce a more expansive program of pretrial release under supervision citywide. In March 2016, CJA's program was replaced in Manhattan by this new City initiative. CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program, like its Queens counterpart, offered judges a pretrial community-based supervision program as an alternative to setting bail at the Criminal Court arraignment in cases arraigned on selected non-violent felony charges. In Manhattan, these have been felony charges involving drug, property, or fraud/theft crimes, plus a comparatively small number of other types of non-Violent Felony Offense (VFO) crimes (e.g., D-felony robbery). Cases involving domestic violence, or where the defendant was scheduled for a hospital arraignment, were excluded even if charge eligible. Beyond the charge criteria, the program had additional restrictions used to screen potentially eligible cases and defendants that could be actively pursued by program staff. These included a review of adult criminal conviction histories, factors affecting risk of pretrial failure to appear (FTA) based on criteria used in CJA's release recommendation system, and supplemental criminal history information. Program court staff also was required to collect and verify community ties information necessary to maintain contact with defendants if released to the program. This has been an essential program component for ensuring that clients released under supervision in lieu of bail and pretrial detention would appear at all regularly scheduled court dates and comply with program requirements. In this research study we analyze case processing and court outcomes, and investigate the pretrial misconduct - failure to appear and in-program re-arrests - of MSR clients. We also examine the jail displacement effect of community supervision as an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention. In order to assess the potential impact of the MSR program on these activities, we create for comparison purposes a data set of felony cases arraigned in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court during the first twenty-one months of the MSR program (April 2013 - December 2014) in which defendants appeared to be eligible for MSR, to the extent that could be determined, but were not screened by MSR court staff. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 139073 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Bail Community Supervision Pretrial Release Supervised Release

Author: VanGeem, Stephen Guy Title: An Evaluation of the Utah First District Mental Health Court: Gauging the Efficacy of Diverting Offenders Suffering With Serious Mental Illness Summary: The decision to establish a mental health court in Utah's First District was largely a political one prompted by the growing popularity of problem-solving courts throughout the country. Because this motivation was policy-driven and not needs-driven, the court was established without an ongoing data collection schedule. As a result, barring anecdotal evidence from program participants, the current impact of the court on two key goals - reducing recidivism and increasing community-based treatment contact - is entirely unknown. The current study aims to provide a summative program evaluation of the first sixty-eight months of specialty court operation by (1) estimating basic demographic and clinical information about program referrals, participants, and graduates; and (2) measuring program effectiveness by examining between-group differences in key outcome measures (e.g., new charges, use of therapeutic services, time to rearrest, etc.) for those referrals who are accepted into the program as participants versus those referrals who are rejected from the program and sentenced to treatment-as-usual. Ideally, the current study will not only provide an evidence-based assessment of local practices at the current study site but will also empirically inform the greater community of mental health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who are operating in smaller, more rural districts. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2015. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Shelf Number: 139140 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Mental Health Courts Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: JustSpeak Title: Unlocking Prisons: How We Can Improve New Zealand's Prison System Summary: Unlocking Prisons is a comprehensive report on how we can improve New Zealand's prison system. This report looks at why we imprison people; the impact imprisonment has on prisoners, their families and the wider community; and the alternatives and improvements to prisons that will better keep our communities safe and ensure crime is dealt with appropriately. Part 1 Part One of the report looks at why we send offenders to prison and whether sending offenders to prison achieves these legislative purposes. Prison is generally intended to be used as a measure of last resort for dealing with an offender, after all community-based sentences have been exhausted. However, this report suggests that too often people are sent to prison when it will not achieve the purposes of sentencing. JustSpeak recommends that judges more thoroughly assess whether sending the particular offender to prison will actually accomplish the stated sentencing purposes. JustSpeak also recommends an increasing in the use of other sentencing options such as home detention. Compared to imprisonment, other sentencing options have been shown to reduce certain types of re-offending, are significantly cheaper, and, overall, make communities safer. To expand their use, JustSpeak recommends that the threshold for a "short term of imprisonment" be extended to three years and that the Sentencing Council, originally recommended by the Law Commission, be established. Part 2 Part Two sets out the evolution of prisons from the late 1700s to present, with a focus on Anglo-American experiences. In recent decades private prisons have become commonplace, raising important ethical questions about balancing the state's monopoly on the use of force over citizens against the potential fiscal gains to be made in privatising prisons. International research suggests that inmates and staff in private prisons are more likely to experience degrading prison conditions, increased misuse of force, decreased security, and inadequate health, education and work programmes. Part Two goes on to analyse the make-up of our prison population and offers insights into the life of a prisoner, from the procedure of processing a new inmate to visitor rights and the accessibility of hobbies for prisoners. Healthcare in New Zealand prisons is particularly concerning. A 2012 Ombudsman's investigation revealed several issues, such as a failure to record prisoner requests for medical appointments, lengthy waiting times for prisoners seeking medical advice and, more generally, unsatisfactory standards of dental and mental health services. The prison health budget is not ring-fenced, meaning it may be diverted to other costs at any time. Part 3 Part Three looks at the future direction of prisons in New Zealand, while also considering some successful initiatives that are currently in operation within our prison system. Part Three recommends better publicity, support and further rollout of these positive initiatives, which are often restricted to the regions where they began or were piloted. To achieve the goal of reducing re-offending, we need better data on which programmes are working and more universal implementation of those programmes. Details: Wellington, NZ: JustSpeak, 2014. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2016 at: https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/2714/2550/8324/JustSpeak_2014_-_Unlocking_Prisons.pdf Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/2714/2550/8324/JustSpeak_2014_-_Unlocking_Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 139226 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Institutions Prison Reform Prisons

Author: Clark, Catie Title: Assessing the Impact of Post-Release Community Supervision on Post-Release Recidivism and Employment Summary: The shift from indeterminate to determinate sentencing policies over the past three decades and the ensuing decline in the use of parole for monitoring inmate' transition back into their communities, led to the development of alternate strategies of post-prison release supervision. The use of parole varies considerably across the United States, with some states (i.e., Oregon) requiring that all inmates released from prison be subject to supervision after release from incarceration. In contrast others, such as Florida, mandate the post-release supervision of those offenders who meet a statutorily defined list of criteria, while still allowing for the post-incarceration supervision of offenders who may have been sentenced to an additional sanction of community supervision (e.g. split supervision) to immediately follow their prison sentence. To date, the empirical literature that has examined forms of post-prison release supervision have focused almost exclusively on the use of parole. There is extensive literature relating to various forms of community supervision among offenders diverted from imprisonment, however, there remains a lack of understanding regarding the various effects of split supervision on prisoner reentry employment outcomes for released inmates. This paper adds to the literature on post-prison release community supervision by examining the effect of two separate forms of post-prison supervision on offender recidivism and employment outcomes: split supervision and conditional release supervision. Using data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), this study examines the effects of split supervision and conditional release supervision in comparison to release from prison with no form of supervision for a cohort of 201,447 inmates released from Florida prisons between January 2004 and three years after release from incarceration, as well as to predict the likelihood of obtaining employment after release from prison. Findings indicate that post-prison supervision is a significant predictor of reduced recidivism outcomes (rearrest and conviction) among Florida inmates, as well as increasing the odds of offenders obtaining employment after release from prison, compared with those inmates who are released with no supervision after incarceration. These findings, however, are mitigated by the significantly increased likelihoods of returning to prison and rearrest for a felony for inmates placed on post-prison release supervision. Research findings and conclusions for future research, as well as policy implications of the study findings are discussed. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections and Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249844.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249844.pdf Shelf Number: 139267 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Ex-Offender Employment Recidivism

Author: Hawken, Angela Title: HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation Summary: Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement probation relies on a regimen of regular, random drug testing tied to swift and certain, but modest, sanctions to motivate probationer compliance. In two 2007 studies in Hawai'i, a comparison-group quasi-experiment and a randomized controlled trial, HOPE was demonstrated to improve compliance with terms of probation at 12-month follow-up, with large reductions in drug use, recidivism, and overall incarceration for offenders assigned to the program. Following the original evaluations, HOPE expanded from 34 participants in 2004 to approximately 2200 participants in Hawai'i in 2014, with many replications on the mainland. Several important questions remained. The primary impact of drug treatment is felt during exposure to the treatment program; over half of treatment subjects relapse within a year of ending treatment. The original evaluations of HOPE relied on a relatively short follow-up period, and it is not clear whether its effects would persist over a longer period. And it is not clear whether implementation would maintain fidelity to the model when no longer being evaluated. This study extends the original HOPE evaluations to an almost ten-year follow-up, addressing whether the improvements in criminal-justice outcomes observed during the active HOPE intervention persist after the term of probation. The study also documents changes in HOPE practices and ongoing implementation fidelity to the model. Administrative data from several sources were collected on HOPE and probation-as-usual (PAU) subjects. These records data were supplemented with in-person surveys with probationers, a probation-officer survey, and interviews with key officials. Interpretations of outcomes data reported here should take changes in implementation practices into consideration. Tracking and contacting subjects after nearly a decade proved more challenging than anticipated. Consequently, this study relies more heavily on administrative data, and less on in-person surveys and bio-specimen collection, than initially planned. The principal findings were: 1. HOPE probationers performed better than those supervised under routine supervision. They were less likely to be revoked and returned to prison. They were more likely to be free in the community and therefore at higher risk of committing new offenses; even so, they were less likely to commit new crimes during the follow-up period, although the difference in reoffending rate was smaller at long-term follow-up than at 12-month, and the reductions in drug crimes accounted for most of the difference (differences in property crimes were smaller than anticipated). HOPE was also found to economize on supervision resources, as HOPE probationers were more likely to receive successful early terminations from probation. 2. Probationers' perception of risk of punishment given a violation (estimated from the probationer survey) was higher than probation officers' estimates, which in turn were higher than our estimates of the true risk. As the deterrent value depends on perceived risk rather than actual risk, HOPE appears to benefit from a reputation effect that exceeds the certainty delivered in practice. 3. Probation-officer surveys suggest that POs support HOPE: It makes them more effective at their job and their probationers are more likely to succeed on HOPE. POs reported deviation from how HOPE is implemented compared with how it is described in policies and procedures. They agree that positive drug tests are referred to the court, but believe that their colleagues exercise discretion in deciding how to respond to missed appointments (including missed random drug tests). As HOPE relies on swift and certain sanctions, this argues for closer monitoring of implementation fidelity. Details: Malibu, CA: School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249912.pdf Shelf Number: 139508 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Programs Offender Supervision Probation Probationers Recidivism

Author: Davis, Lois M. Title: Responding to Fiscal Challenges in State Correctional Systems: A National Study of Prison Closings and Alternative Strategies Summary: Because of the severe economic downturn that began in 2008, states have been forced to curtail spending, including correctional spending. During fiscal year (FY) 2010 alone 31 of the 50 state departments of corrections faced mid-year cuts, totaling $806 million (NASBO, 2010). Correctional responses implemented by states included institutional changes, for example, closing prisons and reducing staff; "back-end" strategies, for example, reductions in sentence lengths though earned credits or good time; and "front-end" strategies, for example, changing felonies to misdemeanors in an attempt to reduce prison admissions. States are grappling with which options to use, but often without enough information to make informed decisions about potential impacts, costs, and benefits. To understand how states have addressed fiscal pressures and their effects, we addressed the following research questions: (1) What has been the recent financial situation of states in corrections?, (2) What types of initiatives and policy changes have been instituted to address fiscal pressures (e.g., prison closings, reduced programming)?, (3) Why were different strategies selected and what were the challenges in implementing them?, and (4) What has been the short term impact of these changes on the number of incarcerated offenders, on institutional performance and other measures, on public safety, and on correctional expenditures? The project team, led by RAND, also included the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and faculty from Purdue and Rutgers Universities. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2016. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249892.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249892.pdf Shelf Number: 139509 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Correctional Administration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Prisons

Author: Michigan. Supreme Court. State Court Administrative Office Title: Michigan's Problem-Solving Courts: Solving Problems, Saving Lives. 2015 Performance Measures and Outcomes Summary: Executive Summary Making a Difference and Leading the Nation Problem- solving courts are making a difference in the lives of people throughout Michigan. That difference ripples out across the state - to their families, to their neighborhoods, and to their communities. Based both on the data in this report and amazing individual success stories, problem-solving courts not only help participants, but also strengthen families and make communities safer and stronger. Michigan is a national leader in giving the public access to treatment courts. In fact, our 179treatment courts provide access to 97 percent of our state's population. For example, with 23 veterans treatment courts (as of 2016), Michigan has more of these innovative courts than any other state in the nation. Participants are Much Less Likely to Commit Another Crime In particular, the key measure of court success is the rate at which participants commit new crimes. That's why expert analysts carefully keep track of recidivism rates compared to similar groups of nonparticipants. The cut in crime rates is impressive: - Participants in Michigan drug and mental health courts are two times less likely to commit another offense after two years. - Participants in Michigan sobriety courts are more than three times less likely to commit another offense after two years. Unemployment Among Graduates Cut Significantly Problem-solving courts successfully keep offenders out of costly jail cells while reducing crime. But those are not the only benefits to graduates and to society. As shown in the chart below, unemployment among drug and sobriety court graduates was cut significantly. Details: Lansing, MA: Michigan Supreme Court, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/PSC%202015%20Report%20FINAL_4-7-16.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/PSC%202015%20Report%20FINAL_4-7-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139614 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: Fidelity to the intensive supervision probation with services model: An examination of Adult Redeploy Illinois programs Summary: Prison populations in America are the highest per capita of any country in the world (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2014). Illinois houses about 49,000 prisoners daily, spending $1.1 billion on corrections in 2014 (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2015; Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform, 2014). Growing public support for prison reform has brought attention to incarceration alternatives, including intensive supervision probation (ISP). ISP programs include increased surveillance, increased surveillance with treatment, and increased surveillance with evidence-based practices (Drake, 2011). The ISP programs examined for this study were a hybrid of the three, using increased surveillance with treatment services and evidence-based practices. For the purposes of this report, these programs will be referred to as intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S). ISP-S programs have better outcomes than deterrence-based, surveillance-only ISP (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). Research has shown ISP-S programs reduce recidivism by 17 percent, saving approximately $20,000 per offender (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (Authority) researchers examined ISP-S programs operating in four counties supported by Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI). ARI applies evidence-based, data-driven, and result-oriented strategies to reduce reliance on incarceration, increase community capacity for diversion, and enhance public safety. Since 2010, the Authority has administered grant funding for ARI and offered research, evaluation, and technical assistance to the program. In exchange for ARI grant funding, jurisdictions agree to implement evidence-based prison-diversion programs, such as ISP-S, and reduce by 25 percent the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison from a target population. Researchers examined ISP-S programs in DuPage, Macon, McLean, and St. Clair counties and used staff and stakeholder interviews, client interviews, and program data to evaluate fidelity to key components of evidence-based ISP-S. Researchers developed a list of nine key components of ISP-S drawing from Petersilia and Turner's ISP literature and the National Institute for Corrections (NIC) recommendations for evidence-based practices, shaped largely by Andrews and Bonta's Risk-Need-Responsivity model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; NIC, 2004; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Petersilia & Turner, 1991; Petersilia & Turner, 1990). Researchers used data collected during the 18-month pilot phases of DuPage, Macon, McLean and St. Clair county programs, beginning in 2011. However, not all programs started at the same time and McLean did not start accepting clients until January 2012. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139784 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Intensive Supervision Offender Supervision Probation

Author: Teji, Selena Title: Sentencing in California: Moving Toward a Smarter, More Cost-Effective Approach Summary: Californians have a collective interest in living in a safe and healthy environment. The state's criminal justice system is responsible for reducing crime and intervening when crime occurs, including apprehending and sentencing the perpetrator, in order to promote safe communities. In recent decades, however, harsh, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws contributed to the creation of a bloated and costly correctional system that generally fails to serve the interests of Californians. California has adopted significant criminal justice reforms over the past several years. In 2014, voters approved Proposition 47, which reclassified several drug and property crimes as misdemeanors. In addition, in 2011 state policymakers "realigned" to the state's 58 counties responsibility for supervising many people convicted of non-serious, nonviolent, and nonsexual felonies. Despite these positive steps, California's sentencing laws continue to overly rely on incarceration as the consequence for committing a felony or a misdemeanor, rather than promoting community-based interventions that could provide better avenues for rehabilitation. To be sure, California counties have adopted many alternative sentencing options following the 2011 realignment of responsibility for people convicted of low-level felonies. However, these approaches are not the norm across the state, and state sentencing laws continue to emphasize incarceration. Research casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of mass incarceration as a means of promoting public safety. Given the high social and financial costs of incarceration, California could revise its sentencing laws to more fully embrace alternative interventions intended to hold accountable people who commit a crime, correct problematic behaviors, and help communities and survivors of crime heal. Moreover, while incarceration will continue to be warranted for many offenses - including violent crimes - the question for state policymakers is whether sentence lengths are appropriate and reflect an efficient use of public resources. As one step forward, policymakers could establish a sentencing commission to examine the impact of sentence length on targeted populations, with the goal of ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the crime as well as to the risk that the person will reoffend. Policymakers also could amend the state's sentencing laws to generally scale back sentence lengths. In sum, significantly divesting from incarceration as a sentencing tool - and moving toward alternative sentencing options - could both increase public safety and be more cost-effective, Details: Sacramento: California Budget & Policy Center, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Sentencing-in-California-12172015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Sentencing-in-California-12172015.pdf Shelf Number: 139849 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Sentencing

Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: A report on Chicago's felony courts Summary: At Chicago's Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue, the sheer volume of felony cases has overwhelmed the judges, the prosecutors, and the public defenders. The jail houses nearly 10,000 inmates awaiting trial. It is estimated that at least 20% and perhaps as many as 50% of these inmates suffer from untreated mental illness. The courtrooms hear more than 28,000 cases per year, half of which are non-violent, drug-related charges. Each judge at 26th Street has on average 275 pending cases at any one time. The adult probation department seeks to handle more than 23,000 felony offenders at any one time. Many improvements have been made as the courts struggle to adapt to the realities of operating beyond capacity, but patchwork adaptations are not good enough. This report is a result of unprecedented collaboration among leaders with a commitment to reform. Presiding Judge Paul Biebel, State's Attorney Richard Devine, and Public Defender Edwin Burnette opened their offices to this study and provided both advice and data. An advisory committee of local experts served to identify issues and review findings. Ultimately, the public gets the criminal justice system that it chooses. The choices are made in elections and in decisions on legislation, enforcement priorities, and taxes. The resulting system may not be chosen consciously, but it is chosen nonetheless. Because we disapprove of conduct that we consider immoral, our instinct is to punish it. This may be the case even if the conduct does not directly touch our own lives. But we often do not consider the costs of imposing punishment. Some money is well-spent - the incapacitation of harmful offenders is necessary to the maintenance of an orderly society. Every person put in jail, however, requires that money be spent for police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and jailers, and money to house and feed the offender. T1he public, therefore, needs to decide how much the incapacitation is worth. Punishment is purchased at a price, often a high one. Public policy decisions involve tough choices: we want safety, moral rectitude and, at the same time, low taxes, but in criminal justice, as in so much else, we cannot have all we want. We may hope, however, to make informed choices, based on fact. It is our objective here to provide recommendations based on facts and on the informed observations of those most familiar with the criminal justice system. The costs we should take into account are not limited to the expense of operating the criminal justice system; citizens and institutions outside the system bear much of the burden. Imprisonment removes workers from the labor force - in many cases, not just during the period of their imprisonment but permanently. Dealing with drug offenders on a "revolving door" basis, processing their cases but failing to rehabilitate them, produces ruined lives and neighborhoods infested with drug dealers. Misallocation of scarce law enforcement resources imposes costs on the business community because of lost productivity and increased security and healthcare costs, and it imposes costs on the working poor because of lost wages and because the poor are likely to be victims of crime. We can continue to devote our resources to the processing of minor drug cases, with little effect on the markets for drugs, or we can provide more resources aimed at drug and mental health rehabilitation and treatment - and target the criminal justice system on serious crime. If the problems described in this report are not addressed, Cook County's criminal justice system will continue to be unmanageable, costly, and inefficient. It will be a system that fails to do justice fairly and effectively. This report offers recommendations for achieving justice through accountability, independence, diversion, and rehabilitation. Accountability and independence require funding, political insulation, and legislative restraint. Diversion and rehabilitation keep defendants away from the criminal justice system entirely and stop the proverbial "revolving door" of justice through treatment services. There is almost universal acknowledgment among the major players at 26th Street that the Cook County criminal justice system needs significant improvement. Moreover, public opinion data suggest that the majority of the public supports restorative justice. For nonviolent offenders, there is considerable support for "intermediate sanctions" and for "restorative justice." There is not, however, a consensus on what can be done to improve the system. The gap between support for action and necessary action looms large. This study, along with the collaboration of the system's major stakeholders, is a step toward reform and change that is long overdue in Cook County. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2007. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2016 at: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 107838 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Courts Diversion Felony Offenders Mentally Ill Offenders Public Defenders

Author: DeLong, Caitlin Title: Learning about probation from client perspectives: Feedback from probationers served by Adult Redeploy Illinois-funded program models Summary: Satisfaction with the criminal justice system often reflects the opinions of the public, rather than that of the offender (DeLude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012). Research in the medical and behavioral sciences indicate, however, that client satisfaction is associated with compliance and treatment outcomes (Barbosa, Balp, Kulich, Germain, & Rofail; Levenson, Prescott, & D'Amora, 2010; Zhang, Gerstein, & Friedmann, 2008). Beyond the increased adherence that is expected when probation clients are engaged in services they consider worthwhile, satisfaction data offers providers valuable insight into the specific needs of their target population, while potentially increasing perceptions of procedural justice. When participants are unable to provide feedback in a meaningful way, they are further marginalized and alienated from a process that hinges on a change in their behavior and attitudes. Since 2010, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority has administered the state's Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program, offering grant funding to jurisdictions to implement local evidence-based programs that reduce the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison. In this study, researchers interviewed program clients for insight into program implementation and operations that could strengthen program outcomes. Interviewed were 108 clients enrolled in 10 prison diversion programs using three program models - drug courts, intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S), and Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). Drug courts refer clients to court-supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration, and staff work in interdisciplinary teams of probation officers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and judges to manage the cases (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, 2012). ISP-S features specially trained probation officers who use risk/needs assessment tools to provide individualized case management, heightened supervision, and responsive referrals to social services (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The HOPE model focuses on behavior modification through swift, certain, and fair sanctions, and offers drug treatment to those in need (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Data were collected after 18 months of pilot program implementation ending in mid- to late-2012. The following are key findings from the probationer interviews, during which researchers asked questions about demographics, program staff, program operations, and services. Conditions of probation Most interviewees thought the conditions of their probation were very clear (81 percent). Almost all clients (97 percent) were drug tested. Most were required to pay court costs (75 percent) and attend drug treatment (69 percent). Of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance, 89 percent (n=51) said it was very likely that they would be caught if they violated probation conditions, 75 percent (n=48) said the sanctions were fair, and 72 percent (n=46) said they were immediate. Sanctions and incentives that are swift, certain, and fair are crucial to all three models of supervision. Seventy-eight percent of interviewed clients said they had developed a case plan with clear goals with their probation officers. Clearly outlined case plans have been shown to reduce recidivism in evidence-based practice (Carey, 2010). This study revealed a statistical relationship between having a case plan and offering positive feedback on the program. On average, each client needed assistance in obtaining four different types of services (out of 22 listed); the most common were transportation, employment, or housing. Clients reported that, of the 490 total service requests, 329 (67 percent) were fulfilled by their probation officer. Compliance and incentives Sixty-six percent of respondents reported violating the conditions of their supervision (n=72); however, only 60 (83 percent) of those respondents were sanctioned. Those violations included 57 failed drug/alcohol tests, 12 arrests for new crimes, and 14 missed appointments. Four clients reported having three or more violations, 18 had two violations, but the majority (n=49; 69 percent) of those who broke the terms of their probation agreements did so only once. A total of 25 clients (23 percent) indicated they had been arrested either for new crimes or as sanctions for violations while on probation. Forty-eight (75 percent) of 64 probationers who received a sanction for noncompliance said the sanctions were fair and 46 (72 percent) said they were immediate. Seventy-five percent (n=81) of interviewees said they received rewards for program compliance, such as gift cards, certificates, praise from staff, and food. Of those, 88 percent (n=71) said these rewards were good program motivators. Client assessments Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about probation - that the program helped them, it positively impacted their future, and it made them better off than other court sanctions. A majority of clients thought probation was a better alternative to prison (100 percent), offered a better lifestyle than prison (99 percent), and was easier to complete than a prison term (66 percent). Overall, clients agreed with positive statements about their probation officers and disagreed that their officers expected too much of them. Implications for policy and practice Further address client service needs Many probationers sampled reported needing, but not receiving, housing, identification, healthcare services, public assistance, and job support. In order to address this, probation officers should be operating under reduced caseloads and be trained in evidence-based practices (for example, actuarial risk assessment and cognitive behavioral techniques) in order to provide necessary services and reduce recidivism most effectively (Jalbert, Rhodes, Flygare, & Kane, 2010). Probation officers should advocate for clients with local housing assistance agencies and assist them with obtaining subsidized or low-income housing (Family Justice, 2009). Clients must have proper identification to secure housing and half of the clients sampled requested assistance in obtaining a state ID or driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card. Probation officers should be prepared to help guide clients through the process of obtaining these documents as they are necessary to meet other needs. Thirty-eight percent of clients reported chronic medical conditions, but 59 percent of these respondents did not have health insurance. Access to healthcare and preventive health services saves lives and money (Currie, 2010). Probation officers can screen clients for Medicaid eligibility and help them apply and enroll. Research has found that public assistance alleviates financial stress leading to criminal behavior (Gartner, 1990; LaFree, 1999). Probation officers can assist clients in navigating complex public assistance regulations. Collateral legal consequences affecting clients can interfere with probation officers' efforts to meet their needs. Probationers can be barred from voting, public housing, educational grants, and employment because of their convictions. Without social supports, offenders are more likely to recidivate (Mock, in press). While there should be a balance within probation providing surveillance and social supports, jurisdictional commitments to hiring more probation officers, providing more officer training, and advocating for the removal of barriers to services are system-level changes that will address service provision problems for the long term. Increase client accountability Of 72 probationers who reported violating supervision conditions, 60 respondents (83 percent) received subsequent sanctions. While sanctions and surveillance alone may not be effective at reducing recidivism (Taxman, 2002), their presence enforces offender accountability (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). Prison diversion programs must focus on swift, certain, and fair responses to non-compliant actions while using positive reinforcement and incentives to modify behavior (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Develop clear case plans Probationers with clear case plans were significantly more likely to understand their conditions, probation's phase system and levels of supervision, and more likely to receive incentives. They also rated their probation officers higher in areas of respectfulness and fairness. All model probation programs are advised to develop comprehensive case plans to appropriately assess risk levels, provide individualized support to overcome criminogenic needs, and use evidence-based practices to rehabilitate probationers (National Institute of Corrections, 2004). It is also important that probationers fully understand these plans. In addition, probation officers demonstrating use of their "dual role" - surveillance with case management - increases the likelihood for offender success (Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007; Trotter, 2006). Comprehension of goals and heightened perceptions of probation officer legitimacy are research-supported goals for effective probation (Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009). Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Client%20feedback%20FINAL%2008-18-16.pdf Shelf Number: 147880 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Probation Probation Officers Probationers

Author: American Friends Service Committee Title: Community Cages: Profitizing community corrections and alternatives to incarceration Summary: As states pursue sentencing reform efforts to reduce prison populations and the federal government continues to grapple with comprehensive immigration reform, the private prison industry faces pressure to adapt to a shifting penal landscape that is moving toward alternatives to incarceration. In response to these developments, the private prison industry began rebranding and expanding into subcontracted prisoner health care, forensic mental health treatment, and other "alternative" programming. In 2014, The American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots Leadership, and the Southern Center for Human Rights identified this emerging trend as the Treatment Industrial Complex (TIC). In the present report, we offer an in-depth analysis of the community corrections segment. Community corrections refers to "front-end" alternatives to incarceration, such as probation, home arrest, diversion programs, and "back-end" reentry programs such as parole, halfway houses, and work release centers. Nearly two-thirds of people involved in the criminal justice system are not held in prison or jail, but are instead monitored via community correction programs. At the end of 2014, more than 4.7 million adults were under probation or parole. For prison corporations such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, this represents a huge untapped market for privatization. Smaller companies are also springing up to meet the demand for community corrections programs and related services. In this report, we examine four different components of community corrections that are being aggressively privatized: 1. Electronic monitoring through the use of GPS ankle monitors and other mobile surveillance technology 2. Day reporting centers for individuals to "check in" and/or participate in rehabilitative programs and services 3. Intermediate sanctions facilities as an alternative to revocation to prison for technical violations of the terms of probation or parole 4. Residential reentry centers, more commonly known as halfway houses Details: Tucson: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Shelf Number: 140316 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Day Reporting Electronic Monitoring Halfway Houses Privatization

Author: Louisiana Legislative Auditor Title: Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Louisiana's Incarceration Rate and Costs for Nonviolent Offenders Summary: According to Department of Corrections (DOC) data, of the 128,612 individuals incarcerated or on supervision during fiscal years 2009 to 2015, 75,370 (58.6%) had nonviolent offenses only, meaning they had no violent convictions in their past, and 22,851 (17.8%) had drug offenses only, as shown in Exhibit 1. We identified strategies to reduce incarceration rates for these nonviolent offenders at each key decision point in the criminal justice system. These decision points and strategies include the following: - Pre-incarceration: Providing alternatives to incarceration that include services to help prevent or divert low-risk or nonviolent offenders from incarceration. - Expanding pretrial diversion and specialty courts could reduce the incarceration rate by diverting nonviolent offenders from prison. However, while Louisiana's drug courts have demonstrated cost savings, better data collection is needed for pretrial diversion and other specialty courts to evaluate whether these programs are effective. According to our survey, at least 37 (88.1%) of the 42 district attorney offices operate a pretrial intervention program, and at least 28 (66.7%) of the 42 judicial districts have a specialty court. - Sentencing: Ensuring that sentences are fair and proportionate to the crime committed. - Sentencing reforms, such as reducing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and the habitual offender law for nonviolent offenders, and sentencing certain nonviolent offenders to probation instead of prison could reduce the incarceration rate. Of the approximately 164 mandatory minimum sentences in state law, 91 (55%) are for nonviolent crimes. In addition, of the 15,235 habitual offender cases for offenders in our scope, 11,801 (77.5%) were for nonviolent offenses. - During Incarceration: Providing effective rehabilitation programs to offenders while they are incarcerated to help reduce recidivism and facilitate their successful re-entry into society. - Expanding rehabilitation programs in local facilities that are effective at decreasing recidivism would help reduce the incarceration rate. Although local jails house more nonviolent offenders, they have fewer rehabilitation programs and higher recidivism rates than state facilities. According to DOC, of the 105 local facilities that house state offenders, 46% offer no treatment programs. - Further expanding re-entry services at the local level to help offenders transition back into society would help reduce Louisiana's incarceration rate. Re-entry programs can reduce recidivism by 32% and save approximately $14 million per year. - Release: Providing effective and appropriate levels of supervision to offenders after they are released. - Because reform efforts have resulted in more offenders on parole, the caseloads of probation and parole officers have increased by 12.9%. Additional strategies to reduce the amount of supervision required for low-risk, nonviolent offenders could reduce the incarceration rate by focusing probation and parole resources on offenders most likely to re-offend. Details: Baton Rouge, LA: Performance Audit Services, 2016. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2016 at: https://app.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/DB26F2309F9783F2862580200077A2CD/$FILE/00010B73.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://app.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/DB26F2309F9783F2862580200077A2CD/$FILE/00010B73.pdf Shelf Number: 140322 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Federal Prisons System: Justice Has Used Alternatives to Incarceration, but Could Better Measure Program Outcomes Summary: Since 1980, the federal prison population increased from about 25,000 to almost 200,000, as of March 2016. In part to help reduce the size and related costs of the federal prison population, DOJ has taken steps to slow its growth by pursuing alternatives to incarceration at various stages of the criminal justice process for nonviolent, low-level offenders. Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to review DOJ's management of the federal prison population. This report (1) describes factors criminal justice stakeholders consider when using incarceration alternatives at or before sentencing and identifies the extent to which those alternatives are used, (2) describes factors BOP considers when using incarceration alternatives for inmates and the extent of their use, and (3) assesses the extent DOJ has measured the cost implications and outcomes of using the alternatives. GAO analyzed DOJ and federal judiciary branch data and documents from fiscal years 2009 through 2015, and interviewed DOJ and judiciary officials at headquarters and in 11 selected nongeneralizable judicial districts about the use of alternatives. GAO selected districts to provide geographic diversity and a mix of districts using and not using the alternatives. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ enhance its tracking of data on use of pretrial diversions and that DOJ and BOP obtain outcome data and develop measures for the alternatives used. DOJ concurred Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: GA)-16-516: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677983.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677983.pdf Shelf Number: 147910 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Federal Prisons Pretrial Diversion Recidivism

Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Literature Review on Intensive Supervision Orders: A Report Prepared for the Act Justice and Community Safety Directorate Summary: This report presents a literature review in relation to intensive supervision orders (variously defined) in six countries, as follows: - Intensive Supervision Orders in New Zealand; - Conditional Sentences of Imprisonment in Canada; - Various forms of Intensive Supervision Probation in the United States; - Intensive Alternatives to Custody in England/Wales; - Intensive Supervision with Electronic Monitoring in Sweden; and - Correctional Supervision in South Africa. Each section presents an overview of the sentencing option, including the conditions to which it is subject (eg, electronic monitoring, substance abuse treatment, curfews, community service) and whether these are imposed on a mandatory or optional basis. Information on limits on the availability of the option (eg, by sentence length or offence type) is also considered. The report then presents evidence on the 'effectiveness' of each sentencing option. Due to the variety of information available, evidence of effectiveness is considered to include: - data on the use of the order, including the conditions imposed, and any impacts on the use of imprisonment; - reconviction and breach analyses; - cost-benefit analyses; - evidence of decreases in anti-social behaviour (eg, drug use) and/or increases in prosocial behaviour (eg, engagement with employment); and - research on the attitudes of a range of stakeholders, including offenders, victims, correctional officers, judicial officers and members of the public. The report presents a brief description of the electronic monitoring technology used, before examining the evidence on cost-effectiveness, reductions in reoffending and the perceptions of offenders and others affected by electronic monitoring, especially victims and those living with the offender. This section then explores some of the key practical and ethical challenges that may arise from this technology, including: workload implications; false reports; risk to the public; the challenges of involving the private sector in the delivery of community corrections; the risk of net-widening; and the offender's loss of privacy and risk of stigmatisation. The limitations of the research are acknowledged and future directions in research, technological advances and good practice principles are considered. The report concludes with summary of key findings and some observations on future directions. Details: Canberra: University of Canberra, 2014. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Shelf Number: 145087 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Antisocial Behavior Cost-Benefit Analysis Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Offender Supervision

Author: Phillips, Michael R. Title: Intermediate Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study Summary: In an effort to reduce juvenile recidivism - the return to criminal behavior after leaving the juvenile court - authorities in Utah adopted a new statewide intermediate sanction system in which each district could choose a treatment component. Noting the high rate of substance abuse among juvenile offenders, the Fourth District Juvenile Court chose to implement the Narconon drug rehabilitation program through a Utah licensed not-for-profit called NewLife, integrating it within court-directed probation services. The Narconon program, an outpatient service based on secular materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard, consists of a series of modules to address physical aspects of substance abuse as well as underlying social and life skills that may be deficient in young abusers. Participants complete a detoxification program designed to eliminate drug cravings by improving nutritional status and reducing body stores of drug residues. The detoxification regimen includes exercise, sauna and vitamin-mineral supplementation. The Narconon program also includes self-paced training in study habits and communication (oral and written). Additional training materials address the subjects of moral and ethical standards, how to set and achieve goals, and personal responsibility. This program was implemented in partnership with court officials and probation officers in the Fourth District Juvenile Court, in the context of implementing new juvenile sentencing guidelines for State Supervision. The court hoped to reduce the rate at which these youths penetrated deeper into the justice system, and to achieve a reduction in placement costs. It should be noted that the District had saved "the worst of the worst" for this trial program (knowing in advance it was coming several months prior to its implementation). More than half were candidates for confinement or community placement (removal from their homes) rather than state supervision, the new sentencing guideline's last-chance sanction. This tracking report examines the extent to which the court's goals were achieved. It does not attempt to identify or explore positive or negative factors outside of the Narconon program that might have contributed to the outcome. Participants in the Narconon program, whether they completed the program or not, showed a 77.7 percent reduction in criminal activity. Program completion intensified the desired change of behavior. Seventy-four of the 100 juveniles completed the intervention. Of these, 63.5 percent remained completely misdemeanor and felony free for the remainder of their juvenile history. Based on a combined analysis of juvenile and adult records, 32.4 percent retained this crime-free state for four years post-treatment. A placement analysis revealed that the goal of reducing placement and related costs was also achieved. The success of this partnership suggests new possibilities for treatment and intervention and for reducing costs associated with juvenile crime. Details: Los Angeles: Foundation for Advancement, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 15, 2016 at: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Shelf Number: 147288 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Intermediate Sanctions Juvenile Court Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: Use of Electronic Offender-Tracking Devices Expands Sharply Summary: The number of accused and convicted criminal offenders in the United States who are monitored with ankle bracelets and other electronic tracking devices rose nearly 140 percent over 10 years, according to a survey conducted in December 2015 by The Pew Charitable Trusts. More than 125,000 people were supervised with the devices in 2015, up from 53,000 in 2005. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government use electronic devices to monitor the movements and activities of pretrial defendants or convicted offenders on probation or parole. The survey counted the number of active GPS and radio-frequency (RF) units reported by the companies that manufacture and operate them, providing the most complete picture to date of the prevalence of these technologies in the nation's criminal justice system. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf Shelf Number: 145997 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Electronic Tagging Global Positioning Systems Offender Supervision

Author: Kruithof, Kristy Title: Study Alternatives to Coercive Sanctions as Response to Drug Law Offences and Drug-Related Crimes Final Report Summary: This study aims to map alternatives to coercive sanctions (ACS) for drug law offences and drug-related crimes that are available under the law in each EU member state and describe the use of these sanctions in practice. This was complemented by a review of international research on the effectiveness of ACS in reducing reoffending and drug use. Building upon the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016, ACS were defined as measures that had some rehabilitative element or that constituted a non-intervention (for example, deciding not to charge or prosecute), as well as those used instead of prison or other punishment (for example, a suspended sentence with drug treatment). Further details of the measures included within the definition of ACS can be found in Section 1.2. This study builds upon a report produced by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 2015 on alternatives to punishment for drug-using offenders, widening the scope of that study by including a broader range of sanctions and by looking at practice in each member state in more detail. Details: Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union, 2016. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2016 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP66607.html Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP66607.html Shelf Number: 144995 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Offenders Drug Policy Drugs and Crime Illegal Drug Trade

Author: Kellam, Leslie Title: Analysis of Alternative to Incarceration Program Participants Summary: This information was derived from quarterly tracking logs submitted by Alternative to Incarceration programs who are funded by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). These reporting logs must be submitted as a condition of funding to allow program performance and outcomes to be monitored. Records from the tracking logs were matched to DCJS Computerized Criminal History (CCH) records to provide demographic and criminal history information on individuals served. Data shown is for individuals who were discharged from these programs between January 2008 and December 2010. The program data is presented in three categories: New York City, IMPACT Counties, and the rest of the state. IMPACT counties include the following counties outside New York City: Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Oneida, Orange, Rensselaer, Rockland, Schenectady, Suffolk, Ulster, and Westchester. Details: Albany, NY: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Justice Research and Performance, 2012. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed November 12, 2016 at: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/opca/ati2008-2010final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/opca/ati2008-2010final.pdf Shelf Number: 147328 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections

Author: Lore Joplin Consulting Title: Multnomah County Feasibility Assessment: Mental Health Jail Diversion Project Summary: This report was prepared in response to a Multnomah County Board of Commissioners fiscal year 2015 budget note to investigate the need and feasibility of enhancing diversion opportunities for people in county jails who have a mental illness. The budget note was proposed by Commissioner Judy Shiprack following a trip taken by a small group of county stakeholders to visit and observe the nationally recognized jail diversion program in Bexar County, Texas. Nationally, an estimated 15 to 17 percent of people booked into jail have active symptoms of serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. This is three times the proportion among the general public. People in jail who have mental illness typically also have high rates of substance abuse disorders (up to 80 percent, according to some estimates3), they often are poor and/or homeless, and many have been repeatedly sexually and physically abused.4 They commonly have chronic physical health problems that will shorten their lifespan (by 13 to 30 years).5 Although people with serious mental illness often are stereotyped as aggressive, their criminality typically is limited to low-level nuisance crimes. When their behavior does include violent crimes, it is usually related not to their mental illness but to other factors, such as substance abuse.6 Once in jail, people who have a serious mental illness are vulnerable to intimidation and assault. Because the jail environment tends to exacerbate symptoms of mental illness, inmates with mental illness may act out or break jail rules, thus prolonging their incarceration.7 They also have high rates of recidivism—more than 70 percent in some jurisdictions.8 Clearly, diverting more of these individuals from jail to community-based services has the potential to cut criminal justice system costs, reduce recidivism, and provide more effective mental health treatment for offenders. It also would represent a more humane response to individuals in jail who have a mental health disorder. This report is intended to help Multnomah County better understand the population of people with mental illness in its jails and what opportunities there might be to divert more of them to community-based services. It explores topics such as how many people with mental illness there are in jail locally, what they are like, the reasons they are there, the strengths and weaknesses of the current jail diversion system, and the challenges of estimating the costs associated with detention and diversion. The report also presents recommendations that incorporate stakeholder input. Information in this report comes from four sources: a literature review, interviews with 23 local stakeholders, records on individuals in county jails who have a mental health disorder, and the results of a prioritization process completed by a stakeholder group. A range of stakeholders participated in the project, including elected officials, representatives of the local medical and social service systems, and employees of many departments and divisions of Multnomah County. Details: no data: Lore Jopling Consulting, 2015. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Shelf Number: 147900 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Programs Jail Inmates Jails Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Morehead State University. Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology Title: Kentucky Smart Probation Program: Year One Report Summary: The Kentucky Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) Probation Program grant was awarded in July 2012 to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections for the purpose of providing enhanced probation services for eligible participants in six pilot jurisdictions throughout the state of Kentucky. Funding was used to support a call-in system to inform defendants in each jurisdiction when they were to drug test, to purchase drug testing supplies, to provide for testing of abused drugs not typically detected on traditional drug screens, and to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct an unbiased program evaluation. This evaluation report was prepared by Morehead State University to highlight program activities during the first grant year. An overview of applicable data elements (i.e., process evaluation and outcome evaluation) for grant year one (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) is highlighted below. Process Evaluation Summary Overall themes emerging from the process evaluation suggest that a majority of administrators, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections officials are satisfied with the services provided through the SMART Probation Program during the first grant year. There were a minority of individuals interviewed that wished they had more inclusion and knowledge about the program during the implementation process. Many reported they were uncertain, at this point, what the data will show in terms of program success, because it is relatively new, but hope results reveal reduced recidivism and incarceration costs. Overall, despite some initial barriers and problems, most felt the program was beneficial for probationers and would like to see the program expand in the future. Outcome Data Summary Outcome data was reported for 307 participants who entered the SMART Probation Program (between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013). Individuals in the SMART Probation Program were compared with 300 similarly matched probationers. All outcome data was retrieved from the Department of Corrections Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS). The evaluation for the first grant year focused on examining: the level of service/case management inventory (LS/CMI), drug screening/results, violations/responses, and movements/alterations of sentencing. The target number of individuals to be served was 600. During the first grant year, approximately 51% of the target number was served. Almost two-thirds of probationers served were from two SMART project sites: the combined site of Lincoln/Pulaski/Rockcastle (30.6%) and Jefferson (30.3%). Based on data provided, the average time on probation was 8 months (mean = 7.9 months). When examining raw scores for all of the domains on the LS/CMI, the SMART Probationers were rated as significantly higher on all domains measured by this risk assessment instrument. When examining the categorization of need as measured by the LS/CMI for each domain (i.e., low, medium, and high), the SMART and comparison group had comparable categorization of needs, with the exception of the drug and alcohol problem domain and total score. For the alcohol and drug problem domain, the SMART participants were categorized as having medium needs, whereas the comparison group was categorized as having low needs. Second, when assessing the total LS/CMI score, the SMART participants were rated as medium risk whereas the comparison group was rated as low risk. These differences match the scope of the SMART program, which targets individuals with substance use and related needs who are at-risk of failing on traditional probation. These data suggest the SMART group is a higher risk group – thus, comparisons with a traditional probation group should be interpreted with some caution as the two groups had some inherent differences. In terms of drug testing, the SMART probationers were drug tested 2,529 times; of these, there were 218 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 11.6% of the total tests. In contrast, the comparison probationers were drug tested 1,149 times; of these, there were 338 positive drug screens, which equates to approximately 29% of the total tests. Further, there were significantly more positive drug screens, on average, for the comparison group (mean = 1.1) compared with the SMART group (mean = 0.6). More specifically, there were significantly more comparison group probationers with positive drug screens for marijuana (48.7% vs. 29.0%) while more SMART probationers tested positive for Oxycontin (14.0% vs. 4.2%). Program violations, as reported in KOMS, were also examined. In general, the comparison probationers had a significantly higher average number of violations (2.3) compared to the SMART probationers (1.2). Almost one third of probationers in the comparison group (32.7%) had a substance use violation compared to 24.0% for the SMART probationers. Further, a significantly greater number of probationers in the comparison group also had probation/parole violations (29.7%) compared to the SMART probationers (21.2%). In addition, a significantly greater percentage of probationers in the comparison group had new charges (33.0% vs. 10.6%). Finally, there was a significant difference between the percentage of probationers in the comparison group (8.7%) and the SMART probationers (3.5%) that had fees and services violations. The most common responses to all violations involved the discretion of the court and a recommendation for probation revocation. In some instances, the responses were more tailored to the violation type. For example, for substance use related violations, the response from the court included referrals to the Social Service Clinician (SSC) and other treatment options. At the time of this report, approximately 14% of the SMART probation participants had probation conditions which had been revoked. A comparable statistic was unable to be calculated for the comparison group, given a criteria for selecting this group was actively on probation. In future evaluation reports, the evaluation team, in partnership with the Department of Corrections will strive to select a comparison group which more accurately reflects a contemporary group of individuals referred to probation that may/may not be active at the time of the reporting. While a significantly greater percentage of SMART probationers (15.1%) were moved into an incarceration placement compared to the comparison group (9.3%), probationers in the comparison group spent a significantly greater average time incarcerated (118.1 days compared to 32.5 days for the SMART probationers). Details: Morehead, KY: Morehead State University, 2013. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 22, 2016 at:http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201311%20Kentucky%20SMART%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147311 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Offender Supervision Probation Probationers Recidivism

Author: Clifton, Jonathan Title: Prisons and Prevention: Giving Local Areas the Power to Reduce Offending Summary: Devolving responsibility and funding for the management of low-level offenders could empower local services and agencies to work more effectively to prevent crime and develop alternatives to prison that do more to rehabilitate offenders. This briefing describes how this can be achieved. England and Wales’s prison system could do better at reducing crime and rehabilitating offenders: it is currently a hugely expensive and highly inefficient arm of the public sector. As the number of prisoners continues to rise, and as the Ministry of Justice budget is faces further cuts, this is clearly unsustainable. This paper argues that reform is needed to address the inherent flaw in our criminal justice system: that the bodies that could take action to reduce offending have neither the financial power nor the incentive to do so. This is because many of the services and agencies that could act to reduce offending are organised and controlled at the local level, whereas the budget for prison places is held by central government. The challenge, therefore, is to ‘unfreeze’ the resources that are locked up in the prison system, and ensure that local services and agencies are enabled and incentivised to use those resources to both prevent crime and develop alternatives to custody. At the moment, incentives work in precisely the wrong direction: if a local authority invests in high-quality services that keep people out of prison, the financial benefits accrue to the Ministry of Justice (as it spends less on prisons as a result) rather than the local authority, which ends up meeting the costs of ever more people using their community services The recent drive to devolve power and resources to groups of local authorities and city mayors could hold the answer to this problem. The government has already successfully experimented with devolving elements of the youth justice system to local authorities, as well as granting greater powers over transport, skills and health services to some of England’s major cities and counties. In this report We propose that this approach be extended to the management of low-level adult offenders, who make up the bulk of ‘churn’ within the prison system. This would involve giving city mayors or combined authorities a budget to cover the costs of these offenders, but charging them for each night that an offender from their area is held in prison. This would give local authorities resources to invest in preventative services and alternatives to custody, and give them a strong financial incentive to ensure that these investments deliver results, while also ensuring that money and responsibility for the reduction of reoffending is located where it can best be exercised. This report presents case studies of a number of youth justice programmes in the US and England that have proven effective at reducing pressure on prisons and reoffending, drawing from them eight principles that should underpin the reform and devolution of the adult offenders budget. Bearing these principles in mind, it sets out detailed recommendations for the timings and mechanisms by which the government should pursue these reforms – which bodies should be allowed to bid for control of the custody budget, how targets should be set and oversight and accountability ensured, how funding and savings should be managed and how, in time, funding for probation services for low-level offenders should also be devolved. Details: London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing: Accessed December 15, 2016 at: http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/prisons-and-prevention_Jan2016.pdf?noredirect=1 Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/prisons-and-prevention_Jan2016.pdf?noredirect=1 Shelf Number: 146165 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Criminal Justice Reform Re-offending Recidivism

Author: National Collaboration for Youth Title: Beyond Bars: Keeping Young People Safe at Home and Out of Youth Prisons Summary: The National Collaboration for Youth (NCY), a 40-year old affinity group, is a coalition of the National Human Services Assembly member organizations that have a significant interest in youth development. Members of NCY include more than 50 national, non-profit, youth development organizations. The NCY mission is to provide a united voice as advocates for youth to improve the conditions of young people in America, and to help young people reach their full potential. Collectively, the member organizations of the National Collaboration for Youth: ● Serve more than 40 million young people and their families ● Employ over 100,000 paid staff ● Utilize more than six million volunteers ● Have a physical presence in virtually every community in America The organizations that comprise the NCY work across generations, with young people, families, neighbors and community institutions. The impact of our organizations indicates that building strong communities and families provides young people with a greater opportunity to achieve well-being and reach their full potential far better than a system that relies on youth incarceration. These next few pages should serve as a handbook for juvenile justice administrators, legislators, judges, the non-profit community and youth advocates for how to end the practice of youth incarceration, promote public safety and restore a sense of belonging for our young people in their homes and neighborhoods. Our collective experiences tell us that communities that are often characterized by intense needs also have extraordinary assets that can be easily overlooked. We advocate for leveraging those assets as one means to meet those intense needs, and providing greater resources for neighborhood-based services and programs. Details: Washington, DC: National Collaboration for Youth, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2016 at: http://www.nationalassembly.org/uploads/documents/BeyondBars.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nationalassembly.org/uploads/documents/BeyondBars.pdf Shelf Number: 146133 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration At-Risk Youth Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Aftercare Juvenile Justice Administration Juvenile Justice Systems

Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Department's Use of Pretrial Diversion and Diversion-Based Court Programs as Alternatives to Incarceration Summary: The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed.1 Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed. Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney's Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These programs typically address criminal charges filed against low-level, non-violent offenders through supervision, drug testing, and treatment services. Diversion-based court programs can target a range of offenses, though they often focus on specific offenses such as drug crimes or particular categories of offenders. While some diversion-based court programs result in a full dismissal of charges, others may result in a conviction with a sentence of probation or little incarceration. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the (1) design and implementation of federal pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs, (2) variances in the usage of the programs among the USAOs, and (3) cost savings associated with successful program participants. We found that, since the announcement of the Smart on Crime initiative, the Department has taken some steps to address its historically limited use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs. Between August 2013 and March 2014, EOUSA distributed informational materials designed to inform the USAOs about diversionary court programs and provided training and workshops on alternatives to incarceration. EOUSA also conducts an annual survey of the USAOs' diversion programs. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the total number of offenders who were placed into a pretrial diversion program as well as the number of unsuccessful participants, which we believe are crucial metrics needed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. However, we were told that neither EOUSA nor the USAOs track this information. As a result, the Department cannot fully measure the success of its pretrial diversion program. We were able to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who successfully completed a pretrial diversion program from FY 2012 through FY 2014 for all 94 USAOs, which was 1,520 offenders. In order to assess whether additional offenders were potentially suitable for pretrial diversion, we determined the number of federal defendants convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses based on U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics. In undertaking this analysis, we applied the same criteria used by the Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in its 1994 report identifying the universe of federal low-level, non-violent drug offenders, namely: (1) a category I criminal history, (2) zero criminal history points, (3) no weapons offense conviction, (4) no aggravated role adjustment, and (5) no prior arrest for a crime of violence or controlled substance.3 We further restricted this universe by only including offenders who fell within Zone A of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table and therefore were eligible for a probationary sentence with no conditions of confinement. We also excluded those offenders sentenced under the guideline for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States because, as a practical matter, offenders illegally in this country are rarely considered for alternative dispositions. Applying all of these criteria, we identified 7,106 offenders during the 3-year period of our review as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. Of this total, 1,520 offenders successfully completed a pretrial diversion program. We were unable to assess whether the remaining 5,586 potentially suitable offenders would have met the particular USAO's eligibility requirements for its pretrial diversion program or would have been deemed suitable candidates for supervision by Probation and Pretrial Services. We also found, based on the data available to us, that the use of pretrial diversion appeared to be substantially less in some USAOs than in others. Forty-four USAOs (just under one-half of all USAOs), had between zero and five successful pretrial diversion participants. With regard to diversion-based court programs, the vast majority of federal judicial districts (78 out of 94) had no program as of August 2015. Unlike for pretrial diversion, the Department had not established criteria that the USAOs must consider for determining admission into a diversion-based court program. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who participated in a federal diversion-based court program in past years, but were told the information was not available. As with our analysis of potentially suitable pretrial diversion offenders, we identified those offenders potentially suitable for a diversion-based court program from an analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics using the criteria from the 1994 NIJ report, but included offenders who fell within either Zone A or Zone B of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table. Again excluding offenders sentenced for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, we determined that 12,468 offenders sentenced from FY 2012 through FY 2014 were potentially suitable for diversion-based court programs. However, as with traditional pretrial diversion, we were unable to assess whether these potentially suitable offenders would have met the entrance and eligibility requirements of diversion-based court programs in their individual sentencing jurisdictions. We found the Department had not evaluated the effectiveness of the USAOs' pretrial diversion programs or its efforts to pursue their use. An evaluation would assess the Department’s progress toward accomplishing the goals established in the Department’s Strategic Plan and its Smart on Crime initiative. The Department also has not evaluated the potential for pretrial diversion programs to reduce prosecution or incarceration costs, and we were unable to obtain data that would have allowed us to do so. Given this absence of data, we instead estimated the incarceration costs that the Department spent on offenders we identified as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. We determined that of the 7,106 offenders who completed or who were potentially suitable to complete a pretrial diversion program, 4,530 received no prison sentence while 2,576 received some sentence of incarceration. Based on the amount of prison time these 2,576 offenders received, we estimated that from FY 2012 through FY 2014 the Department expended $26,313,168, or $10,215 per offender. These estimates do not take into account the additional costs to the Department to prosecute these cases or to the U.S. Courts to handle them. Nor does this amount include the costs of the pretrial diversion program itself. We believe the Department should consider how it can assess going forward whether prosecuting offenders meeting these criteria are consistent with two of the Smart on Crime initiative principles, namely that prosecutors should pursue the most serious cases that implicate clear, substantial federal interests, and that prosecutors should pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent crimes. For diversion-based court programs, we were able to estimate incarceration costs avoided by a sample of successful participants in three judicial districts. Based on these estimates, we found that the potential for cost savings may be substantial. In the example with the largest sample size, our analysis of court records from the Central District of Illinois identified an estimated potential cost savings from $7,721,258 to $9,665,811 for 49 judgmentally selected successful program participants, or an average of $157,577 to $197,261 per offender. We also found that the Department has not studied the effect pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs may have on recidivism. We reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records for the 39 participants who had completed the Central District of Illinois diversion-based court program between November 2002 and February 2011 and found that 9 of these individuals (23 percent) were convicted for a new offense, re-arrested, or had their supervision revoked within 2 years of their diversion-based court program graduation date.6 By comparison, the general recidivism rate for federal inmates has been estimated as high as 41 percent. We recognize that our sample size was small, and believe that a broader study by the Department of the effect of diversion-based court programs on recidivism is warranted to determine if these results are borne out on a more widespread and systemic basis. We make 3 recommendations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and 2 recommendations to EOUSA to strengthen the use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs in order to meet the Department’s goals and ensure that alternatives to prosecution are available and utilized where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Shelf Number: 145405 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Diversion Programs Pretrial Diversion

Author: Allen, Rob Title: Rehabilitation Devolution - how localising justice can reduce crime and imprisonment Summary: The new Conservative Government provides a fresh and promising context in which to reform criminal justice, by devolving power and responsibility to a more local level and learning from American "Justice Reinvestment" (JR) initiatives. The term JR has come to cover a variety of programmes/approaches, both in the UK and the USA, which aim to shift resources away from the unnecessary use of criminal prosecution and imprisonment into more local, productive and cost effective ways of preventing crime and reducing reoffending. The last few years have seen important reforms at federal and state level in the USA. More than half of states have introduced JR laws or policies which have sought to reduce the severity of sentences for nonviolent offences, and to reduce breaches of parole and supervision, in order to avert unaffordable prison growth. The extent to which these have contributed to the stabilisation or reduction in prison numbers is contested in some states, but the overall trends have changed - 2014 was the first time in 38 years that both federal and state prison populations fell in tandem. Many states have used some of the spending earmarked for new prisons to strengthen alternatives. There are four main areas for learning; first about how a much more locally based approach to criminal justice has enabled experimentation and reform, which has involved a wide range of stakeholders from different levels and branches of government, and from outside it. Second, how the politics of criminal justice has become more moderate with much of the leadership coming from conservatives who previously took a hard line, and with almost all of the JR measures enjoying bipartisan support. Third, the measures introduced to moderate prison growth have been based on comprehensive data collection and analysis which has enabled the costs, benefits and impacts to be carefully evaluated. Finally, some states embracing JR have required a proportion of the savings to be reinvested in programmes to reduce re-offending. They have also created incentives to manage low risk and low level offenders at the county rather than state level by strengthening probation supervision. JR initiatives in England and Wales have sought to test whether financial incentives can reduce the use of imprisonment for under 18’s, and encourage agencies at a local level to lower demand on the criminal justice system. Consortia of local authorities have shown that they can use financial incentives to stimulate measures to reduce the numbers of under 18s imprisoned; and localising financial responsibility for the cost of remanding under 18 year olds has coincided with falls in numbers in custody. There is enough promise in the results to warrant an expansion of JR. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TRANSFORM-JUSTICE-REHABILITATION-DEVOLUTION.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TRANSFORM-JUSTICE-REHABILITATION-DEVOLUTION.pdf Shelf Number: 144829 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Offender Rehabilitation

Author: Andersen, Synove N. Title: Electronic Monitoring and Recidivism: Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway Summary: The replacement of custodial with non-custodial sanctions holds the potential to reduce recidivism as well as other costs associated with imprisonment. However, the causal impacts on recidivism of noncustodial sanctions in general, and electronic monitoring (EM) programs in particular, remain unclear. We estimate the effect of EM on recidivism by exploiting an EM program that was gradually introduced in Norwegian counties from 2008, using difference-in-differences and instrumental variable designs. Results show that introducing EM reduced 2-year recidivism rates by about 10 percent, which corresponds to about 19 percent for those actually serving on EM. We find no effects on recidivism intensity or severity. Subsample analyses show that the effect estimates are strongest among offenders without previous imprisonment or recent unemployment spells, and although between-groups differences are statistically non-significant, this suggest that avoiding prison stigma and maintaining workplace relations can be important to reduce recidivism and promote desistance. The reliability of our results is somewhat challenged by unstable pre-implementation trends and signs that more people are convicted to EM-qualifying sentences when EM is introduced. Details: Oslo: Statistics Norway, Research Department, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Papers, No. 844: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/276183?_ts=156fa403880 Year: 2016 Country: Norway URL: https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/276183?_ts=156fa403880 Shelf Number: 145120 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Recidivism

Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Courts Domestic Violence Courts Drug Courts Family and Alcohol Courts Mental Health Courts Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Arment, Christian Title: Is Incarceration Still the Answer: The Impact of Current Policies & Possible Alternatives Summary: The criminal justice system is tasked with protecting the public from crime but Americans are conflicted about the best way to deter criminal behavior, protect the public and provide justice for victims. There are two different intellectual strands which are the foundation of the criminal justice system: one focuses on rehabilitation while the other emphasizes punishment as a means of deterring criminal behavior. The deterrence model has been the most popular in the US. This brief reviews current research which assesses, and generally finds deficient, present criminal justice policies. It also examines the unintended consequences – both budgetary and social – of contemporary incarceration policies. It concludes with a discussion of policy options that could enhance the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders and the expanded use of evidence-based community reentry programs. Details: Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Institute of Public Policy, Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 01-2011: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Shelf Number: 146690 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Criminal Justice Policy Imprisonment

Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Developing Juvenile Drug Court Practices on Process Standards: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Summary: Objectives. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators, and other process issues related to juvenile drug courts, refered to herein as juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), including systemwide contextual factors. This review focused on program factors directly relevant to the success of a JDC such as program fidelity, demographics of subjects, program elements, and JDC structure, as well as other potential moderators of effectiveness. Search methods. We searched the following databases and Internet resources for eligible studies: American Society of Criminology conference proceedings, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference proceedings, Campbell Library, Chestnut Health Systems website, CINAHL, Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ERIC, Google Scholar, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Clinical Trials Registry, JMATE conference proceedings, National Drug Court Institute website, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NIH RePORTER, NPC Research website, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text, ProQuest Education, ProQuest Family Health, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Health Management, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Science, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed (drug treatment studies only), RAND Drug Policy Research Center website, Sociological Abstracts, The Drug Court Clearinghouse via American University’s Justice Programs Office website, University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice website, and the Urban Institute website. We examined the references found in research reviews, meta-analyses, and eligible studies. The search strategy was tailored to each database or website with the goal of identifying all relevant process and implementation studies of JDCs. The search process identified 7,261 titles and abstracts that were initially screened for potential relevance. This resulted in 572 titles and abstracts that were examined more carefully by two independent coders. This process produced 286 documents that were retrieved and for which the full text was examined to determine final eligibility, resulting in 59 eligible and coded studies. Eligibility. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence were eligible. A study must have examined a JDC and provided quantitative or qualitative evidence regarding JDC process issues. Purely theoretical discussions of JDC operations and other editorial or thought pieces were not included. A study that collected data within a JDC but did not evaluate something related to the functioning of the JDC was not included, such as a study using JDC clients to examine peer influence on drug use. Also excluded were process evaluations restricted to determining a JDC's adherence to the National Drug Court Institute and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' "16 strategies" without an assessment of barriers or facilitators of implementing these strategies, or the value of them. Systematic review methods. Meta-aggregation was the method used for this systematic review, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. This approach involved the extraction of study findings (i.e., a text summary or direct quote), the assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting the finding, and the categorization of the findings into conceptual groups. These conceptual groups were then subjected to thematic analysis using standard qualitative data analytic techniques to arrive at an interpretative summary of each grouping of findings. A credibility of evidence assessment (questionable, low, moderate, and high) was assigned to each interpretive summary statement, which reflected the highest quality assessment achieved by at least two findings that contributed to an interpretive statement. Findings. The 477 findings extracted from the 59 studies were aggregated into 14 broad conceptual categories that reflected different aspects of the juvenile drug court system. Forty interpretive statements were developed across these categories, which reflect a broad range of process issues. Most of these statements were rated as moderate (n = 10) or high (n = 21) in terms of credibility of evidence reflecting a moderately strong connection between the study finding and the quantitative or qualitative evidence. The bulk of these statements focused on family members as stakeholders in the JDC process; standards for ensuring accountability, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies; and various needs of JDC participants, such as mental health treatment. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the complexities of implementing the conceptually simple JDC model. Youth and their families arrive at a juvenile drug court with a range of needs that extend beyond the youth’s substance use and involvement in other delinquent behavior, including mental health needs, a history of trauma, and learning disabilities. Families may be prepared to effectively partner with the court to facilitate a youth’s engagement in treatment services and comply with court expectations. However, families may experience obstacles to this partnership, such as parental substance abuse, or they may actively work against the JDC process. Furthermore, JDCs exist within a broader institutional and social context and rely on services available within the community and on support from various stakeholders. The quality and effectiveness of these services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment) will directly affect outcomes for youth and their families. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Shelf Number: 144845 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Drug Treatment Programs Juvenile Drug Courts Juvenile Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Han, Woojae Title: Impact of Community Treatment and Neighborhood Disadvantage on Recidivism in Mental Health Courts Summary: The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of community treatment and neighborhood disadvantage on recidivism among offenders with mental health problems in Mental Health Courts (MHCs) and in traditional courts. Although treatment is believed to lead to reduced recidivism for offenders with mental illness, little research has been conducted for MHC participants. Further, neighborhood disadvantage are known to influence recidivism generally, but environmental factors have not been examined in the MHC context. Data from the MacArthur MHC study were analyzed. The sample includes 741 offenders with mental illness from four counties. Participants were interviewed at baseline and six months after and objective arrest data were collected. Multilevel modelling and propensity score weighting was used to investigate individual level (level 1) and neighborhood level (level 2) variances on recidivism and to control for selection bias. Neighborhood disadvantage data were obtained from the American Community Survey at U.S. Census Bureau, and linked with residential data from participants. Study results suggest that some of treatment variables have significant impact on arrest. For example, MHC participant with more substance abuse service were less likely to be arrest compared to those with less substance abuse service before the court enrollment. Both TAU and MHC participants has significant effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest before the court enrollment. After the court enrollment, only MHC participant continued to have effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest. In addition, MHC participant with higher treatment motivation were less likely to recidivate compared to those with lower treatment motivation after the court enrollment. The probability of recidivism remained statistically lower among the MHC than the TAU group after the court enrollment. Understanding treatment characteristics and neighborhood disadvantage associated with recidivism for offenders with mental illness can help to more efficiently target research, practice, and policy in the future. In addition, social work professionals should recognize themselves the importance of the treatment related variables and neighborhood disadvantage to provide, develop, and implement innovative interventions for offender with mental illness. Lastly, this research will shed new light into future interventions and/or policies that aim to reduce the recidivism for this difficult-to-treat population of offenders. Details: Albany, NY: University at Albany, 2016. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Shelf Number: 141247 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Mental Health Courts Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts Recidivism Socioeconomic Conditions and Crime

Author: Victoria Legal Aid Title: Care Not Custody: A new approach to keep kids in residential care out of the criminal justice system Summary: Children living in out-of-home care are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. Many have been exposed to multiple traumas from a young age resulting from family violence, substance abuse, neglect or abandonment and/or sexual or physical abuse. Unfortunately, as numerous studies have demonstrated, too many of these children are still ending up involved from a young age - often unnecessarily - in our criminal justice system. The over-representation of children from out-of-home care in our criminal justice system is a matter of longstanding concern to Victoria Legal Aid. A recent review of our child protection client data found that: • Almost one in three young people we assist with child protection matters who are placed in out-of-home care later returns to us for assistance with criminal charges; • Young people we assist placed in out-of-home care are almost twice as likely to face criminal charges as those who remain with their families; Young people we assist placed in out-of-home care are more likely than other children to be charged with criminal damage for property-related offending; Our practice experience suggests that this problem is particularly acute with respect to children placed in residential care. This is due at least in part to the continued practice in many residential facilities of relying on police to manage incidents of challenging behaviour by young people. While serious offending by young people may warrant a police response, we also see cases where police have been called to a residential facility to deal with behaviour by a young person that would be unlikely to come to police attention had it occurred in a family home. We have represented children from residential care who have received criminal charges for smashing a cup, throwing a sink plug or spreading food around a unit's kitchen. As the case studies in this report demonstrate, frequently children who may never have had a criminal charge prior to entering care, quickly accrue a lengthy criminal history due to a cycle of "acting out" followed by police responses which develops in a residential unit. The broader reforms to the residential care system being introduced by the Victorian Government provide an important opportunity to address this criminalisation of vulnerable young people. Plans already underway to significantly reduce the number of children placed in long-term residential care and introduce mandatory qualification and training requirements for staff represent big steps forward, but do not do enough to address this specific problem. The present expectation that care providers develop their own guidelines about responding to challenging behaviour and when police should be called leads inevitably to variable and inconsistent responses in the way children are treated. Further guidance, support and training for care providers are clearly needed about more therapeutic ways to manage challenging behaviour so as to minimise the need for police involvement in cases where there is no immediate danger to staff or other young people. In New South Wales and parts of the UK, this has been done through the adoption of protocols that apply across all residential care facilities and explicitly aim to reduce young peoples' contact with the criminal justice system. Such protocols, which have been developed in partnership with care providers and police, provide a clear and consistent structure for decision-making in residential units when a child exhibits challenging behaviour. Together with appropriate training for staff, they have been highly effective in reducing the numbers of offences recorded against children in residential care – in one UK county by as much as 66%. The adoption of a similar Protocol in Victoria would have clear benefits for both staff and young people living in residential care. It would provide staff with a structured process for responding to incidents which distinguishes between behaviour which is merely disruptive or confrontational versus situations that are dangerous for staff and other young people. It would ensure a consistent process across the 240 residential care units in Victoria so that all young people, regardless of geography, are treated equally. Finally, it would provide children and young people with a response that is therapeutic and based on principles of care. Details: Victoria, AUS: Victoria Legal Aid, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-care-not-custody-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-care-not-custody-report.pdf Shelf Number: 141330 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration At-Risk Youth Child Protection Juvenile Offenders Residential Care

Author: Victoria. Auditor General Title: Managing Community Correction Orders Summary: A community correction order (CCO) is a sentence imposed by a court that allows offenders to complete their sentences in a community setting. Offenders on CCOs may have to comply with specific conditions imposed by the courts, such as mandatory drug or alcohol treatment, and significant restrictions such as curfews and judicial monitoring. In this audit, we examined how effectively Corrections Victoria (CV) manages CCOs. We also looked at: the Department of Health and Human Services to assess how well it coordinates court-ordered programs with CV Victoria Police, to examine how well it exchanges information with CV about offenders on CCOs. Twelve recommendations are made in this report for CV, and one each for Victoria Police and the Department of Health and Human Services. Details: Melbourne: Auditor-General, 2017. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20170208-Community-Corrections/20170208-Community-Corrections.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20170208-Community-Corrections/20170208-Community-Corrections.pdf Shelf Number: 141340 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Corrections Sentencing

Author: Davidson, Cheryl Title: Evaluation of the Statewide "Enhanced" Drug Courts Offering Mental Health Services for Substance Abusing Offenders in Iowa Summary: Adult drug courts in five Iowa judicial districts were provided drug court enhancement funding in the fall of 2012 to integrate mental health services into the program. The purpose of the grant was to expand drug court eligibility, improve access to mental health services, enhance mental health service delivery, and improve client outcomes. A process and outcomes evaluation was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the mental health enhancement. Process Evaluation Drug court team members believed there was a need for mental health services and co-occurring disorders were prevalent however; participants with serious mental illnesses would fall outside the realm of what the drug courts could handle. One difficulty identified by staff was defining the primary cause of clients’ problems; whether substance abuse or mental health issues. Better screening tools and resources to help identify prevailing issues may improve the administration of services. Some respondents said their mental health coordinator, provided through enhancement funding, helped expand program eligibility by enabling the court to better deal with mental health issues. The coordinator provided advice to the team and other offenders in the court and some staff indicated this person was more trusted by offenders than other court/correctional personnel. Others indicated program barriers like funding cuts or having too many/few referrals limited inclusiveness, despite the added capacity. Outcome Evaluation Program completion, supervision revocation, recidivism, relapse, and substance abuse treatment were examined. Study groups included current drug court offenders during the grant period (Current DC), a subset of current drug court offenders who received grant-funded mental health services (DC MH), a comparison group of pre-enhancement drug court offenders (Historical DC), and a group of similar offenders on probation for drug offenses (Matched Probation). In a three-year tracking period, the Current DC group had lower recidivism rates compared to the Historical DC group. This could be due to the drug court enhancement or other changes to the program. Participants of the funded mental health services did not statistically differ from nonparticipants. Several confounding factors, discussed in the key findings, may have contributed. The outcomes varied by district, consistent with the discretion given to courts in administering services. Providing more guidance to the courts in defining the enhancement target population and administering mental health services may have provided more consistency across the state. The cost per mental health participant funded by the enhancement grant ranged from $1,258.21 in District 5, to $2,541.40 in District 6. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Justice Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 141367 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Courts Drug Offenders Mental Health Services Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Salib, Peter N. Title: Why Prison? An Economic Critique Summary: This Article argues that we should not imprison people who commit crimes. This is true despite the fact that essentially all legal scholars, attorneys, judges, and laypeople see prison as the sine qua non of a criminal justice system. Without prison, most would argue, we could not punish past crimes, deter future crimes, or keep dangerous criminals safely separate from the rest of society. Scholars of law and economics have generally held the same view, treating prison as an indispensable tool for minimizing social harm. But the prevailing view is wrong. Employing the tools of economic analysis, this Article demonstrates that prison imposes enormous but well-hidden societal losses. It is therefore a deeply inefficient device for serving the utilitarian aims of the criminal law system — namely, optimally deterring bad social actors while minimizing total social costs. The Article goes on to engage in a thought experiment, asking whether an alternative system of criminal punishment could serve those goals more efficiently. It concludes that there exist economically superior alternatives to prison available right now. The alternatives are practicable. They plausibly comport with our current legal rules and more general moral principles. They could theoretically be implemented tomorrow, and, if we wished, we could bid farewell forever to our sprawling, socially-suboptimal system of imprisonment. Details: Unpublished paper, 2017. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2017 at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2928219 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Salib, Peter N., Why Prison?: An Economic Critique (March 6, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2928219 Shelf Number: 144465 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Economic Analysis Economics of Crime Prisons Punishment

Author: Youth First Title: Breaking Down the Walls: Lessons Learned from Successful State Campaigns to Close Youth Prisons Summary: The Youth First Initiative has released a new report Breaking Down the Walls highlighting the achievements of youth, families, and advocates in six states to help advance a new vision of youth justice. The report serves as a playbook for activists working to end the juvenile justice systems’ reliance on incarceration throughout the nation. To accelerate the efforts to end harmful and inequitable youth incarceration, and to build on the work of the youth, families, and advocates who have fought successfully to close youth prisons, the Youth First Initiative looked at successful campaigns in six states, gathering lessons learned and strategies for success. "Breaking Down the Walls” features these multi-year strategies and campaigns: California's campaign to end abuse facility conditions, close youth prisons New York's No More Youth Jails & Empty Beds, Wasted Dollars campaigns Louisiana's Close Talulah Now! campaign Texas’ legislative campaign to reduce youth incarceration DC's campaign to close Oak Hill Singing the Blues for Mississippi's imprisoned children The strategies shared throughout this report are based on public documents as well as hours of conversations with youth, family members, and other advocates who generously gave their time to explain what they thought made their campaigns successful, as well as what they would do differently knowing what they do now. Details: Washington, DC: Youth First, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2017 at: http://www.youthfirstinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Breaking-Down-the-Walls.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.youthfirstinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Breaking-Down-the-Walls.pdf Shelf Number: 144559 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Inmates Juvenile Justice Reform

Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Valuing Youth Diversion: A toolkik for practitioners Summary: This toolkit is for any practitioner who is involved in, or considering creating, a point-of-arrest diversion scheme for young people in contact with the criminal justice system. What is youth diversion? Point-of-arrest youth diversion schemes are a way of addressing low-level criminal behaviour without putting young people through the formal criminal justice processing (either through out of court disposals or prosecution) that can result in a criminal conviction and other negative consequences. These schemes operate for under-18s in a variety of different models across the country. The evidence base For the majority of young people involved in crime, formal criminal justice processing makes them more likely to commit crime again. There is a strong evidence base, nationally and internationally, that clearly shows that youth diversion is a better way of addressing lowlevel criminal behaviour— multiple studies show that youth diversion can reduce crime, cut costs, and create better outcomes for young people. Effective practice Our work with practitioners over the past two years has clearly indicated that there is not a settled consensus on which specific youth diversion models and strategies work best. This publication seeks to provide you with as clear a view as possible about what the evidence suggests effective practices are: Details: London: The Centre, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Valuing-Youth-Diversion-A-Toolkit.pdf Year: 201 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Valuing-Youth-Diversion-A-Toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 144625 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Offenders

Author: Matz, Adam K. Title: Enhancing Community Supervision: A Unified Voice for Community Corrections Concerning Police-Probation/Parole Partnerships Summary: Formalized police-probation/parole partnerships reached prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s elevated by the perceived successes of Boston’s Operation Night Light, a component of the larger gun violence initiative known as CeaseFire (Braga, Kennedy, Waring, & Piehl, 2001; Corbett, 1998). Despite limited empirical evidence to confirm their impact on crime trends, Night Light programs were replicated elsewhere throughout the U.S. (International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 2007a, 2007b, 2012; Matz & Kim, 2013). At the time, federal funding was plentiful; however, by the mid-2000s, many programs such as Texas’ Project Spotlight would cease formal operations as the U.S. entered into a time of economic instability (Beto, 2005). Later research would show partnerships would continue informally, as they had existed previously for decades (Kim, Gerber, & Beto, 2010; Kim, Gerber, Beto, & Lambert, 2013; Kim, Matz, Gerber, Beto, & Lambert, 2013). While considerable research on partnerships had been levied concerning police officer perceptions and operations, few studies examined probation/parole perceptions, with one qualitative study conducted in an unnamed Pennsylvania county the exception (Alarid, Sims, & Ruiz, 2011). This study fills this gap in the empirical literature, utilizing the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) membership as a national proxy, by surveying probation/parole leaders and officers across the U.S. concerning their favorableness to partnerships with law enforcement in relation to a variety of important concepts derived from the empirical literature (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Hughes, 2000; Jones & Sigler, 2002; Kim et al., 2010; Parent & Snyder, 1999; Rojek, Smith, & Alpert, 2012; Weiss, Anderson, & Lasker, 2002). Results reveal, similar to the law enforcement literature (Kim et al., 2010), that informal information sharing partnerships are the most prevalent across probation/parole agencies. Those in leadership positions and in frontline officer positions displayed considerable interest in partnerships with law enforcement. Probation/parole leaders’ partnership favorability was influenced by partnerships' potential to reduce recidivism as well as buy in from agency executives and supervisors. Officers' partnership favorability was influenced by perceived leadership support, the notion that probationers/parolees benefit from a balance of services and accountability, and stalking horse concerns. Details: Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2016. 204p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2256&context=etd Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2256&context=etd Shelf Number: 144706 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Supervision Parole Partnerships Probation

Author: Penal Reform International Title: Global Prison Trends 2017 Summary: Global Prison Trends 2017 is the third edition in our annual Global Prison Trends series, which identifies the topical developments and challenges in criminal justice and prison policy and practice. It is published in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice, and features a foreword by HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol, UNODC Regional Goodwill Ambassador on the Rule of Law in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and the President of the Thailand Institute of Justice. Global Prison Trends 2017 explores: Trends in the use of imprisonment, such as pre-trial detention and life imprisonment Prison populations, such as the specific needs of women, foreign nationals and elderly prisoners Developments and challenges in prison management, including security issues and violence, prison labour, and violent extremism in prison The role of technology in the criminal justice system, such as e-learning and video visitation Prison alternatives, including the use of electronic monitoring and community service orders A Special Focus section looks at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in relation to criminal justice, using examples from a range of countries to highlight specific issues and summarising why criminal justice and criminal justice reform must play a part in achieving the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. Details: London: PRI, 2017. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 2, 2017 at: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Global_Prison_Trends-2017-Full-Report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Global_Prison_Trends-2017-Full-Report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 145844 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Life Imprisonment Pretrial Detention Prison Administration Prison Labor Prison Policy Prisons

Author: Collins, Susan E. Title: LEAD Program Evaluation: Criminal Justice and Legal System Utilization and Associated Costs Summary: -- Background: LEAD is a prebooking diversion program that offers low-level drug and prostitution offenders harm reduction-oriented case management and legal services as an alternative to incarceration and prosecution. -- Purpose: This report describes findings from a quantitative analysis comparing outcomes for LEAD participants versus "system-as-usual" control participants on criminal justice and legal system utilization (i.e., jail, prison, prosecution, defense) and associated costs. - Findings: - The cost of the LEAD program averaged $899 per person per month. However, these costs included program start-up and decreased to $532 per month towards the end of the evaluation. - Across nearly all outcomes, we observed statistically significant reductions for the LEAD group compared to the control group on average yearly criminal justice and legal system utilization and associated costs. - Jail bookings: Compared to the control group, LEAD program participants had 1.4 fewer jail bookings on average per year subsequent to their evaluation entry. - Jail days: Compared to the control group, the LEAD group spent 39 fewer days in jail per year subsequent to their evaluation entry. - Prison incarceration: Compared to the control group, the LEAD group had 87% lower odds of at least one prison incarceration subsequent to evaluation entry. - Misdemeanor and felony cases: There were no statistically significant LEAD effects on the average yearly number of misdemeanor cases. Compared to control participants, however, LEAD participants showed significant reductions in felony cases. - Costs associated with criminal justice and legal system utilization: From pre- to post-evaluation entry, LEAD participants showed substantial cost reductions (-$2100), whereas control participants showed cost increases (+$5961). -- Interpretation of findings: - LEAD program costs were commensurate with another supportive program for homeless individuals in King County. It should be noted that LEAD program costs will vary widely across communities depending on LEAD participant characteristics (e.g., prevalence of homelessness) and community factors (e.g., cost of living, Medicaid coverage). - Compared to system-as-usual controls, LEAD participants evinced meaningful and statistically significant reductions in criminal justice and legal system utilization and associated costs. -- Next Steps: This report is one in a series being prepared by the University of Washington LEAD Evaluation Team over a two-year period. The next report will be released in Winter 2015/2016 and will report on within-subjects changes among LEAD participants on psychosocial, housing and quality-of-life outcomes following their participation in LEAD. Details: Seattle: Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26401889/1437170937787/June+2015+LEAD-Program-Evaluation-Criminal-Justice-and-Legal-System-Utilization-and-Associated-Costs.pdf?token=yow6pMZWOpQJRF2rw5LaYUHpcO0%3D Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26401889/1437170937787/June+2015+LEAD-Program-Evaluation-Criminal-Justice-and-Legal-System-Utilization-and-Associated-Costs.pdf?token=yow6pMZWOpQJRF2rw5LaYUHpcO0%3D Shelf Number: 146088 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Drug Offenders Offender Diversion Programs Prostitutes Treatment Program

Author: Clifasefi, Seema L. Title: LEAD Program Evaluation: Describing LEAD Case Management in Participants' Own Words Summary: This report documents participants' experiences with and perceptions of LEAD case management in their own words. Participants characterized LEAD case management as a positive change from other social services they had experienced. They appreciated its client-centered, advocacy-oriented, harm reduction approach. Participants reported their engagement in the program had helped them meet their basic needs, improve their lives, and rectify their relationships with and perceptions of law enforcement. The client-provider relationship was cited as key to the case management program's success. Details: Seattle: Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center, 2016. 20. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27320150/1478294794537/Specific-Aim-4-FINAL_UW-LEAD-Evaluation-Qualitative-Report-11.1.16_updated.pdf?token=HCVfVDzSFEB1CV3SCKVg6NAwH8A%3D Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27320150/1478294794537/Specific-Aim-4-FINAL_UW-LEAD-Evaluation-Qualitative-Report-11.1.16_updated.pdf?token=HCVfVDzSFEB1CV3SCKVg6NAwH8A%3D Shelf Number: 146089 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Case Management Drug Offenders Offender Diversion Programs Prostitutes Treatment Programs

Author: Clifasefi, Seema L. Title: LEAD Program Evaluation: The Impact of LEAD on Housing, Employment and Income/Benefits Summary: This report describes findings for LEAD participants in terms of their housing, employment, and income/benefits both prior and subsequent to their referral to LEAD. Participants were significantly more likely to obtain housing, employment and legitimate income in any given month subsequent to their LEAD referral (i.e., during the 18-month follow-up) compared to the month prior to their referral (i.e., baseline). Details: Seattle: Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab University of Washington - Harborview Medical Center, 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27047605/1464389327667/housing_employment_evaluation_final.PDF?token=wDGLg%2FqS9%2F%2BU7RqNSghgCggBUkA%3D Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/27047605/1464389327667/housing_employment_evaluation_final.PDF?token=wDGLg%2FqS9%2F%2BU7RqNSghgCggBUkA%3D Shelf Number: 146091 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Offenders Employment Housing Offender Diversion Programs Prostitutes Treatment Programs

Author: Coen, Rena Title: Electronic Monitoring of Youth in the California Juvenile Justice System Summary: One of the most significant changes in the juvenile justice system in recent decades has been the proliferation of electronic monitoring of youth. Every state except New Hampshire has some form of juvenile electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring is used in a variety of contexts, including as a condition of pretrial release or probation. Yet despite the rapid proliferation of electronic monitoring of youth, there is little research about how this technology is used, whether it is effective, and how it affects the youth who are tracked. While electronic monitoring may be preferable to incarceration, juvenile electronic monitoring programs are still burdensome and should be utilized fairly and responsibly. In an effort to better understand how juvenile electronic monitoring programs operate in California, the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, in partnership with the East Bay Community Law Center, sought information from all 58 California counties about the terms and conditions youth must comply with while being monitored electronically. We are releasing the documents we obtained to the public, together with this analysis. This collection of documents and this report are a product of our collaboration with the East Bay Community Law Center, East Bay Children's Law Offices, and the Alameda County Public Defender's Office. These offices defend youth in Alameda County juvenile court. Attorneys and advocates at these organizations expressed concern that juvenile electronic monitoring requirements are unrealistically onerous, disproportionally impact youth of color, and undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system.6 In response, the Clinic investigated electronic monitoring conditions throughout California. This report offers a high-level overview of the terms and conditions commonly used in California. It also highlights written rules and policies that seem particularly burdensome on their face. Our inquiry is currently limited to the information available in the records we obtained, and does not explore how these programs operate in practice. We hope to move beyond the paper record to explore questions of implementation and practice in future work. We also hope that other scholars, practitioners, and advocates will do so as well. We are releasing all of the documents we obtained to the public to facilitate a better understanding of how juvenile electronic monitoring programs are formally structured. This is the first time anyone has comprehensively canvassed juvenile electronic monitoring program rules across an entire state. These documents will allow those working in the field of juvenile justice in California to see how their county's written program rules line up against those in effect elsewhere. All of these programs impose burdens upon youth and their families-no one county has created a model approach. Yet some rules in some counties impose program requirements that are substantially less restrictive and allow youth comparatively greater freedom and flexibility. There is a pressing need for research to evaluate whether electronic monitoring is effective in reducing recidivism rates or improving other outcomes for youth - and, if so, under what circumstances. There is a growing consensus that courts should rely on evidence-based practices when making decisions and formulating policy, and yet there is little evidence thus far demonstrating the effectiveness of juvenile electronic monitoring programs. California's juvenile justice system is expressly intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of youths. But without access to evidence-based program data, judges and policy-makers are unable to evaluate whether there are rehabilitative effects to these programs or whether these programs are excessively punitive. Moreover, these rules disproportionately affect families of color. Youth of color are overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile justice system.10 And once involved in the system, they are punished more harshly, and for longer, than other comparable youth. As a result, research about the specific ways that electronic monitoring programs disproportionately affect youth of color is urgently needed. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Law, Samuel Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2017 at: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Report_Final_Electronic_Monitoring.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Report_Final_Electronic_Monitoring.pdf Shelf Number: 146729 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Juvenile Offenders Racial Discrimination Youthful Offenders

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: The New Generation Electronic Monitoring Programme Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) has so far failed to achieve value for money with its management of the new generation electronic monitoring programme, which is estimated to cost L130 million by 2024-25, according to the latest report from the National Audit Office. The service itself is expected to cost L470 million between 2017-18 and 2024-25. The Ministry pursued an overly ambitious strategy which was not grounded in evidence, and failed to deliver against its vision. It has learned from its previous failings, and has begun to make necessary improvements. But major risks remain. The electronic monitoring of offenders has an important role in supporting rehabilitation in the community and as an alternative to prison. In 2011, the Ministry launched a programme to develop a new 'world-leading' ankle tag that combined radio frequency and GPS technology. It set out to procure the service using a new 'tower' delivery model, which incorporated contracts with four separate suppliers who would provide four different elements of the service, with their work pulled together by a contracted integrator. The NAO's report finds that the Ministry did not do enough to establish the case for a major expansion of location monitoring using GPS, and that the Ministry's bespoke requirements for new world-leading tags proved too ambitious. Furthermore, the planned timescale for the programme was unachievable. The Ministry initially allowed 15 months after signing the contract for the tags in August 2012 to develop, test, manufacture and deploy the new tags. Contracts, however, were not signed until July 2014 due to the discovery of overbilling by G4S and Serco, followed by two failed procurements for the tags. The Ministry has now appointed G4S as preferred bidder for the tags. It expects the new tags to be deployed from the end of 2018, completing roll-out six months later. This represents a total delay to the programme of five years. Five years after initiation, the programme has not delivered the intended benefits. The Ministry had expected the programme to reduce annual monitoring costs by at least 9% (L9 million) and potentially up to 30% (L30 million). The Ministry has so far spent around $60 million and remains reliant on the legacy services. However it has reported savings of 10.6% by negotiating with Capita, the new monitoring supplier, which has streamlined the existing operation over time. The NAO finds that the Ministry adopted a new high-risk and unfamiliar approach to the procurement, and failed to manage the implications. Furthermore, the Ministry also failed to anticipate and resolve the implications of its delivery model, which led to disputes with Capita and other suppliers. The Ministry's governance arrangements were weak, causing slow decision making and allowing internal disagreements to persist. External reviews noted a lack of accountability to Senior Responsible Owners and unhelpful disunity between operational, technical, commercial and programme staff. This was compounded by a lack of capacity and capability in the context of high competing demand from other projects. Following internal and external reviews of the programme in 2015 and 2016, the Ministry has taken action to address many of the issues. This includes changing approach to buying available off-the-shelf tags and bringing the integration function back in house. Leadership is now more stable and cohesive. In March 2017 the Infrastructure and Projects Authority assessed that the programme team had been reinvigorated following key staffing changes and that delivery confidence had improved. However significant risk remains. Achieving an effective new monitoring service without relying on a contracted integrator will require the Ministry to be much more closely involved than before in integrating the end-to-end service. It will have to build and sustain its technical and programme management capabilities to effectively perform this expanded role. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-new-generation-electronic-monitoring-programme.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-new-generation-electronic-monitoring-programme.pdf Shelf Number: 146759 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision

Author: Bushnell, Andrew Title: The Use of Prisons in Australia: Reform Directions Summary: One of the most important roles for government is the protection of people's lives, liberty and possessions through a well-functioning criminal justice system. Keeping people safe from violence gives them confidence to live, work and raise a family. And a key part of protecting the community is incarceration. Dangerous and antisocial criminals simply must be kept in isolation so that they cannot continue to harm others. This is the unique and defining function of prisons. This is not to say, however, that public safety can only be secured through incarceration, or that it is better secured as incarceration rises. In some cases, where the offender is nonviolent and of little risk to the community, an alternative punishment may better serve the interests of justice. Approximately 46 percent of the prison population are incarcerated for nonviolent offences. This may have been manageable in 1975 when there were only 8,900 people in jail. But now that number is over 36,000-an increase of more than 300 percent. Over this same period the total population grew by just 70 percent, resulting in the incarceration rate increasing to 196 per 100,000 adult population. This is higher than most other common law countries and the democracies of continental Europe (though much lower than the exceptional case of the United States). For many of these nonviolent offenders, home detention, fines, restitution orders, and other such punishments might be preferable, either because they reduce the risk of recidivism or escalation of criminal behaviour or because they better realise the interests of victims. In these circumstances, changing the punishment mix can improve community safety. Alternatives to prison also have the advantage of being less burdensome for the taxpayer. The costs of criminal justice in Australia are rising sharply. In 2014-15 alone governments spent over $15 billion on criminal justice. The growth in prison numbers has seen an attendant explosion in prison costs. Australia spends nearly $4 billion each year on the construction and operation of prisons. This equates to $300 per prisoner per day, or $110,000 per year. This adds up to approximately $1.8 billion annually to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. It is vital that criminal justice spending is subject to the same scrutiny as all other major government programs. This means investigating and implementing more cost-effective approaches to criminal justice - and this implies a reconsideration of the role of prisons. Unnecessary incarceration can also have downstream effects that lessen public safety and increase waste. Prisons have a poor record for rehabilitating criminals. Nationwide, 59 percent of prisoners have been previously incarcerated. Incarceration is associated with unemployment and worse lifetime economic outcomes. Imprisoning nonviolent, low-risk offenders can inadvertently turn them into hardened criminals who may never return to productive society. Criminal acts need to be punished. But where appropriate we should look to alternatives to prison that might better incentivise criminals to choose the right path in the future. This paper presents the case for reform to Australia's incarceration policies by describing the operation of criminal justice in Australia; investigating who is in the system; examining why those people are in the system in growing numbers; and suggesting directions toward an improved system. Details: Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2017 at: https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IPAReport-Criminal-Justice-1122016-1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IPAReport-Criminal-Justice-1122016-1.pdf Shelf Number: 146877 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Criminal Justice Expenditures Criminal Justice Reform Prisons

Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Evaluation of the Wayne County Mental Health Court. Year 5: Long‐term Outcomes and Cost Savings Wayne County, Michigan Summary: A Wayne County MHC was initially funded in December 2008 as a pilot program in a joint collaboration between the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), Michigan Department of Community Health, and Detroit Wayne Mental Health Authority (DWMHA). Evaluations conducted during the first three years of operation (2009-2011) focused on development, implementation, processes, and assessment of preliminary outcomes, as well as an initial cost analysis of the program. The fourth year of operation (2012) corresponded to the end of the pilot phase and assessment of the eight pilot MHCs as part of a statewide outcome evaluation. The fifth year of operation (2013) provided the opportunity to assess the long‐term outcomes and cost savings of the program as individuals involved with the program in 2009 - 2011 have been discharged or rejected from the program for one year or more. Between the inception of the MHC in April of 2009 and September 2013, nearly 300 individuals were screened for participation in the program. Of those screened, 199 individuals were admitted to and 91 were rejected from the MHC. At the time of this report, 50 individuals were actively engaged in the program and 149 were discharged. Of those discharged, 105 were discharged for more than one year, 40 successfully and 65 unsuccessfully. Those rejected from the MHC present an opportunity to compare outcomes and costs of MHC participants (Treatment Group) to similar individuals who did not participate in the MHC (Comparison Group). Of the 91 individuals rejected from MHC, 33 were excluded from analysis because the reason for rejection suggested they were dissimilar from the Treatment Group. Of the remaining 58, 45 individuals were rejected from MHC for more than one year. As a result, three groups were used to illustrate the long‐term outcomes and cost analysis: Successful (N=40), Unsuccessful (N=65), and Rejected (N=45). All three groups had similar characteristics at admission to/rejection from the MHC. The average age across all three groups was 37 years old and 50%-54% of each group was of minority status. There were no significant differences by mental health diagnosis, though co‐occurring substance use disorders were more common for the Treatment Group (86%-88%) than the Comparison Group (74%). The proportion of females was higher in the Treatment Groups (31%-33%) compared to the Comparison Group (16%). There were differences in terms of the assessed risk: the proportion of those in the Successful Group assessed as "high risk" overall and for violence was significantly lower than others. Despite similarities across the groups at admission/rejection, the Successful Group had better long‐term criminal justice and treatment outcomes. In terms of recidivism, only 18% of the Successful Group experienced any incarceration in the post‐MHC period compared to 69% (Unsuccessful) and 88% (Rejected), incurring just 10 days of incarceration compared to 153 (Unsuccessful) and 98 days (Rejected). Similarly, the Successful Group demonstrated optimal response in terms of mental health treatment: the average number of low‐level services (e.g. group/individual sessions, med reviews) increased post‐MHC, indicating sustained engagement, while high‐level services (e.g. hospitalization, crisis residential) decreased.�Reduced criminal justice involvement and high‐level treatment need, translated to cost savings for members of the Treatment Group. Applying unit costs to standard transactions incurred by members of the Treatment and Comparison Groups in the post‐MHC period, a cost savings of $22,865 per successful participant and $7,741 per unsuccessful participant as compared to those rejected by the MHC. The driving factor in the cost savings between the groups are victimization costs. Extrapolating these costs across all participants of the MHC, yields a total savings of $1,417,740 for those discharged or rejected from the MHC for more than one year to date. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147021 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Cost-Benefit Analysis Mental Health Courts Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts

Author: San Francisco. Office of the Controller. City Services Auditor Title: Adult Probation Department Reentry Division CASC Program Analysis Summary: In preparation for the San Francisco Adult Probation Department's (APD) upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) for reentry services, APD requested that the Controller's Office, City Performance Unit, conduct a program assessment of services provided at the Community Assessment and Services Center (CASC). The CASC, which opened in June 2013, is a one-stop reentry center that bridges APD probation supervision with comprehensive services including case management, cognitive behavioral interventions, employment, education, barrier removal, health care enrollment and income benefits acquisition assistance. City Performance developed an analytical approach to assess reentry services at the CASC. The approach consisted of the following four elements: 1. Research on evidence-based practices in the field of reentry services and other related fields. 2. Benchmarking and best practice interviews with peer probation systems that share a commitment to implementing evidence-based practices. 3. Interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders from APD, the current CASC vendor - Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA), the Department of Public Health (DPH), the Human Services Agency (HSA) and partner organizations that provide on-site and off-site support. 4. Interviews with CASC clients. Based on this assessment, City Performance found several areas where CASC service provision could be enhanced to strengthen adherence to evidence-based practices and improve client outcomes. The recommendations included in this report reflect findings based on research done from July to September of 2016. New information gathered outside of the original time period can be found in footnotes throughout the report. Stakeholders report that San Francisco has a challenging reentry environment due to a large number of high risk probationers with high rates of homelessness, mental health issues and drug addiction. In this environment, the CASC has struggled to motivate clients to maintain the necessary attendance levels that allow for many evidence-based practices to have an impact on recidivism rates. Furthermore, City Performance found other areas where the CASC could improve adherence to best practices in the field including during case planning, client tracking, and mental health and substance abuse support. Finally, the CASC has struggled to maintain a consistent and effective data tracking system across programs which has affected its ability to monitor program performance and measure impact. The first three years of the CASC focused on initiating a wide array of new community services while aligning law enforcement and support services. The recommendations in this report can serve as a guide for Adult Probation Department to deepen the work of the CASC as it matures as the cornerstone of reentry services in San Francisco. This report provides six high level recommendations based on findings from City Performance research, interviews, and focus groups that APD can incorporate into the upcoming RFP for reentry services. City Performance recommends that the CASC adopt the following practices: 1. Increase client engagement hours. a. Enhance intrinsic motivation through using the therapeutic community model. b. Require case managers to spend more time with clients outside of the CASC. c. Increase case manager engagement for clients in custody. d. Require case managers to assume intake responsibilities at the CASC. e. Choose dosage targets and use in probation plans. 2. Ensure that CASC case planning and services address the criminogenic needs of clients. a. Require alignment between Individual Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan (ITRP), Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessment and all other client reentry planning. b. Host joint training sessions for CASC case managers, APD staff and subcontractors to ensure that all parties have a uniform understanding of program goals. c. Provide CASC case managers with greater access to the client's COMPAS assessment. d. Provide greater access for subcontractors to the criminogenic and mental health needs of their clients before the client accesses their services. e. Require case managers to attend all collaborative meetings about clients, including case conferences and bi-weekly client case management meetings. 3. Enhance the CASC's capacity to handle clients with mental health and substance abuse issues. a. Expand and streamline CASC capacity for handling clients with mental health issues. b. Hire case managers that have more experience handling mental health cases. c. Train current case managers in de-escalation tactics and mental health awareness. d. Collaborate with county jails, APD Probation Officers, and CASC case management to develop a standard process for transferring clients with mental health issues to ensure continuous care. 4. Develop and implement an effective data reporting system. a. Create and maintain a data dictionary. b. Track and analyze client level dosage data. c. Track data points that give information on program performance. 5. Conduct annual fidelity assessments of the CASC. 6. Long Term: Create specialized client tracks for service provision. a. Create client tracks based on criminogenic risk level. b. Pursue programming by gender as outlined in the Women's Community Justice Reform Blueprint and consider creating client tracks by gender. c. Create client tracks by age. Details: San Francisco: Office of the Controller, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2017 at: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Adult%20Probation%20Department%20Reentry%20Division%20CASC%20Program%20Analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 147432 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Offender Supervision Prisoner Reentry Probation Probationers

Author: Roodman, David Title: The impacts of incarceration on crime Summary: When it comes to locking people up, the United States is a world champion. In 1970, 196,000 people resided in American prisons, and another 161,000 in jails, which worked out to 174 inmates per 100,000 people. In 2015, 1.53 million people languished in US prisons and 728,000 in jails, or 673 per 100,000. Only North Korea, among major nations, may surpass the US in this regard. Such statistics are almost always invoked and graphed when initiating discussions of criminal justice reform. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict them afresh with photographs taken at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. That fortress-like complex is now a museum, a window onto a criminal justice reform movement of some two centuries ago that sought to replace corporal punishment with solitary confinement, which was seen as humane and rehabilitative. The Open Philanthropy Project has joined a latter-day criminal justice reform movement. It too is motivated by the belief that something is wrong with the state's use of punishment to combat crime. Something is wrong, in other words, with those pictures. Higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, along with the "war on drugs," have imposed great costs on taxpayers, as well as on inmates, their families, and their communities. Yet even though the 59% per-capita rise in incarceration between 1990 and 2010 accompanied a 42% drop in FBI-tracked "index crimes," researchers agree that putting more people behind bars added modestly, at most, to the fall in crime. Yet even if rising incarceration has not been a major factor behind falling crime, it might still have been a factor - and enough so that it ought to give pause to those pushing to reverse the rise. This report works to check that possibility, by reviewing empirical research on the impacts of incarceration on crime. It asks whether decarceration should be expected to increase or decrease crime. With the Open Philanthropy Project making grants for criminal justice reform, this review of the research is an act of due diligence. Any discussion of the impacts of incarceration should specify the alternative: incarceration as opposed to what? This review focuses mainly on studies that compare incarceration to ordinary freedom or traditional supervised released (probation and parole), as distinct from alternatives such as in-patient drug treatment and restorative justice conferences. Those options may offer promise, and deserve more research and evidence reviews. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, if incarceration falls substantially in this country, ordinary and traditional supervised release will probably emerge as the main alternatives. That appears to have been the case in trend-setting California after decarceration reforms in 2011 and 2014. Thus this review remains highly relevant to likely policy choices. For manageability, this review restricts it to "high-credibility" studies: ones that exploit randomized experiments, or else "quasi-experiments" that arise incidentally from the machinations of the criminal justice system and ideally produce evidence nearly as compelling as experiments do. Further, in distilling generalizations and performing cost-benefit analysis, the review relies more heavily on the eight studies that I could replicate by accessing the underlying data and computer code. Replication and subsequent reanalysis of these eight revealed significant econometric concerns in seven and led to major reinterpretations of four. That experience led to an unexpected conclusion about the conduct of social science generally. For it raised doubts about the rest of the high-credibility studies included in this review, the ones that could not be so closely examined. It forced me to conclude that even the best studies on incarceration and crime are less reliable than they appear. And, like a car whose brakes fail once, this raises questions about the reliability of published social science generally. To put that more constructively, the scrutiny that research undergoes to appear in social science journals falls short of the optimum for policymaking. Perhaps the gap needs to be filled outside the normal academic research process, such as through reviews like this one. Details: San Francisco: Open Philanthropy Project, 2017. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf Shelf Number: 147466 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Inmates Mass Incarceration Prison Population Prisoners

Author: Nellis, Mike Title: Standards and Ethics in Electronic Monitoring: Handbook for professionals responsible for the establishment and the use of Electronic Monitoring Summary: The handbook is conceived as a policy guide and a management tool for professionals responsible for the establishment and the use of electronic monitoring. The text highlights important ethical standards in line with the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM/Rec (2014)4 on electronic monitoring and other Recommendations in the field of prisons and probation, and suggests responses to a number of ethical dilemmas. The handbook is a result of a multilateral meeting on electronic monitoring, held in Strasbourg in November 2014, as part of the co-operation activities in the penitentiary field implemented by the Criminal Law Co-operation Unit. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: https://rm.coe.int/handbook-standards-ethics-in-electronic-monitoring-eng/16806ab9b0 Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: https://rm.coe.int/handbook-standards-ethics-in-electronic-monitoring-eng/16806ab9b0 Shelf Number: 147538 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Electronic Tagging Offender Supervision

Author: Nochajski, Thomas H. Title: Hillside Children's Center: Livingston County Youth Court and Community Services Evaluation Summary: From 2008 to 2010, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Social Work conducted an evaluation of the Hillside Children's Center - Community Service Livingston County Youth Court (LCYC) program. Analyses focused on the recidivism (readmission) rates of children ages 12-17 who participated in their program. A particular strength of this evaluation is the use of a mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data elements. Additionally, the ability to integrate research and clinical practice with client outcomes provides an added strength to this evaluation, ultimately building the knowledge base in an effort to more appropriately meet the needs of the children and adolescents that Hillside Children's Center serves. Based on the initial goals and the interest in having enough allotted time to track follow-up recidivism rates, prospective data was not collected for this evaluation. Beginning in the year 2006, participants entered the LCYC and continued receiving services until 2008. Following discharge, the year of 2009 serves as the follow-up period for this evaluation. With a vast amount of rich data, pretest information utilized for this evaluation was collected by Hillside Children's Center which included program participant information. Additionally, information was collected from Livingston County Probation (Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument [YASI] Recidivism information) and Livingston County Department of Social Services (LC-DSS) (Placement information). The qualitative data collection component of this evaluation consisted of either a face-to-face or a telephone interview, and included multiple sources: LCYC participants and their parents, LCYC volunteers and their parents, LC Probation, and Hillside Children's Center staff. Due to constraints based on the relatively low rates of recidivism and placement, the available size of the sample was quite small, which perhaps reduces the power to detect significant differences between the groups, essentially elevating the risk for Type I errors. As a result, information on marginal trends (p<.25) is also presented. Because of limited power and the increased chance of causality related to a random occurrence, evaluators considered nearly all other potential elements or variables that may help improve existing Hillside Children's Center programs, with the understanding that these factors will need to be evaluated further. This information could perhaps point to areas of future investigation, in addition to potentially saving time, effort, and monetary costs associated with future data collection. The current evaluation utilized data from 120 participants, of which 55 were LCYC participants and 65 were Community Service Only (CSO) participants. To increase the accuracy of comparisons and results, the two groups were matched on age and gender. Although evaluators were unable to locate a true control group of juvenile offenders who did not experience LCYC or community services in Livingston County, which is the reason for use of the CSO as the comparison, information was found for comparison groups from various other states that were included in an evaluation of teen courts from 2002. While not ideal, the addition of these comparison groups in this evaluation does provide some useful information concerning recidivism among youth. Lastly, evaluators also considered cost-effectiveness of the LCYC program using recidivism and placement rates as the results or outcomes of interest. For purposes of this executive summary, the Livingston County Youth Court group will be referred to as LCYC, and the Community Services Program Only group will be referred to as CSO. Details: Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Shelf Number: 147547 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Services Juvenile Court Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Recidivism Youth Court

Author: Baldwin, Molly Title: From Evidence-Based Practices to a Comprehensive Intervention Model for High-Risk Young Men: The Story of Roca Summary: Researchers of criminal behavior are taking a more data-driven approach to community corrections. Rather than focusing solely on professional experience or anecdotal successes - key factors that often drive public policy in social services - they are identifying evidence-based practices that rely on empirical research and produce measurable outcomes. The challenge for providers is to bridge the gap between theoretical best practices and practicable intervention models that reduce recidivism rates and keep communities safe. One organization that is finding success in bridging this gap is Massachusetts-based Roca, Inc. Established in 1988, Roca has worked with high-risk young people in various communities across Massachusetts. Roca has served thousands of young men and women facing multiple challenges, including young parents, immigrants, youth involved in gangs, and other at-risk young people. Along the way, though, Roca witnessed a troubling reality: Despite its commitment to help youth stay out of harm's way, and the fact that individuals were attending programming in large numbers and the organization was thriving, the same individuals were in trouble again days, weeks, or months later. As a result, Roca leadership grew less confident that it was doing more good than harm. It started searching for a different path. Around this time, meta-analysis of practices in the field, conducted by the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2002, identified a set of eight methods proven successful in reducing recidivism. Roca found the move toward evidence-based practices (EBP) refreshing: These practices were based on specific principles that had been proven successful based on data, rather than anecdotes, and the idea that some interventions work significantly better than others was appealing. The challenge, though, was to develop a comprehensive intervention model based on these practices and to transform the organizational culture into one that embraces data and evidence. Over more than a decade, Roca has undergone tremendous changes. The organization has rigorously examined its practices, collected and analyzed data, changed its interactions with other institutions, and incorporated only those practices that were proven effective. The result of these efforts is Roca's High-Risk Young Men Intervention Model - a four-year, non-mandated model dedicated to serving 17- to 24-year-old men at the highest risk of future incarceration. The Model was implemented in 2011 and now operates in four sites, serving 21 communities across Massachusetts. Roca's rigorous data track ing allows the organization to measure its success in reducing recidivism and increasing employment among high-risk young men. Roca's baseline is the existing criminal justice system outcomes pertaining to young adults: In Massachusetts, 76 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds released from Houses of Corrections are rearraigned within three years (Mosehauer et al., 2016), and nationally, 78 percent of those released from state or federal prison at the ages of 18 to 24 are rearrested within three years (Schiraldi, Western, and Bradner, 2015). Roca's outcomes are dramatically different. Roca retains 84 percent of participants annually, despite the fact that these are high-risk young people who are not ready, willing, or able to participate in programming. After completing the first two years of the program, participants significantly reduce their criminal behaviors: 93 percent are not rearrested, 95 percent are not reincarcerated, and 88 percent of those on probation comply with their conditions. In addition, graduates demonstrate significant employment gains: Although 83 percent of participants come to Roca with no employment history, 84 percent of those enrolled longer than 21 months are placed in a job; 92 percent of them keep the job longer than three months, and 87 percent keep it for six months or more. This paper focuses on the gap between research- and theory-based practices and a fully functioning intervention model, and how Roca has worked to bridge this gap and achieve the above-mentioned outcomes. Part I reviews the eight evidence-based practices in community corrections as identified by CJI and NIC. Part II explores how Roca learned of these principles and how it worked internally to integrate them and develop its Intervention Model. Part III explains Roca's Intervention Model and revisits the eight evidence-based practices, explaining how each one is implemented in the Model. The conclusion draws some lessons from Roca's work with evidence-based practices and suggests that Roca's Model is an alternative to traditional community corrections. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/NTCC_Evidence-based_practices_final_laser_8-28-17_508_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147679 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Criminal Justice Policy Evidence-Based Practices Recidivism Young Adult Offenders

Author: Wang, Joanna JJ Title: Intensive corrections orders versus short prison sentence: A comparison of re-offending Summary: Aim: To compare reoffending rates between those who received an intensive correction order (ICO) and those who received short prison sentence (less than two years). Method: Offenders' demographic characteristics, index offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties, LSI-R score and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using logistic regression model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, the effect of penalty choice on re-offending was estimated. Doubly robust estimation and bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable were also used to address potential model misspecification and endogeneity of penalty assignment. As a sensitivity analysis, separate modelling was performed for offenders who were in medium to high risk categories and the prison group was restricted to those with 6 months or less fixed term. Results: There was a 11%-31% reduction in the odds of re-offending for an offender who received an ICO compared with an offender who received a prison sentence of up to 24 months. The bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable did not reveal a significant effect or evidence of endogeneity. Conclusion: These results further strengthen the evidence base suggesting that supervision combined with rehabilitation programs can have a significant impact on reoffending rates Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 207: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Shelf Number: 147729 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-based Corrections Intensive Supervision Recidivism Reoffending

Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Keeping Kids and Parents Together: A Healthier Approach to Sentencing in Massachusetts Summary: More than 800,000 parents are incarcerated across the US - a common practice that tears families apart, hurts children, and harms the health of entire communities. In this report, we evaluate the health and equity impacts of Massachusetts Senate Bill S770. If passed, this bill would expand the ability to set community-based sentences for parents. Community-based sentencing is a healthier and fiscally responsible alternative. The benefits of allowing incarcerated parents to stay with or have more contact with their children are tremendous. Parents are more likely to succeed at treatment for substance use disorders and less likely to return to prison. By staying connected with their parents, children have the opportunity to experience healthy development and attachment, which contributes to good mental health and fewer behavioral issues. Community-based sentencing also decreases costs to prisons and jails and keeps parents connected to the workforce. Youth of color are more likely to experience their parent getting locked up. As a result of the racial inequities in the criminal legal system in the US, Black children are nine times more likely and Latinx children are three times more likely than White children to have a parent in prison. Kids with incarcerated parents are at risk of facing a variety of physical, mental, and behavioral health issues throughout the rest of their lives as a direct result of separation from their parent due to incarceration. In fact, this type of child-parent separation is classified as a specific type of trauma: an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Across Massachusetts, about 5,665 children are separated from a parent due to incarceration. Mothers and grandmothers bear the burden at home. When a father is incarcerated, his children's mother remains as the primary caretaker 90% of the time. When a mother is incarcerated, her children are often displaced from their homes and frequently placed in the care of their grandmother. In both of these situations, mothers and grandmothers face the additional financial burden and emotional toll of a single parent home. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2017. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2017 at: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/KeepingMAKidsParentsTogetherHealthier_2017.09.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/KeepingMAKidsParentsTogetherHealthier_2017.09.pdf Shelf Number: 148134 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Children of Prisoners Community-Based Sentencing Families of Inmates Family Engagement

Author: Gobeil, Renee Title: Residential Facilities: Offender Profile and Review of the Literature Summary: Releasing offenders to the community gradually and with supervision leads to better public safety outcomes. In some cases, offenders' return to the community is facilitated through a period of residence in a community-based residential facility, which acts as a bridge between a federal institution and the community. The Correctional Service of Canada makes extensive use of these facilities, and as such, in order to allow a better understanding of this population and potentially inform operational practice, the profile of offenders residing in community-based residential facilities - including those on day parole and with residency conditions - was examined. A complementary review of literature on the effectiveness of residence in such facilities was also undertaken. In the first examination, all offenders in the community at the end of March 2010 (N = 7,339) and March 2014 (N = 7,372) were profiled. Analyses focused on the differences between offenders on day parole, those with residency conditions, and those who were not residing in community-based residential facilities, as well as on differences over time. In keeping with expectations, those with residency conditions tended to have more limited community stability, more extensive criminal histories, and be assessed as presenting more elevated risk across a variety of markers. The proportion of offenders with residency conditions and on LTSOs was greater in 2014 than in 2010, but other differences over the five year period were modest. By contrasting findings from this study with those of one conducted a decade ago, a slightly broader lens can be applied to the question of changes over time. This contrast demonstrated that, compared to in 2003, offenders in community-based residential facilities in 2014 presented more elevated levels of static risk (i.e., risk as measured by criminal history and offence severity). In the second stage, the international literature on residential facilities was reviewed to gather evidence regarding their effectiveness. Though the existing research is limited in quantity and cannot always be easily generalized to a Canadian context, residential facilities seems to contribute to reduced rates of re-offending, as well as a number of other positive outcomes. These effects are most pronounced when considering higher-risk offenders; indeed, some research suggests that targeting lower-risk offenders may lead to more negative outcomes. The literature also demonstrates that pairing community-based programs with residency, again, if appropriate according to the level of risk, may also be beneficial. Overall, findings align very well with the broader risk-need-responsivity framework guiding much of CSC's case management, including recognition that interventions are most appropriately targeted at higher-risk offenders. Both policy and legislation direct that residency conditions are to be reserved for the highest-risk offenders, who, without such a condition, would present an undue risk to society and be likely to commit a violent offence. Moreover, CSC makes available community-based correctional and other programs to offenders whose risk levels support the requirement; these programs may be offered directly through the CBRF or separately. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: 2015 no. R-360: Accessed November 17, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-360-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-360-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 148210 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Community-Based Corrections Day Parole

Author: Pelletier, Elizabeth Title: Assessing the Impact of South Carolina's Parole and Probation Reforms Summary: In 2009, South Carolina's criminal justice system was in crisis, facing rising costs and a rapidly growing prison population. There were 24,612 people serving time in the state's prisons, and the prison population was expected to grow by 3,200 over the next five years-at a cost of $458 million to the state. Meanwhile, the state's violent crime rates were among the worst in the nation and recidivism was on the rise. In response, South Carolina legislators enacted comprehensive criminal justice reform to strengthen public safety, implement fair and effective sentencing policies, and control the growth of corrections costs. In 2010, Senate Bill (SB) 1154, the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act, was signed into law by Governor Mark Sanford. Policy changes enacted by SB 1154 included restructuring penalties for certain violent, drug, and property offenses; expanding the amount of earned time available to people in prison; broadening eligibility for probation and parole; mandating postrelease supervision; and enhancing the use of administrative responses to technical violations of supervision terms. This brief focuses on South Carolina's use of administrative responses to parole and probation violations. These administrative actions are important alternatives to incarceration for people who violate the terms of their supervision, and increased use of these responses was projected to generate significant cost savings for the state. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2017. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 5, 2017 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89871/south_carolina_jri_policy_assessment_final_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89871/south_carolina_jri_policy_assessment_final_1.pdf Shelf Number: 148704 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform Justice Reinvestment Parole Probation

Author: Abt Associates Title: The Relationship between Prison Length of Stay and Recidivism: A Study using Regression Discontinuity with Multiple Break Points Summary: Imprisonment is an expensive sanction. Justifying its use often rests partly on its presumed utility to reduce post-release reoffending. Most scholarship separates the research on imprisonment effects into two subsets: imprisonment in contrast to an alternative sanction and prison length of stay (Nagin, Cullen, Jonson, 2009; Smith, Goggin, and Gendreau, 2002). If prison is expected to deter offenders from future reoffending, then how does it compare to a sentence of probation, home confinement or other alternative sanction? Likewise, if prison is chosen as a preferred sanction, can a deterrent effect of imprisonment be achieved with a shorter sentence? This paper capitalizes on federal sentencing structure to evaluate this latter question: Does increasing the length of prison increase or decrease recidivism. Few studies of how prison length affects recidivism meet rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental requirements (Nagin, Cullen and Jonson, 2009). As of 2009, Nagin et al. had identified two experiments and three matching studies. There have only been a few studies of length of stay using strong quasi-experimental designs since the Nagin et al., 2009 review. We cover these in our literature review. A second goal of this study is to measure length of stay treatment heterogeneity: Does the effect of increasing the length of prison differ across individuals? The federal sentencing structure once again provides this opportunity. Scholars have argued the effect of prison may depend on a host of factors (Mears, Cochran, and Cullen, 2014; Nagin, Cullen and Jonson, 2009; National Research Council, 2014). Nagin, Cullen, and Jonson (2009) propose that imprisonment effects may depend on characteristics of the offender, institution, and sentence. The National Academy of Sciences, reporting on the causes and consequences of mass incarceration (NRC, 2014), discusses potential variations in punishment effects that depend on characteristics of individuals, social context, and units of analysis. As an example, the NAS report cites the research on the stigma of a criminal record on job seeking (Pager, 2007; Pager and Quillian, 2005) affecting black more than white applicants. Incarceration treatment heterogeneity is important because as the NRC report indicates, unpacking treatment effect dependence may lead to an explanation of why we observe outcome variations across imprisonment studies found in all the systematic reviews (Nagin, Cullen, Jonson, 2009; Smith, Goggin, and Gendreau, 2002; Villettaz, Killias, and Zoder, 2006). Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 5, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/251410.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/251410.pdf Shelf Number: 148711 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Imprisonment Length of Imprisonment Recidivism Sentencing

Author: O'Hara, Kate Title: Examining The Comparative Use, Experience And Outcomes Of Community Service Orders As Alternatives To Short Prison Sentences in Ireland Summary: Background: In Ireland, under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) 1983 Act, a community service order (CSO) must only be imposed if a custodial sentence has first been considered. In 2011, an amendment to the 1983 Act was made, requiring courts to consider imposing CSOs as alternatives to prison sentences of less than one year. This amendment sought to address the underutilisation of community service, decrease the number of short-term committals, and benefit offenders and communities. Methodology: Administrative data from the Irish Prison and Probation Services pertaining to all cases sentenced to a short-term of imprisonment or CSO between 2011 and 2012, were linked with criminal history and re-arrest data from An Garda Siochana, and comparative analysis conducted. Qualitative interviews with CSO recipients and short-term prisoners were also completed (n = 21). The aims of this analysis were: to investigate the use of CSOs as alternatives to short prison sentences; to compare offender perceptions and experiences of completing these alternative criminal justice sanctions; and to examine comparative recidivism outcomes, using a matched sample approach. Results: In Ireland the CSO is operating as a non-custodial alternative in only some cases. A large proportion of first-time offenders received community service. Those convicted of a drug offence were more likely to receive a CSO, suggesting up-tariffing in some of these cases. Interview participants did not considered the CSO as truly interchangeable with imprisonment, but as a sanction for those considered redeemable. Further, it seems judges operate in a punitive safe space when imposing CSOs. A null effect was detected when re-arrest outcomes for CSOs and short terms of imprisonment were compared. Conclusions: Enhancements in policy, practice, and research are required if reforms aimed at decreasing the use of imprisonment are to be successfully introduced, and community service considered an acceptable substitute to imprisonment. Details: Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology, 2016. 430p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=appadoc Year: 2016 Country: Ireland URL: https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=appadoc Shelf Number: 148786 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Service Orders

Author: Irish Penal Reform Trust Title: Community Service in Ireland: A qualitative exploration of one alternative to short-term imprisonment Summary: Our Discussion Paper Community Service in Ireland, is based on the doctoral research of Dr O'Hara. IPRT believes that Ireland's penal policy should be focused on non-custodial responses to crime, with rehabilitation and social integration at its centre. The paper outlines key points regarding the use of community service, such as: Community service is under-utilised in Ireland as an alternative to imprisonment. There is a clear variability in the use of community service orders across court jurisdictions in Ireland. Community service can provide offenders with an opportunity to improve self-esteem, to gain a strong daily routine, and to maintain links with family. There is a strong association between community service and future work or training prospects. Short periods of imprisonment can have long-lasting negative effects, including disruption to family relationships, contact with social or community services, and loss of employment. The IPRT Discussion Paper also outlines 20 key recommendations as to how community service could be better utilised in Ireland. If implemented, IPRT believes that these recommendations would help promote consistency in the use of CSOs as an alternative to imprisonment nationally, enhance public confidence in its effectiveness as a response to offending behaviour, and achieve the full potential of non-custodial alternatives. Examples of these recommendations are as follows: The principle of imprisonment as a last resort should be enshrined in legislation, with a mandatory provision that judges must provide written reasons where a custodial sentence of less than 12 months is imposed instead of a non-custodial alternative. The Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill should be progressed. A comprehensive review of the operation of community service at national level should be undertaken in order to evaluate its current effectiveness. The average time taken to complete CSOs in each court jurisdiction should be monitored and published. This is important if the credibility of the sanction as a true alternative to custody is to be enhanced. Gender-specific non-custodial community-service orders, which take into account the complex needs of women who offend, should be developed and made available on a nationwide basis. Details: Dublin: IPRT, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: IPRT Discussion Paper: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Discussion_Paper_-_Community_Service_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Discussion_Paper_-_Community_Service_in_Ireland_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 148787 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Service Orders

Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Keeping Kids and Parents Together: A Healthier Approach to Sentencing in Tennessee Summary: More than 800,000 parents are incarcerated across the US - a common practice that tears families apart, hurts children, and harms the health of entire communities. In this report, we evaluate the health and equity impacts of Tennessee House Bill 0825 and Senate Bill 0919. If passed, these bills would expand the ability to set community-based sentences for parents. Community-based sentencing is a healthier and fiscally responsible alternative. The benefits of allowing incarcerated parents to stay with or have more contact with their children are tremendous. Parents are more likely to succeed at treatment for substance use disorders and less likely to return to prison. By staying connected with their parents, children have the opportunity to experience healthy development and attachment, which contributes to good mental health and fewer behavioral issues. Community-based sentencing also decreases costs to prisons and jails and keeps parents connected to the workforce. Youth of color are more likely to experience their parent getting locked up. As a result of the racial inequities in the criminal legal system in the US, Black children are nine times more likely and Latino/a children are three times more likely than White children to have a parent in prison. Kids with incarcerated parents are at risk of facing a variety of physical, mental, and behavioral health issues throughout the rest of their lives as a direct result of separation from their parent due to incarceration. In fact, this type of child-parent separation is classified as a specific type of trauma: an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Across Tennessee, about 19,198 children are separated from a parent due to incarceration. In Tennessee, about 1 of every 10 children has had an incarcerated parent. Mothers and grandmothers bear the burden at home. When a father is incarcerated, his children's mother remains as the primary caregiver 90% of the time. When a mother is incarcerated, her children are often displaced from their homes and frequently placed in the care of their grandmother. In both of these situations, mothers and grandmothers face the additional financial burden and emotional toll of a single parent home. Incarceration is harmful to individual and community health. Prison and jail environments are not conducive to family visits. In addition, most mothers and fathers in state and federal prisons are held over 100 miles from their homes, creating significant barriers for kids to visit their parents. Incarcerated parents who aren't able to maintain a connection with their children are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and hopelessness, be re-incarcerated, and lose parental rights. In communities targeted by mass incarceration, the loss of working adults and parents to jails and prisons fuels the cycle of poverty without reducing crime or increasing public safety. Alternative sentencing holds parents accountable and keeps families together. Research shows that community-based sentencing creates a supportive environment where parents can heal and be held accountable for the consequences of their conviction - while staying with or near their kids. These sentencing alternatives can also properly address substance use, mental health issues, and homelessness, instead of criminalizing behaviors that merit public health interventions. These community-based alternatives do not have to be residential, but they do have to be funded external to the criminal legal system. This report highlights Tennessee programs that could serve parents sentenced to community alternatives under this proposed legislation. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HIP_PrimaryCare-TN-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HIP_PrimaryCare-TN-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149611 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Children of Prisoners Community-Based Sentencing Families of Inmates Family Engagement

Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Keeping Kids and Parents Together: A Healthier Approach to Sentencing in Louisiana Summary: More than 800,000 parents are incarcerated across the US - a common practice that tears families apart, hurts children, and harms the health of entire communities. In this report, we evaluate the health and equity impacts of Primary Caretaker legislation in the state of Louisiana. If passed, this legislation would expand the ability to set community-based sentences for parents. Community-based sentencing is a healthier and fiscally responsible alternative. The benefits of allowing incarcerated parents to stay with or have more contact with their children are tremendous. Parents are more likely to succeed at treatment for substance use disorders and less likely to return to prison. By staying connected with their parents, children have the opportunity to experience healthy development and attachment, which contributes to good mental health and fewer behavioral issues. Community-based sentencing also decreases costs to prisons and jails and keeps parents connected to the workforce. Youth of color are more likely to experience their parent getting locked up. As a result of the racial inequities in the criminal legal system in the US, Black children are nine times more likely and Latinx children are three times more likely than White children to have a parent in prison. Kids with incarcerated parents are at risk of facing a variety of physical, mental, and behavioral health issues throughout the rest of their lives as a direct result of separation from their parent due to incarceration. In fact, this type of child-parent separation is classified as a specific type of trauma: an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Across Louisiana, about 1 in every 12 kids has experienced separation from a parent due to incarceration. Reducing the harm from incarcerating parents is doable in Louisiana. In 2016, about 2,650 parents who are currently incarcerated would have been eligible for this alternative sentencing in Louisiana - potentially keeping them together with their kids while still being held accountable for their actions. In Louisiana, about 1 of every 12 children has had an incarcerated parent. Mothers and grandmothers bear the burden at home. When a father is incarcerated, his children's mother remains as the primary caretaker 90% of the time. When a mother is incarcerated, her children are often displaced from their homes and frequently placed in the care of their grandmother. In both of these situations, mothers and grandmothers face the additional financial burden and emotional toll of a single parent home. Incarceration is harmful to individual and community health. Prison and jail environments are not conducive to family visits. In addition, most mothers and fathers in state and federal prisons are held over 100 miles from their homes, creating significant barriers for kids to visit their parents. Incarcerated parents who aren't able to maintain a connection with their children are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and hopelessness, be re-incarcerated, and lose parental rights. In communities targeted by mass incarceration, the loss of working adults and parents to jails and prisons fuels the cycle of poverty without reducing crime or increasing public safety. Alternative sentencing holds parents accountable and keeps families together. Research shows that community-based sentencing creates a supportive environment where parents can heal and be held accountable for the consequences of their conviction - while staying with their kids. These sentencing alternatives can also properly address substance use, mental health issues, and homelessness, instead of criminalizing behaviors that merit public health interventions. This report highlights Louisiana programs that could serve parents sentenced to community alternatives under this proposed legislation. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2018. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HIP_LAcaretakers_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HIP_LAcaretakers_2018.pdf Shelf Number: 149612 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Children of Prisoners Community-Based Sentencing Families of Inmates Family Engagement

Author: Columbia University. Justice Lab Title: Too big to succeed: The impact of the growth of community corrections and what should be done about it Summary: The recent sentencing of Philadelphia rap artist Meek Mill to two to four years in prison for probation violations committed a decade after his original offense has brought the subject of America's expansive community supervision apparatus and its contribution to mass incarceration into the public spotlight (NBC News 2017; Jay-Z 2017). Founded as either an up-front diversion from incarceration (probation) or a back-end release valve to prison crowding (parole), community corrections in America has grown far beyond what its founders could have imagined with a profound, unintended impact on incarceration. With nearly five million adults under community corrections supervision in America (more than double the number in prison and jail), probation and parole have become a substantial contributor to our nation's mass incarceration dilemma as well as a deprivation of liberty in their own right (Kaeble and Bonczar 2016; Kaeble and Glaze 2016). The almost fourfold expansion of community corrections since 1980 without a concomitant increase in resources has strained many of the nation's thousands of community supervision departments, rendering some of them too big to succeed, often unnecessarily depriving clients of their liberty without improving public safety (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995; Kaeble and Bonczar 2016; Pew Center on the States 2009; Klingele 2013; Doherty 2016). This paper offers a way out of "mass supervision." Authored by leading representatives of our nation's community corrections field, our conclusion is that the number of people on probation and parole nationally can be cut in half over the next decade and returns to incarceration curbed, with savings focused on providing services for those remaining under supervision. This would reduce unnecessary incarceration and supervision, increase the system's legitimacy, and enhance public safety by allowing probation, parole and community programming to be focused on those more in need of supervision and support. Details: New York: The Justice Lab, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/img/Too_Big_to_Succeed_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://justicelab.iserp.columbia.edu/img/Too_Big_to_Succeed_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 149617 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Mass Incarceration

Author: Aebi, Marcelo Title: Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics SPACE II Survey 2016. Persons Serving Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures in 2016 Summary: Key points of SPACE II 2016 - The participation rate in the 2016 SPACE II Survey was very satisfying: 47 out of the 52 probation services of the 47 Council of Europe Member States answered the questionnaire. - About 75% of the probation services of the responding countries are placed under the authority of the national Ministry of Justice. This authority is shared with the Prison Administration in around 33% of these cases. - During the year 2016, 2,169,077 persons entered into supervision by the probation services, and 1,365,006 left that supervision. This represents an average rate of 258 entries and 188 exits per 100,000 inhabitants. As a comparison, in 2015, there 228 entries per 100,000 inhabitants (+13.2% in 2016) and 167 exits per 100,000 inhabitants (+12.6% in 2016). - On 31st December 2016, there were 1,628,626 persons under the supervision or care of the probation services of the responding countries. This represents an average rate of 219 probationers per 100,000 inhabitants, which is 12.3% higher than one year before (there were 195 probationers per 100,000 inhabitant on 31stDecember 2015). If we restrict the comparison to countries with more than one million inhabitants, the 2016 rate is 225 per 100,000, which is 3.9% higher than in 2015 (when the rate was 216.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) - Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention: Roughly, only 9.8% of the probation population corresponds to persons placed under supervision before trial. - On average, on 31st December 2016, female probation clients represented 12.9% of the total probation population. The proportion of minors and foreigners was 3.9% and 16.8% respectively. - On average, there are 5.8 probation staff members per 100,000 inhabitants, with great individual variation among the responding countries. - On average, each probation staff member across Europe is in charge of 4.9 pre-sentence reports. - In 20 countries, probation is used for all kind of criminal offenses. - The average length of probation for persons sentenced for violence against persons and robbery are 17.3 months and 17.5 months respectively. - The longer length of probation is, on average, 21.6 months, and corresponds to persons sentenced for sexual offenses. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2017. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2018 at: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Shelf Number: 149752 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Based Corrections Community Sanctions Community Service Probation

Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections Summary: Recid iv ism is not a robust measu re of effectiveness for communit y corrections agencies. When used as the sole measure of effectiveness, recidivism misleads policymakers and the public, encourages inappropriate comparisons of dissimilar populations, and focuses policy on negative rather than positive outcomes. Policymakers who focus on recidivism as evidence of justice effectiveness are confusing a complex, bureaucratic indicator of system decision-mak ing w ith a simple measure of individual behavior and rehabilitation. Recidivism is at least in part a gauge of police activ it y and enforcement emphasis and, because of differential policing practices in minority communities, using recidivism as a key measurement may disadvantage communities of color. Relying on recidivism defines the mission of community corrections in law enforcement terms, relieving agencies of their responsibility for other outcomes such as employment, education, and housing. In the following discussion, we describe the logical and practical problems that arise when recidivism is used as the principal outcome measure for community corrections agencies. We recognize that recidivism will always be a feature of justice policy and practice. Recidivism offers a simple and familiar outcome measure for judging the effectiveness of justice interventions. Pointing out the logical flaws of recidivism will not diminish its salience for audiences disinclined to question its utility. Our purpose in this discussion is not to end the use of recidivism as a justice system measure but to illustrate its limits and to encourage the development and use of more suitable measures - namely, positive outcomes related to the complex process of criminal desistance. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf Shelf Number: 149858 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Criminal Justice Policy Recidivism

Author: Schweitzer Smith,, Myrinda Title: Reinventing Juvenile Justice: Examining the Effectiveness of the Targeted RECLAIM Initiative Summary: The juvenile justice system has had a place in America since the late 19th century. While the goal has always been to reform wayward youth, the system has implemented various strategies over the years. During a growing movement in the 80s to "get tough" on crime, the country relied heavily on state run institutions and experienced a steady rise in the number of incarcerated youth. Ohio was no exception to this "get tough" movement, with thousands of youth in the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) by the mid-90s. Ohio's response to the mass incarceration of youth ultimately led to a unique large-scale reform movement. This movement included initiatives that ranged from providing incentives to local courts to serve youth locally, creating and implementing a standardized risk assessment tool, and providing evidence-based services for youth. Among these reform initiatives, was Targeted RECLAIM; the focus of this study. The goal of Targeted RECLAIM was to further reduce admissions to DYS by providing juveniles with evidence-based services in their local community as alternatives to incarceration. Targeted RECLAIM initially targeted the six largest counties in Ohio, but since expanded to now include 15 counties across the state of Ohio. This study examined whether Targeted RECLAIM has been successful in reducing commitments to DYS and ultimately diverting youth from state institutions. The data revealed that Targeted RECLAIM appeared to have an effect on the number of youth committed to DYS and moreover, that youth could be effectively diverted without compromising public safety. The study also determined that the diverted youth were not simply being placed in a CCF or waived to the adult system as a way to undermine the goal of Targeted RECLAIM. Finally, conclusions were drawn so that the results might inform juvenile justice systems on how to work towards ending the problem of mass incarceration. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2016. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/Docs/Dissertations/schweiml.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/Docs/Dissertations/schweiml.pdf Shelf Number: 149888 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Mass Incarceration

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Probation Supply Chains: A Thematic Inspection Summary: The original policy intent of Transforming Rehabilitation was exceptionally ambitious. Government sought to reconfigure probation delivery while also requiring additional probation services to be delivered, and with wholly different payment mechanisms as well. New probation providers needed to become notably more efficient than the 35 probation trusts they replaced, to deliver all that was expected of them within their anticipated funding. The changes to what and how probation was delivered were to be brought about very quickly. Government was successful in restructuring probation services to time and within the implementation budget.11 Expectations about third-sector involvement changed as evaluation progressed, and it became clear that bids for CRC ownership were not forthcoming from the sector. The government nevertheless expected the sector to be heavily involved as Tier 2 or Tier 3 providers. It was envisaged that the CRCs would enlist the expertise of specialist voluntary organisations through subcontracting arrangements. Government intended that this mixed provider landscape of both private companies and third-sector organisations would lead to innovation, drive efficiencies, ensure value for money for the public purse and improve reoffending outcomes. Third-sector involvement and supply chain development were never an absolute requirement. Instead, the Target Operating Model (TOM 3)12 repeatedly confirms that CRCs were not being told how to deliver. TOM 3 encourages working with local partner organisations, but it was left to the market to decide. Transforming Rehabilitation prohibits the NPS from directly commissioning specialist rehabilitation and resettlement services, and so saves the NPS the set-up costs of procurement. Our assumption is that it was thought to be a sensible strategy for one body (the CRC) to contract with sub-providers locally, and that this would increase efficiency and effectiveness for all, but the rationale is not clearly stated in the documentation we have seen. There was never any one national body responsible for the stewardship of specialist services across the country. To a variable extent, probation trusts and those before them assumed responsibility and nurtured local provision, with the probation value chain in mind. There is still no one body with that stewardship responsibility, but post Transforming Rehabilitation the dynamics have changed. Some responding to Transforming Rehabilitation consultations predicted difficulties with the proposed arrangements for local specialist services - for example, a concern about how local services could meet a CRC footprint. However, we are not aware that a paucity of Tier 2 provision was foreseen by government. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/04/Probation-Supply-Chains-Thematic-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/04/Probation-Supply-Chains-Thematic-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149944 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Offender Rehabilitation Probation

Author: Juvenile Justice Initiative Title: Detention of Juveniles in Illinois: Recommendations to Right-Size Detention through Reforms and Fiscal Incentives to Develop Community-Based Alternatives. Summary: Juvenile Detention is jail for kids. Research consistently reveals that even short stays in a juvenile detention facility has negative outcomes, including behavioral heath impacts and education disruptions. The studies also consistently reveal that detention actually increases repeat offending. Yet, state dollars support and encourage the use of detention, by subsidizing detention staff. There is no state plan or fiscal investment to encourage the use of alternatives to detention, despite better outcomes for fewer dollars. Despite the lack of state encouragement, several of the larger counties incorporated policies and practices to reduce reliance on costly out-of-home detention. The results are highly encouraging - lower costs with better outcome and more public safety. It is time for Illinois to encourage all counties with a detention center to make similar shifts by encouraging the development of fiscal incentives for alternatives to detention, thereby reducing the reliance on juvenile detention and making it a last resort. This report examines the current use of juvenile detention across Illinois, reviews research on the impact from detention of juveniles, and reports on the current state fiscal, oversight and administrative involvement in juvenile detention. The report examines best practices in Illinois and across the nation. Finally, this report includes a series of recommendations to "right-size" juvenile detention in Illinois. Details: Evanston, ILL: The Initiative, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/JJI-Detention-Report-April-25-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 140077 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders

Author: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission Title: Immediate Sanction Probation Pilot Program Evaluation Summary: The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program was established in 2004 with the goal of enhancing public safety and improving compliance with the rules and conditions of probation among offenders being supervised in the community. HOPE targets higher risk probationers and requires that each violation of the conditions of supervision is met with a swift and certain, but mild, sanction. A rigorous evaluation of HOPE completed in 2009 found a significant reduction in technical violations (such as drug use and missed appointments), lower recidivism rates, fewer probation revocations, and reduced use of prison beds among HOPE participants compared to similar offenders supervised on regular probation. Interest in Hawaii's swift-and-certain sanctions model spread. As of July 2015, there were swift-and-certain sanctions programs operating in at least 29 states across the country. The 2010 General Assembly passed legislation which established the basic parameters for swift-and-certain sanctions programs in Virginia (19.2-303.5). In May 2012, the General Assembly adopted budget language to extend the provisions of 19.2-303.5 and to authorize the creation of up to four Immediate Sanction Probation Programs (Item 50 of Chapter 3 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly, Special Session I). This provision charged the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission with selecting the pilot sites, developing guidelines and procedures for the program, administering program activities, and evaluating the results. As no additional funding was appropriated for this purpose, the pilot project was implemented within existing agency budgets and local resources. The General Assembly has since extended the sunset date to July 1, 2017, which enabled the pilot sites to continue the program until the 2017 General Assembly has reviewed the Commission's evaluation and determined whether to continue the program in the future. Since the 2009 HOPE evaluation, a number of programs based on the HOPE model have been evaluated. Results of these studies have been mixed. A longer term evaluation of HOPE completed in 2016, as well as evaluations in Washington State, Arkansas, Michigan, and Kentucky found that the HOPE approach yielded positive results, such as lower recidivism rates and reduced use of incarceration. However, a recent large-scale evaluation of a four-site replication of the HOPE model, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), did not produce similar results. According to this evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences, overall, between the HOPE and probation-as-usual groups in the likelihood of arrest, new conviction, or probation revocation. Similarly, an evaluation of a Delaware program based on the HOPE model found that the program was not successful in reducing substance use or new crimes among probationers. The Commission designed Virginia's Immediate Sanction Probation Program based on the parameters established by the General Assembly's statutory and budgetary language and the key elements of the swift-and-certain sanctions model pioneered in Hawaii. Implementing Virginia's program with as much fidelity as possible to the swift-and-certain sanctions model provided the best opportunity to determine if the positive results observed in HOPE and other programs would emerge in Virginia. Thus, the Immediate Sanction Program targets offenders who are at risk for recidivating or failing probation. Working with the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and the Department of Corrections, the Commission identified four pilot sites (Henrico County, the City of Lynchburg, City of Harrisonburg/Rockingham County, and Arlington County), which became operational between November 2012 and January 2014. The Commission developed policies and procedures to provide a framework for the program, including eligibility criteria and a mechanism for expedited hearings for program violations. In each site, Commission staff organized and participated in multiple meetings to facilitate and support local implementation of the program. As of October 1, 2016, 288 probationers across the four pilot sites had been placed into the Immediate Sanction Probation Program. In order to allow for a sufficient follow-up period to track participants for recidivism, the 200 eligible participants who were placed into the program before July 1, 2015, were selected for the evaluation cohort. The majority (76%) were at medium to high risk of recidivating and all had a history of technical violations prior to program placement. Low risk probationers were only placed in the program after committing at least three violations while on regular supervision, indicating a higher risk for revocation. More than 80% of participants violated at least once after program placement, committing an average of 2.7 violations each. The most common violation during program participation was drug use. As of October 1, 2016, 39% of the evaluation cohort had completed the program. Nearly all of the program completers had been violation-free for 12 months, the measure established by the Commission for "successful completion." Judges allowed seven participants who had not reached the 12-month violation-free mark to complete the program, due to individual circumstances of these participants. The Commission used standards established in the 2016 evaluation of the BJA/NIJ-funded HOPE replication project to measure the swiftness and certainty of sanctions imposed during Virginia's pilot program. For swiftness, pilot sites were assessed based on the percentage of violations heard by the court within three days. Approximately half (47%) of program violations in Virginia's pilot sites were heard by the court within the three-day window. This is below the minimum of 60% established by the evaluators of the HOPE replication project. Regarding the certainty of sanctions, Immediate Sanction judges responded to violations by imposing a jail sanction for 100% of the violations brought to court, per the program's design. Judges utilized jail sanctions as envisioned by the Commission, with more than 94% of sanctions falling within the recommended range. Nearly 93% of the jail sanctions imposed were at or below the maximum sanction of 19 days used by evaluators of the HOPE replication project. The Commission tracked the evaluation cohort for one year following placement into the Immediate Sanction Program. At the one-year mark, 9.7% of the participants in the evaluation cohort had been arrested for a new felony. Only 6.2% had a new felony conviction based on an offense committed during the follow-up period. Participants whose primary drug of use was opiates (including heroin) recidivated at a higher rate than other participants. For the evaluation, the Commission developed a quasi-experimental design, often used in evaluations of criminal justice programs. Quasi-experimental designs identify a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the program or treatment group in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics. To reduce the risk of bias (i.e., the possibility that participants are systematically different from nonparticipants), the Commission used commonly accepted statistical techniques to create a valid comparison group. Constructing the comparison group for this evaluation was a two-stage process. In the first stage, the Commission identified jurisdictions that were similar to the pilot sites across a number of community-level characteristics, such as crime rates, demographics, and judicial practices in sanctioning technical probation violators. In the second stage, the Commission developed a pool of potential comparison offenders from within the selected comparison jurisdictions. Using tightly controlled matching procedures, the final sample included 63 participants in the evaluation cohort matched to 63 comparison probationers, for a total of 126 subjects. Participants for whom no matched comparison probationer could be found were not included in the subsequent analyses. At one year from program placement or, in the case of the comparison group, one year from the date the probationer would have become eligible for placement, 7.9% of the 63 participants in the matched sample had been rearrested for a felony offense versus 22.2% of the comparison group. Thus, Immediate Sanction participants were less likely than comparison probationers to be rearrested for a felony during the one-year follow-up. Immediate Sanction participants were also less likely than comparison probationers to be reconvicted of a felony following the arrest (6.3% for participants versus 17.5% for the comparison group). The Commission conducted survival analysis, which measures the time until a recidivist event occurs, to determine if these differences were statistically significant. The results of the survival analysis are mixed. This analysis revealed that Immediate Sanction participants were less likely to be rearrested for a felony over time than those in the comparison group and were free of felony arrests for a longer period of time. When controlling for relevant factors, including street time (i.e., the time that the individual was not in jail serving sanctions, etc., and, thus, was in the community with the opportunity to recidivate), this finding remained statistically significant (p<.05). However, when examining the time until rearrest for an offense that resulted in a felony conviction, the differences between participants and the comparison group were not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. Due to the small sample size and relatively low occurrence of recidivism, the results of the Commission's analyses are not generalizable to the population. Details: Richmond: VCSC, 2016. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/Immediate%20Sanction%20Probation%20Pilot%20Program%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%2012-20-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 150381 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Corrections Community Supervision Felony Probation Intermediate Sanctions Probationers Recidivism

Author: Blanco, Melissa Title: How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Division Programs? A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment for the Virginia State Crime Commission Summary: Virginia has a vested interest in promoting state and local policies that prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. In particular, policies should be aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders with the goal of decreasing recidivism rates across the Commonwealth. One possible way to accomplish lower recidivism rates is through the use of diversion programs. Diversion programs offer alternatives to the traditional forms of secure detention, such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can be mandated by a judge, or they can be assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. This study will focus on the diversion programs assigned by Intake Officers before the juvenile enters the traditional criminal justice system. The Virginia State Crime Commission has been directed by the General Assembly of Virginia to conduct a comprehensive, two-year study of Virginia's juvenile justice system. One element of this study calls for an examination of juvenile diversion programs across the state, their impact on rates of recidivism, and their cost-effectiveness. In accordance with this mandate, the Center for Public Policy Research at The College of William & Mary has conducted a survey of juvenile Intake Officers across the Commonwealth (including Parole and Probation Officers who complete intake duties), the purpose of which was to understand how diversion is implemented in each Court Services Unit (CSU), which diversion programs appear to be most effective at reducing recidivism, and why some programs seem to be more effective than others. The scope of this project covers the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, which includes 35 CSUs. The CSUs perform intake, investigations, probation, and parole services for juveniles, and each CSU has anywhere between 3 and 24 Intake Officers and as many or more programs offering diversion services for juveniles. The largest component of this study consists of the formulation and distribution of a web-based survey of Intake Officers, which was anonymous to ensure the reception of candid responses. The survey was formulated to serve four key purposes. The first purpose of the survey was to identify the procedure followed by Intake Officers for deciding which juveniles to divert and to what program he or she should be diverted. The second purpose of the survey is to ascertain which programs or which types of programs Intake Officers feel are most effective. The third purpose is to determine if Intake Officers have any method for assessing the progress of the juvenile after he or she has begun participating in his or her assigned diversion program. Finally, the fourth purpose of the survey is to identify any impediments to the juvenile's successful completion of the diversion program. The twenty-question survey was distributed in November 2007 to 177 Intake Officers across the Commonwealth in 30 of 35 CSUs. Responses were collected from 51 of those individuals(28%), representing 15 of the 30 CSUs included in the sample. A mixture of rural and urban CSUs is represented across the disparate regions of the state. A significant limitation, however, is the lack of representation from two large urban areas of the state, Richmond and Norfolk. More than half of Intake Officers surveyed believe that juveniles should be allowed to be diverted more than once, depending on the circumstances. However, 4 of the 14 CSUs (28.6%) represented have policies that prohibit this, and respondents from five other CSUs (35.7%) presented conflicting interpretations of their CSU's policy. Only about one third of respondents utilize some type of standard assessment at intake for making decisions about diversion for a juvenile. Discretion of Intake Officers appears to be an important element in the diversion process with respect to the determination of whether diversion is appropriate for a juvenile, whether it is permissible for a second offense, and in consideration of the type of offense and any mitigating circumstances. Most Intake Officers take a wide range of factors into consideration when deciding whether to divert a juvenile rather than send him or her through court proceedings. Eighty percent or more consider the number and type of prior offenses in the juvenile's record, the juvenile's current offense, the age of the juvenile, the recommendation of the arresting officer, the type of diversion programs available in the CSU, and the juvenile's family or home situation. Similarly, Intake Officers also consider a number of different factors when deciding which program to divert a juvenile to, citing everything from the juvenile's current offense, to the personality or demeanor of the juvenile, to the availability of transportation for the juvenile to and from the program site. It is clear from the responses received for these two questions that the discretion of the Intake Officers plays a major role in determining whether juveniles are diverted and to what program. Intake Officers were also asked if their CSU implements a family-centered approach to diversion, and most (88%) indicated that they do. Many of the Intake Officers provided comments suggesting that parents are strongly encouraged to take part in at least some part of the diversion and that more ways in which parents could become involved in the diversion process would be welcome in their CSU. Most Intake Officers (78%) indicated that their CSU does perform some kind of assessment of the juvenile's progress after he or she has begun participating in a diversion program. There is a wide spread of responses concerning how often CSUs perform this assessment, ranging from every other week to sporadically, with none doing so everyday. A majority of CSUs continue to assess the juvenile's progress until the juvenile has completed the diversion program requirements. Many CSUs perform their assessment of the juvenile's progress by contacting the juvenile's family, contacting the program director, or meeting the juvenile in-person. Very few do so by observing the juvenile's participation through in-person visits to the diversion program site. Forty percent of Intake Officers reported that their CSU assesses the effectiveness of the diversion programs they utilize, while another 40% said their CSU did not assess diversion program effectiveness. However, these results are potentially misleading. Further analysis reveals that Intake Officers from the same CSU often differed in their answer to this question. Of the eleven CSUs represented, Intake Officers from six of them gave conflicting answers. It appears that Intake Officers may not be aware of their CSU's policy on assessing effectiveness, a situation which should be addressed. The vast majority of Intake Officers' responses indicate that a lack of cooperation from the family (73.2%) and from the juvenile (65.9%) stands in the way of successful diversion outcomes. Furthermore, many of the responses cited too little funding provided by the state (48.8%), too few diversion programs offered in the CSU (46.3%), and an insufficient range of diversion program types (41.5%). Finally, a small number (4.9%) said lack of transportation posed an obstacle to successful diversion. Intake Officers expressed a desire for increased funding for diversion programs, particularly to increase diversion staff and expand the number and type of diversion programs offered in each CSU. They also expressed a desire for uniform criteria for diversion eligibility, as current policy differs from CSU to CSU. For example, a juvenile in one CSU may be eligible for a diversion opportunity, while a juvenile with a similar criminal history may be ineligible for a diversion opportunity in another CSU. After completing this study and reviewing the results, several recommendations for reforming the methods of diversion in Virginia's juvenile justice system became apparent. First, we recommend that the state provide CSUs with resources to collect data on juveniles who have been diverted and the outcomes of the programs to which juveniles are diverted. Second, we recommend that CSUs improve the clarity and uniformity of their diversion policy. Third, we recommend the implementation of a standardized intake assessment with statewide criteria. Results of the survey are valuable and instructive for understanding diversion implementation and its effectiveness in Virginia, but the conclusions do present some limitations. First, only perceived effectiveness was assessed through the perspectives of Intake Officers given that actual data on diverted juveniles was not available to us at the time of this study. Second, less than half of the 35 CSUs in the Commonwealth were represented; ideally we would have achieved representation from all. Third, the narrow definition of recidivism as "re-conviction" may lead to over-stating the effectiveness of diversion programs. Finally, the difficulty in obtaining figures for the costs of diversion program implementation in light of their disparate funding sources precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis within the three-month time constraint for this research endeavor. The Intake Officer Survey has laid the groundwork for future work that could provide additional evidence on how effective diversion programs are at reducing recidivism rates. Specifically, two bodies of work are needed: (1) a quantitative analysis of Virginia's Department of Juvenile Justice data, which would compare recidivism rates between juveniles who were diverted before being adjudicated with juveniles who entered the traditional criminal justice system; and (2) an assessment on how cost-effective diversion programs are in comparison to the traditional adjudication process. Details: Williamsburg, VA : Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William & Mary, 2007. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Shelf Number: 150490 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Diversion Programs Juvenile Justice systems Recidivism

Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: The experience of electronic monitoring and implications for practice: A qualitative research synthesis Summary: The aims of the study were to understand the experience of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Criminal Justice System (CJS), and how this sanction can be implemented most effectively to achieve best outcomes, including compliance with legal requirements, rehabilitation and desistance. The findings of six qualitative studies of the experience of EM were synthesised using Thematic Synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Key findings - Six studies of sufficient quality and focus were included, examining the experience of EM in England, Belgium, New Zealand, Canada and the US. EM was used as an alternative sanction, or as part of an early release scheme (none looked at EM for people on bail). The findings may be limited by the small number of primary studies available, and variations in how EM is used in different countries. - EM appeared to offer a range of potential benefits. These included the opportunity for 'headspace', reflection and to disengage from antisocial aspects of life. Additionally, EM could facilitate access to employment and training opportunities, and allow for relationships and social capital to be developed. - Individuals are not guaranteed these benefits. They appeared to be influenced by the individual's circumstances and their response. For some people, EM could lead to a deterioration of relationships, and act as a barrier to employment opportunities. - The nature of EM and the consequences of non-compliance meant that monitored life could be stressful and pressured for some. Individuals' private lives felt intruded on and people living in the same household could be negatively affected. - For many people, EM offered valued freedom, despite life still feeling controlled. For some, autonomy and self-sufficiency improved, but others appeared to experience a lack of control and choice, and may have become overly reliant on others. - From the perspectives of people that are reflected in the research literature, the advantages of EM usually outweighed the disadvantages, and those sentenced to EM tended to readily accept this, particularly if the alternative was to spend time in prison. - People appeared to comply with EM mainly through fear of punishment for non-compliance. Behaviour change may be maintained while EM was active. However, people felt their reoffending and longer-term outcomes may be less affected by EM, and identified additional critical support needed, for example interventions that helped them to think differently or provided them with necessary risk management skills. - From the perspective of monitored people, and the wider evidence base, people's compliance may potentially be enhanced by making EM feel procedurally just. Compliance with EM and rehabilitative outcomes may also be improved by including structured interventions and support to target criminogenic needs (facilitating changes in thinking and skill development), access to employment, hope, self-efficacy and positive relationships. These may also prevent people's future chances of desistance being diminished. Details: London: HM Prison & Probation Service, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary 2018: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Shelf Number: 150832 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Electronic Monitoring Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Recidivism Tagging

Author: Boone, Miranda Title: Electronic Monitoring in the Netherlands Summary: This report describes in detail the current use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Netherlands. The research forms part of an EU-funded comparative research study involving five jurisdictions, namely: Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. The research involved a partnership between academics in five universities: University of Leeds (England and Wales), University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Greifswald (Germany), Free University Bruxelles (Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). This comparative research focuses on the potential of electronic monitoring to provide a credible and workable alternative to imprisonment. As such, the empirical findings from the five jurisdictions will fill a significant knowledge gap about the capacity of EM to operate as an alternative to imprisonment and inform on best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure its legal, ethical and humane use across Europe. The report is based on observations within the organisations involved in the implementation of EM and 36 interviews with practitioners. The structure of this research report and the way in which headings are organized is a replication of a format adopted consistently across the five country reports. Before describing the results of our own research, we start with a short overview of the history of EM in the Netherlands. Van Gestel (1998) describes how the debate on electronic monitoring started in the Netherlands and how eventually the first pilot was initiated. The first Dutch media publication on the use of electronic monitoring in the United States, where it originated, came in 1987. In this period, the Dutch government was looking for solutions to ease prison overcrowding and cell shortage. Against this background, it was no surprise that the possibility of electronic monitoring was quickly picked up by politicians. In 1988, a working group was installed to explore the potential of electronic house arrest for providing an alternative to imprisonment. This working group came to be known as the 'Schalken Committee' (Shalken Committee, 1988). In its report, the committee suggested that electronic house arrest could be valuable in terms of rehabilitation, provided that it would be combined with an intensive support program and 'meaningful activities' such as schooling or work. It also stated that electronic house arrest could have an economizing effect, with the sidenote that this effect could be reduced by effects of 'net-widening', which means including people in the penal system that otherwise would have been kept out. The committee further advised giving judges the exclusive authority for imposing electronic house arrest in order to prevent arbitrariness. Some other concerns were expressed regarding the intrusiveness of the modality and how continuous control may be interpreted as a sign of distrust towards the monitored person. All in all, the committee did not take a clear position but instead pointed at the importance of a broad debate on the desirability of electronic house arrest. This debate started across a wide range of organizations and culminated in a symposium in 1990. The majority of the persons present were not enthusiastic about the implementation of electronic house arrest either in the context of custody, as an alternative to detention or towards the end of a prison sentence (Van Gestel, 1998). Following this symposium, the advice was formulated to refrain from electronic house arrest while other alternatives were being explored. Two years later, however, a new report was published in which electronic monitoring was again presented as a potential economizing instrument. Eventually, in 1994, a newly formed project group sent a recommendation to the Minister of Justice, in which it advised starting a pilot with electronic house arrest in two forms: in combination with a community service order and as an alternative to the last phase of a prison sentence in the context of detention phasing. This plan was approved and in 1995 a two-year experiment started in the north of the Netherlands. From the start, the probation service has been the responsible organization for the implementation of EM, despite the earlier resistance within the organisation (Van Gestel 1998). In 2000, an experiment started with electronic house arrest as an alternative to remand for juvenile offenders. This experiment took place in the Rotterdam region and 23 youngsters participated, which was a lot less than the expected 48. Terlouw and Kamphorst (2002) evaluated the experiment and concluded that the electronic house arrest decreased the youngster's contact with fellow offenders. Other reported benefits were the increased feeling of responsibility and the benefit of being in a trusted environment. On the other hand, the researchers state that the house arrest placed a heavy burden on the household and was labor intensive for the youth probation services (Terlouw and Kamphorst, 2002). In 2003, facing a pressing cell shortage, the modality of electronic detention or 'home detention' was introduced. Electronic detention could be imposed as a means of executing an unconditional prison sentence of up to 90 days for offenders without a 'security risk' who report themselves to the prison without coercion, so-called self reporters. As opposed to the electronic supervision modalities as described above, the sole objective of electronic detention was to reduce the shortage of prison cells. It was announced in the 2000 Green Paper 'Sanction in perspective' as an alternative for short prison sentences that could annually save the Dutch tax-payer 115 million guilders, but that did not have a rehabilitative function. Between 2003 and 2005, 2145 offenders were placed under electronic detention, of which 1998 successfully finished the detention. Contrary to the rehabilitative forms of electronic monitoring, it was not the Dutch Probation Service that was made responsible for the execution of electronic detention, but the Prison Service of the Department of Justice (DJI). The Inspection for Sentencing Implementation was rather positive about the use of the electronic dentention modality. Despite the fact that the offenders involved usually belonged to the medium risk category of offenders, actual recidivism was relatively low. It concluded in its inspection report that electronic detention was an effective alternative for a short prison sentence. However, the implementation could be improved. The Inspection observed considerable differences between the five regions and noted that, contrary to the regulations, home visits and work inspections were not always made (Inspectie voor de sanctietoepassing, 2007). With respect to the experiences of the detainees, one evaluative study found that those who had been in prison before were much more positive about electronic detention than about imprisonment (Post, Tielemans and Woldringh, 2005). Electronic detention was also heavily criticized. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and the Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) emphasized that home detention should always be combined with some form of support or assistance and that the prisoner should have the opportunity to work. Furthermore, the Council stated that the principal goals of home detention in terms of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation would have to be made explicit (RSJ, 2007). This point is also emphasized by Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, who are concerned that the main rationale behind any form of electronic monitoring simply tends to be cost reduction (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, 2013). In June 2010, the Minister of Justice decided to end the practice of electronic detention awaiting new legislation that would codify EM as a principal punishment and as a condition to suspend remand (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse 2013: 181). However, this bill never came into force, because the need for home detention as a substitute for prison declined in the context of a cell surplus and the new State Secretary of Security and Justice was personally a strong opponent of EM. In 2013, the master plan of the Dutch Prison Service for 2013-2018 was published. It describes the intended changes in the prison system aimed at reducing the expenditures of the Prison Service with up to 340 million euros in 2018 (DJI, 2013). Electronic detention is presented as one of the important instruments for realizing these cuts and a new Bill on Electronic Detention was proposed in the same period as the Masterplan DJI. Two modalities are mentioned. The first is the 'backdoor modality' to be applied after half of the prison sentence has been served but before conditional release. The second is the 'front-door modality' which is meant to be a substitution for any prison sentence shorter than six months, unless the possibility for electronic detention is explicitly ruled out in the verdict. It is estimated that the implementation of electronic detention will facilitate the reduction of existing prison capacity by 2033 places. For juvenile offenders, the aim is to increase the imposition of electronic monitoring as an alternative to remand (DJI, 2013). The second proposal caused a wave of criticism. In the political arena the dominant opinion was that EM was a far too mild alternative for detention. Therefore EM was not acceptable as an alternative for short prison sentences. Most Advice Committees that commented on the Bill were positive on EM as an alternative for short prison sentences, but only if it would become an autonomous sentence that could be imposed by the judge (courts). More enthusiasm existed for the 'back door modality', although several concerns were expressed in relation to this modality as well, in particular concerning the replacement of the existing system of detention phasing by electronic detention and the exclusion of certain groups of prisoners of electronic detention as a result of contraindications and conditions that would be required (Boone and Van Hattum 2014; RSJ, 2013). In September 2014, the electronic detention bill was rejected by the Upper House. Only the Labour Party (PVDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) supported the bill, which was not sufficient for a majority in the senate. To the senate, abolishing the existing system of detention phasing was unacceptable and electronic detention did not provide a workable and legally substantiated alternative. There were concerns about the risk of recidivism for prisoners who would not qualify for electronic detention. Also, the fact that the judge would not be involved in the allocation of electronic detention was criticized (Reclassering Nederland, 2014). To summarize, EM in the Netherlands has had a bit of a slow start and has not yet been accepted as an autonomous alternative for a prison sentence in the sentencing stage. It is used, however, as an instrument to supervise the requirements added to several conditional sentences and measures, as will be described in the first section below. Details: Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2016. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Shelf Number: 150836 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Electronic Monitoring House Arrest Offender Supervision Tagging

Author: Dunkel, Frieder Title: Electronic Monitoring in Germany Summary: The German sanctions system distinguishes between criminal sanctions based on the guilt of the offender, and measures for rehabilitation and security based on the dangerousness of the offender on the other. In Germany, electronic monitoring (EM) is not an independent criminal sanction or measure by these means. Nevertheless, there are several legal bases in the German sanctions system for the use of EM: - As a directive for dangerous offenders in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct ("Fuhrungsaufsicht") (see s. 68b (1) No. 12 Criminal Code) - As a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (s. 56c Criminal Code) - As a directive for offenders who are released early (s. 57, 57a Criminal Code) - As a directive for an accused to avoid pre-trial detention (s. 116 Criminal Procedure Act) - During the execution of prison sentences for preparing release from prison by so-called relaxations of the prison regime ("Vollzugslockerungen", prison leaves) or as an alternative form of the execution of prison sentences for fine defaulters. The legislative competence for prison law is held by the sixteen federal states. Although there are several legal bases for its implementation in federal law the German sanction practice is very reluctant towards EM as an option. First of all, these legal possibilities for the use of EM are highly controversial. Furthermore, the modelprojects, in which EM was used as an alternative to imprisonment, in two federal states have been evaluated rather sceptically, especially in regard to "net-widening effects". While prison overcrowding was a driver for the implementation of EM in some European countries. Prison overcrowding both in the past and currently is not a major issue in Germany. The need for EM became "urgent" with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (M. vs. Germany, no. 19359/04), which stated that the instrument of preventive detention was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the consequence that several "dangerous" offenders had to be released from preventive detention. 1.2 Types of electronic monitoring and their popularity Overall, electronic monitoring of offenders in Germany can be divided into two fields of application: The only form of EM that is accepted in all German federal states is so-called electronic location monitoring (Elektronische Aufenthaltsuberwachung, EAU). EAU comes into play as a directive in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct. The purpose of EAU is to minimise the risk that offenders, who have committed serious sexual or violent offences (dangerous offenders), reoffend after their release from prison or from a forensic institution. EAU uses GPS-technology and thus allows the location of the person under EM to be continuously monitored. When the total population is taken into account, the highest rate of EAU-monitored persons can be found in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. In other federal states with similar population sizes, like Baden-Wurttemberg and Lower Saxony, the use of EAU is limited to only a small handful of cases. EAU is primarily used with offenders who are released from prison after having served their full sentence. Around 75 per cent are sexual offenders, while the remaining 25% are persons who had been sentenced for violent offences. According to our interview partners, EAU has only once been applied in a case involving a female offender. Overall, notwithstanding the observed variations between the different federal states, it is apparent that the EAU-EM directive is used only in select cases in which the offender poses a significant risk. While the EM-directive, applicable in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct, is the only field of application of EM that is explicitly foreseen as an option in federal law, with fewer than 100 cases nationwide, EAU plays only a peripheral role in German sentencing practice. EAU is not the only manifestation of EM in Germany. In the federal state of Hessen, a pilot project has been underway since the year 2000 involving so-called electronic presence monitoring (Elektronische Prasenzkontrolle, EPK). EA� and EPK are vastly different from one another, as shall be discussed in closer detail in the course of this report. Unlike EAU, the use of EPK in this pilot is not limited to one particular field of application (EA�: as a directive attached to supervision of conduct). Instead, EPK can be applied in a number of different contexts and thus latches onto a number of different statutory provisions. Specifically, EM can be used as a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (probation support), as a means for avoiding pretrial detention/custodial remands, as a directive in combination with a pardon or as a directive in the context of prison-regime "relaxations" used as means for release preparation. EPK thus primarily serves as a means for keeping people out of detention and imprisonment. In contrast to EAU, the target group that EPK caters to is not restricted to serious violent and sexual offenders who have been released from prison after having served their sentence in full. Instead, EPK focuses on offenders who are on the threshold between custody and probation (or between pre-trial detention and alternative (non-)remand options), and who also show a lack of discipline. The EM-directive is intended to monitor the offender's compliance with any court orders, conditions and directives to which he/she has been subjected, thus supporting him/her in finding and adhering to structured daily routines. This form of EM uses radio frequency technology to monitor whether or not the monitored person is at home. Unlike EAU, EPK does not allow for the location of the offender to be precisely pinpointed at any time. On 3rd April 2013 a total of 83 persons were subject to EPK-EM - 41 in the context of probationary directives, the remaining 42 under directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. From the initiation of the pilot project up until that date, EPK was applied in a total of 1,141 cases (up until 31st March 2015: 1,310). That amounts to an average of roughly 80-90 cases per year. In comparison with the total number of 15,977 probationers in Hessen for the year 2014 the practical significance of this instrument becomes clear (even more clearly in comparison with the total number of about 180,000 probationers in whole of Germany). The supervising authorities have reported a significant reduction in the use of EPK in practice over last two years in particular, with a current caseload of only 48. About two thirds of these cases involved directives made in the context of probation or conditional release, while one third were directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. The law also allows for radio frequency monitoring to be applied as a means of "sentence relaxation" in prisons, especially youth prisons. This alternative has not been met with much approval from prison administrators, and accordingly there have only ever been two such cases Details: Greifswald: University of Greifswald, Germany, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Germany URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Shelf Number: 150837 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Tagging

Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Strengthening probation, building confidence Summary: Probation services are at the heart of an effective criminal justice system. They deliver the orders of the court, protect the public from harm and rehabilitate offenders. Whether an offender receives a community sentence or is sent to prison, probation will be central to ensuring that justice is done and that those who have committed crimes return to being law-abiding members of society. Evidence suggests that community sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences, but if they are to fulfil their potential it is vital they are properly delivered and enforced, that offenders are effectively supervised, and that the courts, victims and the public have confidence in the ability of probation to do this. In this paper we set out the immediate steps we are taking to stabilise the delivery of probation services in the next two years, as well as our longer-term strategy for improving the quality of supervision, rehabilitation and resettlement beyond 2020 and creating a more integrated system which works effectively with local partners. This longer-term vision seeks to build on the changes introduced by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms so we more fully realise our ambition to reduce reoffending and protect the public. Transforming Rehabilitation The significant reforms that were made to probation as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme were based on sound principles: - the extension of post-release supervision to short-sentenced prisoners who too often are simply recycled through the criminal justice system; - opening up the market to a wider range of providers to encourage innovation and more modern ways of working; - creating new incentives for providers to focus on achieving reductions in reoffending; and - ensuring a stronger focus on managing higher-risk offenders. These were, and remain, sensible objectives. In the three years since they took full effect, these reforms have delivered some successes, and throughout this period staff have continued to demonstrate their commitment and professionalism. There are areas of good and promising practice across a range of providers, and we have seen a reduction of two percentage points in the reoffending rates of individuals supervised by CRCs. The NPS has established more consistent ways of working and is generally assessed as performing well in managing higher-risk offenders. We know, however, that it has been challenging to fully realise the vision of these reforms. It is clear from our own assessments, and those of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) and the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, that in a number of areas the quality of probation services being delivered is falling short of our expectations. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, and have been compounded by the financial challenges facing CRCs following unforeseen changes in the volume and types of cases coming to court, and changes in the frequency of reoffending which took place prior to CRCs taking responsibility for services. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2018. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Cm 9613: Accessed July 30, 2018 at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/hm-prisons-and-probation/strengthening-probation-building-confidence/supporting_documents/strengtheningprobationbuildingconfidence.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/hm-prisons-and-probation/strengthening-probation-building-confidence/supporting_documents/strengtheningprobationbuildingconfidence.pdf Shelf Number: 150952 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Sentencing Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Probation

Author: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE): Final Report Summary: Purpose: The multi-site evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles-beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherance to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions; treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity; tested outcomes, primarily recidivism; and estimated costs. Research Subjects: 1,504 HOPE-eligible individuals were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Most were male (81%), white (69%), and high risk (55%). On average, they were 31 years at study enrollment, with 7 prior arrests and 3.5 prior convictions. Subject characteristics varied across the sites. For example, study participants were younger at first arrest in Texas than Massachusetts (19 versus 27 years) and had more prior convictions in Massachusetts than in Arkansas and Texas (6 versus about 2). Methods: The evaluation team established procedures with each site for identifying HOPE-eligible probationers and implementing random assignment. Data collection included site visits and document review for the process evaluation, as well as analysis of fidelity data. For the outcome and cost evaluation, administrative data were collected from local and state agencies and three waves of interviews were conducted with study participants. Oral swab drug tests were administered during the second and third interviews for individuals in the community and who consented. A substudy was conducted that enlisted randomly selected subjects in a telephone component that asked subjects to call in weekly and answer a short set of questions to assess whether attitudinal changes occurred over the course of HOPE participation. Results: Implementation fidelity was good to excellent in the DFE sites, showing adherance to guidelines for warning and violation hearings, random drug testing, and responses to violations. Of the eleven metrics measured, the sites had the greatest difficulty bringing a violator to a violation hearing within 3 days of the violation, although three-quarters did have a hearing within 1 week. Overall, cooperation, prior experience with HOPE-like programs, and organizational linkages between probation and the court. Challenges in some sites included resource constraints-even with grant funding-and conflict with existing probation culture. HOPE probationers were more likely to have a violation and had more violations than PAU probationers, including more than twice as many drug-related violations accompanying the more than five-fold increase in drug testing for HOPE versus PAU probationers. HOPE probationers were less likely to miss a probation officer visit, to fail to pay their fees and fines , and to be violated for a new charge ; but were more likely to have a violation for failing to appear for court . Most sanctions for HOPE probationers were jail days; HOPE probationers were more likely to go to jail , to go more often ), and to serve more days total than PAU probationers. there was strong buy-in to the HOPE concept and implementation was facilitated by existing agency The HOPE model included treatment referral after repeated failed tests and HOPE participants were three times more likely to go to residential treatment . HOPE probationers were also referred to treatment more quickly (overall and in three sites). Drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews showed fewer positives for HOPE than PAU probationers. Recidivism outcomes were similar for the HOPE and PAU groups: 40% of HOPE versus 44% of PAU had a new arrest; 25% of HOPE versus 22% of PAU had a revocation; 49% of HOPE versus 50% of PAU had an arrest or revocation; and 28% of HOPE versus 26% of PAU had a new conviction. There was some variation in rates across sites, but the general conclusions of no differences hold with two exceptions: (1) HOPE probationers were more likely to be revoked in two sites (PAU revocation rates in those sites were about 10%.); and (2) HOPE probationers were more likely to have a new conviction in one site. Lognormal survival models of time to recidivism events confirm the bivariate findings, but revealed one additional finding-HOPE probationers had longer times to revocation in one site. Cost analyses estimated costs of intake, warning hearings, staffing meetings, office visits, drug tests, violation hearnings, arrests, state and county corrections, and residential treatment. Six-month median costs were significantly higher for HOPE than PAU overall and in four sites and mean costs were higher overall and in three sites. Twelve-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in three sites. Twenty-four-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in one site. Cost differences were driven by treatment and incarceration costs. Conclusions: Four sites that differed in organizational structures and populations successfully implemented HOPE programs-holding probationers accountable to their conditions of supervision and reducing drug use. Overall, HOPE did not reduce recidivism, as measured by arrest, revocation, and new conviction. More jail days, more residential treatment, and similar (or higher) recidivism resulted in higher (although not always significantly higher) costs for HOPE compared with PAU. PAU context is important as sites consider whether to implement HOPE or similar programs based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles. PAU revocation rates were low (9% and 13%) in two sites- suggesting limited ability to reduce revocations and that sites with low PAU revocation rates should consider whether to implement procedures to mitigate any potential increases in revocations that would accompany the increased surveillance of HOPE. In at least two sites, revocation could yield only short prison stays (90 days)-suggesting limited opportunities for "prison bed savings" even if revocations were lower with HOPE and a smaller incentive for individuals to comply. PAU was based at least somewhat on Risk-Needs-Response principles in at least two sites-suggesting an additional consideration with respect to the integration of HOPE with PAU. In addition, in one site, probation could use short jail stays on their authority (and did for PAU cases)-suggesting that a HOPE judge was not necessary to enforce conditions. Thus, the similar outcomes may hinge on the "compared to what" aspect of any evalution-in that findings suggest that HOPE worked as well as but not better than PAU. However, given the consistency of findings across four sites that differed in the administration of PAU, there is little to support a conclusion that HOPE or HOPE-like programs will produce substantial improvements over PAU when implemented widely. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Shelf Number: 151019 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Drug Offender Treatment Drug Offenders Offender Supervision Probation Probationers Project Hope Recidivism Revocations

Author: Herz, Denise Title: Los Angeles County Probation Workgroup: Report Summary: Pursuant to a September 15, 2015 motion by Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda L. Solis, the Board instructed the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Probation Department to review The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study and establish an interagency workgroup comprised of various entities in order to build on the report's findings, create a mechanism to implement the report recommendations and ensure continued systems improvement and monitoring of youth outcomes. The goals of this interagency workgroup (hereafter referred to as the "Probation Workgroup") are to support the Los Angeles County and the Probation Department in its ongoing development and implementation of best practices in juvenile justice. Specifically, this group is expected to produce key documents to help:  maximize service integration;  strengthen coordination between County Departments and community-based service providers;  ensure a data-driven, transparent and accountable juvenile justice system; and  improve information sharing within Probation and across County Departments. The Board motion directed Dr. Denise C. Herz, Ph.D. and Kristine Chan, MSW, from California State University Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics to lead this effort. Following the passage of the motion, the Probation Workgroup was established in November 2015 and met monthly either as a full group or as an Ad Hoc Working Committee through January 2017 to address the six tasks. The Workgroup was comprised of 71 participants with a range of expertise and experiences necessary to generate direct guidance on how Los Angeles County Probation can become more efficient and effective in delivering services to youth. Specifically, the membership included seven young people and three parents with different backgrounds and diversity in their Probation experiences. They were engaged through monthly contacts and transportation was coordinated to these meetings when they are able and willing to attend. Over the past year, the Probation Workgroup approached each task with the intent to produce "building blocks" for Probation and other entities involved in juvenile justice. In particular, these documents offer a substantive starting point for building a better infrastructure and delivery system for juvenile justice practice in Los Angeles County. It holds as a primary assumption that preventing and effectively responding to delinquency when it occurs is a shared responsibility across a variety of stakeholders. Thus, better delinquency prevention and intervention requires the commitment of time and resources by the Board of Supervisors, the Probation Department, other County agencies, community-based organizations, schools, advocacy groups and many others. The Probation Department alone will not be able to effectively reduce delinquency and improve the overall well-being of youth and their families without partnerships with all entities who play a role in the wellness in communities. It is our hope the documents contained within this report facilitate and support that relationship. Details: Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, 2017. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/Probation%20Workgroup%20Report%203-3-17.pdf Shelf Number: 151322 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Programs Delinquency prevention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation

Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Smart, Safe, and Fair: Strategies to Prevent Youth Violence, Heal Victims of Crime, and Reduce Racial inequality Summary: The justice system treats youth charged with violent offenses in ways that are unnecessarily expensive, ineffective and unjust. Although the research is clear that many youth convicted of a violent crime are best treated in a community-based setting, our default response to youth violence is still confinement. In Smart, Safe, and Fair, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) and the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) spoke with members of the victims' community to further examine the barriers to treating youth involved in violent crime in the community, and to gauge their support for these proposed reforms. The crime victims we spoke with were consistent in their support for a change from a status quo they see as costly, ineffective, and damaging to youth and their families-all while failing to meet the needs of crime victims themselves. Instead, they expressed a belief that there should be no categorical bar on serving more young people involved in violent crime in the community, particularly because youth engaged in violence are overwhelmingly victims themselves, and should receive appropriate services. Details: Washington, DC: The Institute, 2018. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2018 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/Smart_Safe_and_Fair_9_5_18.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/Smart_Safe_and_Fair_9_5_18.pdf Shelf Number: 151417 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Delinquency Prevention Racial Disparities Victim Services Victims of Crime Violence Prevention Youth Violence

Author: White, Elise Title: Up and Out: Toward an Evidence-Based Response to Misdemeanors Summary: If not jail, then what? Jurisdictions across the country continue to grapple with this question, particularly in response to low-level criminal offending. In the absence of meaningful, legally-proportionate alternatives, many jurisdictions default to the use of short-term incarceration, which brings with it significant financial cost as well as negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Up & Out offers an alternative. It is a brief, non-custodial intervention designed for defendants with misdemeanor cases - i.e., a defendant population with serious treatment needs that cannot be sentenced to intensive long-term interventions (e.g., drug treatment) for reasons of proportionality. The Up & Out project unfolded in two phases. Phase 1 began with the creation and validation of a risk-needs assessment for defendants with misdemeanor cases in New York City, designed to determine key criminogenic needs of the misdemeanor target population (Picard-Fritsche et al. 2018). Based on preliminary Phase 1 findings, Phase 2 involved developing the Up & Out curriculum; piloting the brief intervention in two New York City sites; and conducting a process and impact evaluation of the pilot. The current report summarizes findings from Phase 2. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Shelf Number: 152931 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Evidence-Based Practices Misdemeanors Procedural Justice Risk-Needs Assessment

Author: Cramer, Lindsey Title: Evaluation Report on New York City's Advocate, Intervene, Mentor Program Summary: This report presents the findings of an implementation and outcome evaluation of the Advocate, Intervene, Mentor (AIM) program, a court-mandated juvenile alternative-to-placement program serving probation clients ages 13 to 18 years with high criminogenic risk. The evaluation finds that AIM successfully helps participants avoid out-of-home placement and reduce recidivism, as well as pursue and achieve individualized goals to help reduce their risk of reoffending. Launched in July 2012 by the New York City Department of Probation (DOP) as a component of the New York City Young Men's Initiative (YMI) and with oversight from the Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity), AIM seeks to reduce the use of costly out-of-home placement and to enhance community safety by increasing resiliency and reducing criminogenic risk factors for adolescents on probation. The program uses a one-on-one mentoring model with a paid advocate-mentor available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Advocate-mentors are credible messengers, defined as individuals who are respected in the communities served, typically coming from the same neighborhood and backgrounds as the participants. Advocate-mentors work to improve participants' criminal justice and personal outcomes through the co-creation of individualized service plans designed to transform attitudes and behaviors that have led to delinquent activity. The Urban Institute conducted the implementation and outcome evaluation, and collected data from September 2016 through March 2017. The evaluation documented AIM program operations, described participant outcomes and stakeholders' experiences with the program, identified best practices, and developed recommendations to address program challenges. The evaluation drew upon qualitative and quantitative data, including focus groups and interviews with participants and alumni, participants' caregivers, program staff, DOP staff, and Family Court actors and other stakeholders; review of program materials and participant case files; and analysis of program administrative data and criminal justice data, conducted in partnership with DOP. The Urban Institute found the following: - Over 90 percent of participants avoided felony rearrest within 12 months of enrollment-far exceeding the program target of 60 percent. - Over two-thirds of AIM participants completed the program without an out-of-home placement. When excluding out-of-home placements due to technical violations of probation conditions (for reasons other than rearrests or risk to public safety), this figure rises to over 80 percent. - Fewer than 10 percent of participants received a felony adjudication in Family Court (equivalent to being convicted in the adult context) and only 3 percent received a felony conviction in Criminal Court. While based on only a small number of youth participating in the program, these results indicate that AIM is a promising strategy to improve outcomes of justice-involved youth. Implementation findings indicate that participants, alumni, caregivers, program staff, and other stakeholders all had positive feelings about their experience with the AIM program. Participants value their one-on-one interactions with mentors, and caregivers value the program's family team meetings and mentors' responsiveness to participant needs. The report also identified challenges related to the program's enrollment criteria and process, the absence of formal aftercare services, and stakeholder communication and coordination at various stages throughout the program cycle. Based on these findings, the report presents recommendations to address identified challenges, including enabling provider input on enrollment decisions, expanding in-program services and establishing formalized alumni services following the completion of mandated enrollment, enhancing communication across stakeholders, and improving programmatic performance reporting. These findings and recommendations highlight valuable opportunities for enhancements to the AIM program model. NYC Opportunity and YMI will partner with DOP, AIM providers, and other stakeholders to carefully consider the programmatic recommendations presented in this report, with the goal of strengthening the AIM model and juvenile justice services more broadly. At the time of publication, the City is embarking upon multiple cross-cutting justice system reform efforts. Raise the Age legislation will significantly expand the number of youth eligible for juvenile justice services such as AIM, as 16 and 17 year olds transition to Family Court in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Given the demonstrated promise of AIM in serving the needs of youth with high criminogenic risk, the program is well positioned to support the success of Raise the Age reforms. Simultaneously, the City is moving forward with plans to replace the Rikers Island complex with borough-based facilities, a strategy that includes ongoing and significant reductions to the population of detained and sentenced individuals held in City custody. This evaluation builds evidence about what works in alternatives-to-placement programming for juveniles, and these findings can inform the development and implementation of alternative-to-incarceration programming necessary to fulfill the City's commitment to close Rikers. Finally, this evaluation follows after the Urban Institute's and NYC Opportunity's evaluation of the DOP Arches Transformative Mentoring program, which established credible messenger mentoring as an evidence-based approach with positive impact on young adult justice system outcomes. These findings contribute to that body of knowledge and can support the growing national momentum toward credible messenger approaches to human service provision for justice-involved populations and beyond Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Nov. 2, 2018 at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/evidence/AIM_Final_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/evidence/AIM_Final_2018.pdf Shelf Number: 153144 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration At-Risk Youth Juvenile Mentoring Programs Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Mentoring

Author: Harvell, Samantha Title: Bridging Research and Practice in Juvenile Probation: Rethinking Strategies to Promote Long-term Change Summary: Over the past several decades, the knowledge base on how to improve public safety and outcomes for youth has expanded substantially, yet probation officers that work with these young people lack guidance on how this research can inform their work. This report offers practical tips for frontline juvenile probation officers to align their practice with research on successful strategies for reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for youth, their families, and the communities in which they live. The report describes five core practice areas-screening, assessment, and structured decision-making; case planning; matching services and promoting positive youth development; structuring supervision to promote long-term behavior change; and incentivizing success and implementing graduated responses. For each area, the report highlights relevant research findings, identifies core focus areas for bridging research and practice, and offers concrete strategies for probation officers and agencies to hold youth accountable, prevent future delinquency, and promote healthy development. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99223/bridging_research_and_practice_in_juvenile_probation_2.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99223/bridging_research_and_practice_in_juvenile_probation_2.pdf Shelf Number: 153145 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Probation Officers

Author: Schleifer, Rebecca Title: Drug Courts in the Americas Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrate�s) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here. Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/ Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf Shelf Number: 154312 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Caribbean Data Management System Drug Courts Drug Crimes Drug Offenses Drug Possession Drug Treatment Courts Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICA Jail Population Latin America Prison Population Public Health Intervention Racial Bias Recidivism Substance Use Supervision Treatment

Author: Esthappan, Sino Title: Juvenile Probation Transformation: Applying the Approach in Lucas County, OH, and Pierce County, WA Summary: Probation is the most commonly used disposition in juvenile court: nearly 63 percent of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2014 resulted in probation. Juvenile probation dispositions are rising; between 1984 and 2014, the use of probation for youth adjudicated delinquent increased by over 5 percent. Yet, the literature on what works in juvenile probation practice remains relatively scant. The limited existing literature suggests that the standard approach to juvenile probation is ill-equipped to meet the growing needs of justice-involved youth. Studies find high rates of recidivism among justice-involved youth (Bonta et al. 2008; Latessa, Listwan, and Koetzle 2014; Robinson et al. 2012). Researchers and practitioners have found various components of juvenile probation ineffective, including the overuse of probation violation orders, which often result in out-of-home placements. Youth on probation receive from 5 to more than 30 conditions with which they must comply during the supervision period (National Juvenile Defender Center 2016). Studies have identified gaps in how youth interpret and understand probation conditions. One study in Washington State found that youth recalled approximately one-third of conditions imposed on them (Peralta et al. 2012). Research on adolescent brain development enhances what we know about how these conditions are followed; neural networks in the brain responsible for self-regulation and reward motivation do not fully develop until after age 24, which makes youth more likely to engage in risky behaviors and defy rules (Cauffman, Steinberg, and Piquero 2005; Spear 2010; Steinberg 2010). Thus, many youths are not inclined to follow the rules and requirements imposed on them while on probation. Further, studies show that probation violations, and specifically technical violations, have grown substantially in recent decades (Gies, Cohen, and Villarruel 2009; Moeller 2011), with 17 percent of admissions to youth residential placement facilities in 2013 for technical violations (Hockenberry 2016). This pattern is pronounced for youth of color, who represented 70 percent of those committed to a residential facility for a probation violation in 2015 (Sickmund et al. 2018), and who already are disproportionately represented at each decision point in the juvenile justice system (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017). While modest, the literature on effective probation practice provides some useful lessons. Studies show that therapeutic and skills-building programs such as cognitive behavioral therapy and strengths-based mentoring, especially when coming from credible messengers (Lynch et al. 2018), show promise for improving juvenile justice outcomes (DuBois et al. 2002 Landenberger and Lipsey 2006). As one example, a study of the alternative to incarceration Youth Advocate Programs (YAP) found that among 3,523 youth ages 11 to 18 across multiple YAP sites, 86 percent were not arrested during their participation in the program, and 93 percent remained in the community at the time of program completion (Evans and Delgado 2014). Additionally, interventions that target risk factors may help ensure that probation only reaches the youth who need it most and strengthen case management services for those youth (Bonta and Andrews 2007; Lowenkamp and Latessa 2004). Still, a gap remains between the evidence on what works in delinquency prevention and juvenile probation and what is happening on the ground. Implementation science studies focusing on juvenile justice indicate that-because of deficits in such areas as organizational capacity, system stakeholder buy-in, and funding-juvenile justice professionals may lack the tools to translate research into practice (Love and Harvell 2016). Recognizing the gap between research and practice, the Annie E. Casey Foundation (the Foundation) started the Probation Transformation Initiative in 2014, which aims to develop an effective, developmentally appropriate, and unified theory of change in probation practice. Additionally, the approach is intended to help probation departments reduce and sharpen the focus of their target population, address racial and ethnic equity and inclusion (REEI), and forge partnerships with families and their communities. The initiative builds on the Foundation's prior juvenile justice reform efforts with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which aims to reduce the number of youth in pretrial detention, and the Foundation's expansion of JDAI into the "deep end" of the juvenile justice system to reduce the number of youth in out-of-home placements. The Foundation has contracted with the Urban Institute (Urban) and Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica) since 2014 to conduct a formative evaluation of the deep end work. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2019. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2019 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99608/juvenile_probation_transformation.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99608/juvenile_probation_transformation.pdf Shelf Number: 154453 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Juvenile Offender Supervision Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation

Author: Gamboa-Eastman, Tara Title: The Problem with Probation: A Study of The Economic and Racial Impact of Probation Fees in California Summary: The Problem: Little Known About How Probation Fees are Implemented California's "tough on crime" doctrine of the last forty years left the state with two problems: a criminal justice system that imprisoned more people than any other state and no way to pay for the profound costs of mass incarceration. The state attempted to solve this problem by charging defendants for their so-called "use" of the system. Today, defendants are charged dozens of fees as they move through the criminal justice system-including probation fees. California allows the state's 58 county probation departments to charge people for the cost of probation. However, without statewide standards, guidelines, or oversight, there is little information about how counties are implementing these fees. While researchers, advocates, and legislators, alike, often raise the detrimental effect of criminal justice fees on a population primarily made up of low-income people of color, little specific attention has been paid to the harmful practice of probation fees. With more than 60 percent of the state's criminal justice impacted population on probation, California cannot ignore the injustice of probation fees. Nor can the practice be reformed without knowledge of how counties are implementing fees on-the-ground. Findings: Fees are Failing People on Probation and County Governments -- To illustrate how probation fees work in counties across California, Public Records Act (PRA) requests were sent to all 58 county probation departments. Eighty percent of counties responded, representing nearly 95 percent of California's total population. Responses show that most counties do not track collection rates, suggesting that the fees are of little consequence to county budgets. Those that did track collection rates reveal low collection rates and high costs of collection, fees contribute little Even if these fees brought in revenue, they are not worth the profound costs to people on probation. Responses highlight tremendous variation in implementation across the state, but even where individual fees are small, debt adds up quickly. The average debt burden for just the three most common fees is more than $3,600, alone. While probation departments are required to consider people's ability to pay these fees and adjust them accordingly, this rarely happens. The result is steep debt with steeper consequences. Details: Los Angeles: Western Center on Law & Poverty , 2018. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2019 at: https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TheProblemWithProbation_GamboaEastman_ForWCLP_Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TheProblemWithProbation_GamboaEastman_ForWCLP_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155055 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Fines and Fees Poverty Probation Fees

Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois Summary: "No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois," presents information collected on program authorization, oversight, target populations, goals, structure, services, outcomes, and evaluation. It offers observations and recommendations intended to guide criminal justice practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. As criminal justice reform efforts take hold across the country, diversion programs and initiatives operating at the front end of the justice system represent one of the most promising reform strategies. In these interventions, criminal justice system practitioners work in partnership with stakeholders to deflect and redirect eligible individuals out of the system and into community-based services. They stand in contrast to decades of public policies and practices that have resulted in record incarceration rates, unsustainable costs, and long-lasting collateral consequences harming generations of families and communities. In some programs and initiatives, diversion from the system can occur without even the logging of an arrest. In others, prosecution or sentencing is deferred while participants engage in supervised programming, and charges are dropped when it is completed successfully. By intervening early, caseloads and jail days can be reduced, criminal records can be prevented, and access to services that put men and women on the path to health and stability can be accelerated. Diversion can prevent the costs and harmful collateral consequences-to the justice system, the community, and the individual-of repeated arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. A variety of diversion models and approaches have been implemented, and some have been researched and evaluated with regard to effectiveness and impact. Local jurisdictions seeking to apply effective interventions that meet their needs to improve outcomes and spend resources wisely are increasingly incorporating risk-need-responsitivity principles designed to identify the needs of individuals that, if effectively addressed, would reduce re-offending. As jurisdictions take steps to address recidivism and the nexus between drug use, mental illness, and criminal behavior, and as the body of knowledge on these programs continues to expand, practitioners are becoming more versed in a variety of critical issues that have surfaced in national conversations and must be considered locally. Building on its 2013 report, No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives, and in recognition of the many diversion programs that have emerged under the strong and innovative leadership of local prosecutors, TASC's Center for Health and Justice (CHJ) set out to explore more deeply the landscape of prosecutorial diversion in Illinois, and specifically that which affords adults an opportunity to be accountable for their behavior without the imposition of a criminal conviction on public record. To that end, between May and December 2015, project staff conducted a survey among prosecutors of diversion programs, practices, and initiatives operating in counties across the state, with an aim of informing program development, implementation of best and innovative practices, collaboration and knowledge exchange, and policy change designed to generate cost savings and achieve public health and safety goals. The project focused on prosecutors because of their unique position to convene partnerships and build collaborative solutions to local criminal justice problems, and because of their flexibility to influence and implement policies and strategies appropriate for the populations and crime patterns of their jurisdictions. A number of observations emerged from the survey analysis: 1. Programs define their goals not only through treatment and justice lenses, but also through individual and system lenses. 2. Most programs limit eligibility based on justice criteria - namely, offense or criminal history - and many are limited to first-time offenses. 3. Jurisdictions take advantage of available statutory options, and collaborate across agencies to develop programs. 4. Jurisdictions explore diversion alternatives throughout the justice system continuum, and the prosecutorial stage offers many opportunities for intercept. 5. Most programs access clinical services, and many access other supportive services. However, many were not able to reportthe use of evidence-based practices. 6. Programs use a variety of funding mechanisms, and many rely on local budgets and participant fees. 7. While many programs report outcomes, in most cases those outcomes do not rise to a statistical measure that can be analyzed or compared on level footing with other programs. Eight recommendations emerged from this analysis that are intended to guide criminal justice system practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. The recommendations are also intended to inform and motivate policymaker discussions and decisions, as diversion programs continue to proliferate and drive the next wave of criminal justice reform. 1. Incorporate research findings and evidence-based practices into diversion programs. 2. Apply resources to individuals and programs with potential to achieve the greatest impact. 3. Incorporate community-based behavioral health and social services into diversion programs, as appropriate, especially substance use and mental health services. 4. Leverage all available resources for community-based behavioral health and social services, and strongly advocate to protect and expand them. 5. Adopt standardized program goals, outcome and performance measures, and terminology. 6. Adopt standardized data collection and analysis models and mechanisms. 7. Develop a web-based, searchable directory of diversion programs in Illinois. 8. Develop opportunities for cross-system education,training, and technical assistance available to jurisdictions for the purpose of establishing, expanding, and improving prosecutorial diversion programs. The amplification of diversion as a viable and useful justice practice suggests new promise to transform encumbered systems and bring a culture of restoration to lives, families, and communities that have been eroded by justice system involvement. As a growing field, there are many opportunities for improvement in diversion practices-in how programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated; in how data are collected and shared; and in ensuring that community services are available and accessible for those who need them, and as soon as they need them. These recommendations offer a pathway toward realizing that new promise. Details: Chicago: Author, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155516 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Criminal Justice Reform Diversion Programs Prosecutorial Diversion Prosecutors

Author: Crest Advisory Title: Ending the inertia: a plan to transform outcomes for women offenders Summary: For more than a decade politicians have agreed on the need to improve outcomes for vulnerable women in the criminal justice system. However, this consensus has not lead to the policy change required to help women offenders. Too many remain caught up in a system which fails to identify their needs or circumstances and so fails to punish or to rehabilitate them effectively. With widespread agreement that reform is long overdue, this project has sought to identify the practical steps that will help to end the cycle of re-offending by women offenders. Working with Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), prisons, probation and health services, the police, and charities in Avon and Somerset and the West Midlands, we have developed blueprints for how these agencies can remove barriers to change and advance their own strategies for women offenders. Our work has focused on understanding why women are offending, which factors affect their engagement with services, what support is available to meet their needs and what would have the greatest impact on outcomes for them. We have concluded that political will and consensus around the problems/solutions are not enough to drive change. Instead, the following issues must be addressed: Centralisation: in such a centralised system, how do you design flexible, place-based services to address the specific and complex needs of a small percentage of the overall offender population? Fragmentation: a siloed justice system prevents a whole system approach; e.g. the move to on the day (fast delivery) pre-sentence reports processes cases quickly but prevents a proper assessment of the complex needs of women offenders Criminal-justice centric: the criminal justice system cannot on its own tackle the wider social needs which drive offending. Mainstream services in local government, the NHS and the voluntary sector are vital to We have identified a number of concrete, practical steps for PCCs, mayors, justice agencies and policy makers that can and should be taken to develop a more joined up, preventative approach: Know your local system: have a clear picture of local drivers of offending and services available to provide support. Mapping women's pathways through the justice system and the current state of local provision is a first step to understanding who is in the system and identifying the pressure points and anomalies within it. Have a local strategy: what works in Devon won't necessarily work in Derbyshire and a strategy for women offenders needs to be rooted in the specific circumstances of an area. Building a strategy around the specifics and circumstances of a locality binds stakeholders towards a common set of goals and priorities Take a whole system approach: if the goal is effective local alternatives to a formal criminal justice pathway, what is the best way to deliver this in your area? This might be through investment in new and existing women's centres, or co-locating services (e.g. with children's services or probation) or via an outreach model with women visited at home by key workers. Finally the fiscal context cannot be ignored. The L4.5 million funding from the Female Offender Strategy is woefully short of what is required to meet demand. Locally it is vital to build a strong financial case for change to pool existing resources around shared objectives, if no further resources are forthcoming. Details: London: Author, 2019. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2019 at: https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/b9cf6c_096f5e0d085747e7beb46b6c313e375c.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/b9cf6c_096f5e0d085747e7beb46b6c313e375c.pdf Shelf Number: 156210 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Diversion Programs Female Offenders Gender-Specific Programs Women Offenders

Author: Mullins, Tracy Title: Selected Topics on Youth Courts: A Monograph Summary: Table of Contents -- Addressing Truancy in Youth Court Programs Ramona Gonzales and Tracy Godwin Mullins.................................................. Underage Drinking and Other Substance Abuse: Opportunities for Prevention and Intervention by Youth Courts Tracy Godwin Mullins ..................................................................................... An Overview of School-Based Youth Court Program Design Options Mistene M. Vickers........................................................................................... Building Culturally Relevant Youth Courts in Tribal Communities Ada Pecos Melton ............................................................................................ A Comparison of Statewide Youth Court Associations and Networking Groups Tracy Godwin Mullins and Karen L. Dunlap .................................................. Media Access Guidelines for Youth Courts Michelle E. Heward .. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,k 2004. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2019 at: http://www.aidainc.net/Publications/monograph.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.aidainc.net/Publications/monograph.pdf Shelf Number: 94537 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Indigenous Peoples Substance Abuse Tribal Communities Truancy Courts Underage Drinking Youth Courts

Author: Davis, Robert C. Title: A synthesis of literature on the effectiveness of community orders Summary: This report presents the findings of a review of the literature on the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. The National Audit Office (NAO) has begun research on a range of measures used by the government to divert offenders from prison and into community-based treatment and interventions. The NAO commissioned RAND Europe to conduct this review to identify and synthesize international research about the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. In this report, we review research on ten of the common requirements contained in community orders. Through examining reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses we draw conclusions about the state of research in the areas of unpaid work, mental health treatment, education/skills training, drug treatment, anger management, alcohol treatment, programmes for perpetrators of domestic abuse, regular probation, intensive probation and cognitive/behavioural programming. We also assess the strength of the evidence on whether each of these requirements affects the likelihood of re-offending. We find that the quality of research on the effectiveness of community-based interventions for offenders is extremely variable. However, in two areas - cognitive/behavioural programming and drug treatment - rigorous research exists that points to a reduction in the odds of re-offending. In four other areas - programmes for domestic abuse perpetrators, unpaid work, education and basic skills training and intensive probation - existing studies have not suggested that the programmes have a positive effect on recidivism. Finally, in four areas - anger management, probation, and alcohol and mental health treatment - the question of impact on re-offending remains unsettled. This review highlights the need for more rigorous research - especially randomized trials - into the requirements that constitute community orders. This report will be of particular interest to the NAO and relevant government departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and National Probation Service. It is also relevant for policy makers as well as a wider audience concerned with the challenge of designing and implementing effective and efficient interventions to divert offenders from prison and into the community. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND Europe, 2008. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Year: 2008 Country: International URL: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Shelf Number: 113270 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Orders Community-Based Corrections Community-Based Treatment Diversion Programs